The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

Chock · 28 October 2009, 05:11 PM

Glad you like it. I do too which is why I decided to crack on with it as it is with that tweak to the dihedral. So it was time to start slapping paint on:

For anyone who is curious about the methodology apparent in that initial first bit of paint: Being that I work in the traditional manner with oil paints (i.e the one that takes fecking ages but usually ends up looking better), I've started putting the base tones on for the distant sky. For those who are not familiar with this old fashioned method, you build the colours in a slow methodical fashion so that the layers underneath project through to the thinner coloured glazes over the top, a technique which allows you to control the depth at which objects appear to be. This is sometimes called fat over lean, referring to the different amounts of linseed oil you mix in to the paint at various stages.

So the dark blue sky underpainting emulates the azure of deep space zipping through the particles in the atmosphere, which in the real world absorb it and make things look lighter but also bounce the long wavelengths of blue light around. This is why the blue paint of the sky is extending down into the land so far, since it will be used to produce the tonal shift of the green surface of the land as it recedes into the haze which also bounces the blue light waves around. Since blue light has a different wavelength to the orange/red colours of the sun, you have to use a different technique for the aeroplane up in the sky, which is stopping the sunlight as it hits it and shines through the doped canvas. Doing that is what will visually project it into nearer space, then with fairly solid colours on the aircraft cockpit up close, that should put it right in the foreground in terms of lighting.

All this differing underpainting malarkey is what the poncy art critics are talking about when they start banging on about 'the light' in a painting. Using this technique does mean you have to do weird stuff such as painting green under the flesh tones of skin on the highlights to neutralise reds and make it look like flesh has both bone as well as blood underneath it in the veins and muscles (a treatment the figure in the foreground will get), but it does end up with things having more depth and realism. The more modern method (which I'm not using here, but is more practical when doing stuff commercially, since it is quicker) is to mix the colours live on the canvas, which is speedier, but more akin to the techniques you tend to use with acrylics rather than oils, and of course the result is often fraught with difficulties, since you pretty much have to get it right first time, if you are to avoid having to overpaint things to correct them.

Al

28 October 2009, 05:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
Chock Scout Pilot Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The grim north of England Posts: 405	Glad you like it. I do too which is why I decided to crack on with it as it is with that tweak to the dihedral. So it was time to start slapping paint on: For anyone who is curious about the methodology apparent in that initial first bit of paint: Being that I work in the traditional manner with oil paints (i.e the one that takes fecking ages but usually ends up looking better), I've started putting the base tones on for the distant sky. For those who are not familiar with this old fashioned method, you build the colours in a slow methodical fashion so that the layers underneath project through to the thinner coloured glazes over the top, a technique which allows you to control the depth at which objects appear to be. This is sometimes called fat over lean, referring to the different amounts of linseed oil you mix in to the paint at various stages. So the dark blue sky underpainting emulates the azure of deep space zipping through the particles in the atmosphere, which in the real world absorb it and make things look lighter but also bounce the long wavelengths of blue light around. This is why the blue paint of the sky is extending down into the land so far, since it will be used to produce the tonal shift of the green surface of the land as it recedes into the haze which also bounces the blue light waves around. Since blue light has a different wavelength to the orange/red colours of the sun, you have to use a different technique for the aeroplane up in the sky, which is stopping the sunlight as it hits it and shines through the doped canvas. Doing that is what will visually project it into nearer space, then with fairly solid colours on the aircraft cockpit up close, that should put it right in the foreground in terms of lighting. All this differing underpainting malarkey is what the poncy art critics are talking about when they start banging on about 'the light' in a painting. Using this technique does mean you have to do weird stuff such as painting green under the flesh tones of skin on the highlights to neutralise reds and make it look like flesh has both bone as well as blood underneath it in the veins and muscles (a treatment the figure in the foreground will get), but it does end up with things having more depth and realism. The more modern method (which I'm not using here, but is more practical when doing stuff commercially, since it is quicker) is to mix the colours live on the canvas, which is speedier, but more akin to the techniques you tend to use with acrylics rather than oils, and of course the result is often fraught with difficulties, since you pretty much have to get it right first time, if you are to avoid having to overpaint things to correct them. Al __________________ Wiseman: When you removed the book from the cradle, did you speak the words? Ash: Yeah, basically. Wiseman: Did you speak the exact words? Ash: Look, maybe I didn't say every single little tiny syllable, no. But basically I said them, yeah.