AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Ocean reflection painting11/25/2023 ![]() ![]() ![]() The first pictures looks sort of in between the second and the third/forth in foggyness. In the last two of your pictures especially, the air seems a lot more “misty” than in the second picture. also I see in the last two photos there variation of color, in the left photo I seems that changes to green in the distance and the right photo to gray in the distance. On the other hand, Then I think to see the sea with constant depth in the sea, I think see the sea en high seas, and I see that is more light in the horizon. It’s a bit dense, but well worth the read if you want to understand what you see when you are looking at water. Good hypothesizing! This book explains most of it in detail. This is most apparent in Don’s bottom image if you follow the lighter reflections of the sky from foreground to background, they get thinner until practically disappear not far after the boat. When viewing at a distance, the angle that you are viewing these waves is much less acute, and most of the reflection of the sky would be from the side of the waves facing the viewer, and because of the angle it creates, it would reflect part of the sky higher above the horizon which is darker. When the water is closer and you are looking down at it, there is more chance to see the far slope of any waves, and this is more likely to reflect that part of the sky directly above the horizon which is nearly always the lightest part of the sky. If the viewer were lower (closer to the water), then the hills would really be behind the water’s horizon.īut I have another bit of reasoning that may contribute the the darker colour near the horizon … (Thin light band directly below the land mass.) I don’t think it’s quite this way, but the curvature means there is a rapid increase in aerial perspective right near the horizon which almost makes it insignificant. Notice in the photo at the top, the water seems to curve out of sight and the hills come up from behind the horizon so the the hills have more atmosphere in between them and the viewer than the water. The rules of aerial perspective apply to all objects in the distance, so there must be other factors involved. And using regular perspective – in terms of the size and spacing of the waves or other surface indications – will also help convey distance. That’s part of the challenge! One thing I would make sure that you do, however – as I mentioned in the other thread – is to make sure you do use some value and/or color change (or gradation) as the distance increases. ![]() At times, you will see the effects of the normal rules of atmospheric perspective, but at other times you won’t. Often there are such bands – not always right at the horizon, but anywhere! And finally, notice the darker band right at the horizon. So, the light and its angle is another factor. In the middle photo we see how the influence of the light shining on the water influences the colors and value. So, the transparency of the water and being able to see the sea floor is more of an influence than atmospheric perspective in some cases. I’m just guessing, but I think that is why the color gets darker towards the horizon. As we get into deeper water – and mainly because of the angle – we are looking through miles of water. In both cases, this seems to be because the water is somewhat transparent, so we see the influence of the sea floor – or the sand – that influences the color of the water. In both cases the sea gets darker towards the horizon. In the top and bottom photo, we see a change of color from shore to horizon, but no, it is not what one would expect from atmospheric perspective, it seems to me. Here are 3 photos of Lake Ontario, one of the Great Lakes. Do you exaggerate the atmospheric perspective or do you follow the actual scene or photo – which may not follow the “rules?” So, that is one of the problems with painting the sea. This is true, of course, on clear days when looking at land, too! Artists, however, since they are working on a flat surface, often need to exaggerate atmospheric perspective to help show distance and depth. Plus, in many cases (especially on clear days) the distance to the horizon is not so great before the water disappears beyond the curvature of the earth, so there may be very little atmospheric perspective noticeable. The thing is – there are other factors that might be more important. – some of which seem to disobey the rules of atmospheric perspective. In your previous thread, however, you posted photos that show different gradations in the sea – from dark to light, from light to dark, from less intense to more intense color, etc. The rules of atmospheric perspective apply to anything that you see through the atmosphere, so what Kevin has mentioned is one way to approach painting a large body of water. I hope you don’t mind my contributing to this thread, even though I replied to this same question in your post from a couple days ago.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |