HOME | DD

KaceyM In reply to Aaaamory [2008-08-04 02:30:35 +0000 UTC]

I noticed that too... actually. I'm working from a photo... but I definitely don't have to follow it religiously .. and it might be good to make the reflections look less 'in perspective' - though still mirroring the shape of the rocks, etc... Thanks for pointing that out I probably wouldn't have thought about it in depth otherwise...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aaaamory In reply to KaceyM [2008-08-07 09:31:06 +0000 UTC]

Landscapes are so pretty. I just did one for my Intermediate Drawing class.... in crayolas. I had three boxes of 24. I have never worked in oils before, I'm afraid of the toxins, and what do you do about the fumes? Or are they not that bad?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KaceyM In reply to Aaaamory [2008-08-07 18:48:10 +0000 UTC]

I've always enjoyed landscapes... In art classes I felt they were a lot more fun than painting still lifes of fruit.. (which we had to do a lot in painting classes)

Regarding the toxicity of oils... the paints themselves are toxic - but so long as you don't spray-apply them, or get too much paint on yourself, you'll probably be fine.. I'm not a very messy painter - and I only rarely get paint on my hands, so I'm not too worried about the paint. The solvent is another story. Right now I'm using Turpenoid, which is less toxic than turpentine - but I recently learned about a new Turpenoid called Turpenoid Natural that is supposed to be completely non toxic.... And I'm planning on picking up some of that at some point.... because long term health concerns are very important to me.

I work at an easel right by the balcony with the sliding glass door open a crack to promote airflow...

So with the turpenoid natural, I would say that using oils is not much more dangerous than using acrylics - since some of my acrylics say they are toxic - and some say they don't know whether or not they are toxic ^.^,, ... so I tend to assume they all are.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aaaamory In reply to KaceyM [2008-08-12 03:23:28 +0000 UTC]

Hey, I saw the waterfall for myself when we went to the garden yesterday. The reflections really are radiating outwards, like an illusion of the curves and slanting of the trees and rocks above.

You know what would be really hard to try? Some of the ponds in the garden are really still and calm, with the lighting so that there are no reflections, and you can see all of the rocks underneath as if you were looking through glass, and I think that would be something really hard to do, to be able to show rocks under a clear surface. I don't know how I was able to perceive the water, maybe because I have depth perception? Maybe there was a tiny amount of rippling that allowed me to see it that I wasn't able to detect? It was so weird.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KaceyM In reply to Aaaamory [2008-08-17 16:01:47 +0000 UTC]

I have wondered about that - how at some times the surface of the water is like a mirror, reflecting everything above it - and at other times how you can see straight through to the bottom with little or no reflection at all. I wonder what factors come into play to make that difference...

I definitely think it would be worthwhile to make another trip out to the Japanese garden someday and take more pictures... Right now we're not getting out much, though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aaaamory In reply to KaceyM [2008-08-18 05:11:14 +0000 UTC]

It has to do with the angle of the light hitting the water and the amount of light coming off of the things underneath the water. Between those two things, you'll see one more visibly than the other. There is one angle, called a critical angle, where *all* of the light hitting the water at that angle is reflected so it's like a perfect mirror. When light hits the water perfectly perpendicular, only 2% of it bounces off. Maybe this is enough of a percentage that I was still able to perceive the surface of the water even though I thought that it looked invisible. Because if 2% is the minimum, then, there was still light bouncing off of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KaceyM In reply to databank [2008-08-04 02:27:56 +0000 UTC]

Thanks ...

I am working from a reference photo that I took... I'm not sure of the shutter speed - its a digital camera, and I was using 'intelligent mode' - since I'm not much of a photographer I let it do the work for me.

It does look pretty detailed from a distance, but up close it loses it... so hopefully when I go in with the details I can maintain a photorealistic look from a distance so it looks nice far away and up close...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

databank In reply to KaceyM [2008-08-04 02:46:05 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I can see that challenge. That'll be where you've got your chance to really shine, though, won't it?

And yea, it sounds like it had a relatively slow speed then, probably due to low light. The properties on the JPG might help you figure out what settings it was using in case you're ever curious - cameras save that to the file.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0