Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Reflections in the landscape
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
In the April issue of the Liesure Painter an artist whom we will call Judith tells us graphically how to understand and draw a reflection of mountains trees and water. In her reference photo the water is too disturbed to produce a reflection so she shows us how to draw what the reflection would look like.She draws the reflection of the view above the waterline by tracing the mountains and all the details of her drawing of the actual scene already drawn. She flips this over matching up to the waterline and uses the tracing to draw the whole scene as the assumed reflection. Now I think this is all wrong .To take a simple example imagine two trees , one close to the bank of still water and the other some distance back. The first tree is reflected in full but the second is only reflected.in part as the upper part of the tree. If even further back there would be no reflection. This is due to the visualising of the plane of the water reaching babk to the second tree. This is what I have gleaned and practiced in any of my paintings I have done and i have read quite a few aricles explaining reflections and this artist Judith is in my opinion giving the wrong idea to beginners......Syd
Posted
I would imagine it purely comes down to perspective, the higher above the plane of water the more your point is valid but if eye level is close to the water level or the viewer is far from the opposite shore then the light bounces a very obtuse angle and the shore line hides virtually nothing. If closer to the shoreline of higher above it then those tree's most distance will be hidden by the shore.
Posted
Haven't seen the article - I don't subscribe to LP, I fear, but I shall acquire a copy. I don't subscribe because I had a huge collection of magazines, and hated to throw them out or dispose of them, so the collection got even huger, and I just don't have the room.
Which is of no help at all in this context, is it? Is there a link, or perhaps a screen-grab, we could have a look at? Reflections aren't easy - and if you want to paint them, it's best to observe them in life: trying to make them up on the basis of some theory of reflection is asking for trouble.
Posted
The general consensus seems to be paint what you see. I'd go along with that. I haven't read the article, but from Syd's description it sounds like an oversimplification, a shortcut. Some while back, when I was doing digital, I read a similar thing about reflections. The writer proposed copying a mountain range he'd painted, flipping it over vertically and using that as a reflection in a lake (very easy to do digitally). It didn't look right, and he had to fiddle with it so much, he might as well have just painted what he saw. I guess we all like the idea of shortcuts, but they don't always take you to where you want to be.
Posted
You can't paint what you see if it isn't there, surely that is the point? If it's not there what would it look like if it was? Basically an upside down version of the skyline reflected at a similar distance from the shore.
I still don't get what could be remotely controversial in this, and why several people would be saying to paint what you see when;
a) The conditions could have changed and there is no longer a reflection.
b) You are working on a painting from memory
c) You are imagining the water is flat and you want reflections in your painting that don't exist.
Posted
Well, yes DB - I understand your point. And now and then I have got round this conundrum by one of two methods: either setting up a very amateurish still life arrangement with water in front, so I could study the way reflections were formed; or - and I found this much better, frankly! - not putting any reflections in at all......
You can study these things in books, so you don't make obvious mistakes - a common one is to paint, say, a post reflected in water, but to paint it at the wrong angle: it's always likely to look wrong, but if you never look at either a book, or an actual post reflected in water, you may never know why. This, I think, is what people mean by 'paint what you see': it doesn't necessarily mean that if you can't see it, you can't paint it - just that, as with most things, there's no substitute for experience.
But there are general principles to be observed, yes: and if you do, you can generally create a more or less believable scene - which is important for those who may be unable to get out of the house, or simply don't have the time to scout around for subjects. I must lay hands on a copy of this article.....
On the whole, I would still say it's better (i.e. much easier) to work from a scene in front of you. But that would stop some of us painting anything that we really wanted to paint, and my advice to anyone at the beginning of a painting career is always 'paint what interests you most': I used to paint jungle scenes, replete with elephants, when I was much younger - I had seen an elephant at that point (some of our family holidays were spent in the house of a keeper, my uncle, at Bristol Zoo - I got close to Rosie, the famous elephant, Ferdinand the bison, Simon the spectacled bear, and many more) but had never seen a jungle in my life. Didn't stop me painting one because that fired me up far more than the typical English country lane at that time. And don't forget Douanier Rousseau, who painted fantastic tropical scenes having never actually seen any of them.
Edited
by RobertJones
Posted
The article was in the Leisure Painter magazine, who's audience will consist primarily of amateur artist's. Many of these reader's are looking for help with what some of us may consider to be basic disciplines which we take for granted, and apply those principles as a matter of course in our paintings without a second thought.
The article in principle is correct, a reflection is a mirror image, although it doesn't quite work out as simple as that. There are other factors involved, but I'm not going into the finer details, but standing on a higher plain for example. This could all complicate things for a beginner and difficult to explain anyway without drawing examples. However, as a demonstration piece, I expect that it was written to keep it as simple as possible (although we don't all agree it was simple), and will I'm sure be of much interest and value to a great many of the readers'.
I understand Jim's point, but a beginner needs to know the basics before he can branch out and explore his creative side. All the artist's mentioned would have understood these basics I'm certain.
Edited
by alanbickley
Posted
Many of the comments here illustrate—or at least touch upon—the problem I have with the How to paint a… variety of tutorials. Ok, if I follow the tutorial religiously, I'll maybe be able to paint a kitten in a basket. How often will I need to? And how often will I want to? Although there is something to be learned from how an artist achieves what they achieve, I'm much more interested (and learn much more from, I feel) why they choose to work in that way.