Thoughts welcome!

Good early attempt Bill, I feel that the lost successful and attractive mountain paintings have quite a bit more detail of rocky outcrops and tonal work in the grass and anything else growing on the surface of the mountain x

You might try some mist to send the further mountains back to give some depth and atmosphere; try a thin wash of white with maybe just a smidgeon of blue/grey, brushed on and very lightly wiped over with a rag to vary the intensity (Wait till the paint under is dry first!). If it doesn't work just wipe it off. Alternatively introduce some sun breaking through the clouds to brighten up the middle ground, maybe, with some white sparkle in the stream to give a focal point, and add a bit of shadow to one side of the mountains.

How do, Bill - the most obvious problem here is the lack of tonal variation: the further peaks would benefit from being more palely painted, or reduced with a veil of Zinc White with a touch of, eg, Cobalt Violet. But I rather like it as it is, to be honest - it's strong, and honest, and I like the river snaking through the picture. It does depend on what you want to do - as a statement, this works; if you were seeking a more misty, ethereal approach, then reduce the intensity of the distant peak - there are so many ways to do that: a veil of, eg, Z|nc White and Cobalt Violet; or ditto with Coeruleum; soft glazes over the foreground (say, Indian Yellow, Raw Sienna and Burnt Sienna). Use the transparent colours, with a bit of Liquin; scumble with very thin dry-brush Yellow Ochre or Naples Yellow - try these techniques on a piece of oil painting paper and a coat of deep brown, eg Burnt Umber: see how the colours take over that. If I had to amend this painting, I'd float a glaze over the more distant peak of, eg, Coeruleum, plus Zinc White, with maybe a touch of Cobalt Violet, and add a glaze over the foreground colours of - Raw Sienna, plus Indian Red or Burnt Sienna, plus a very few touches of white (Flake White, being me.... but it's not easy to find).

PS - the river works well; it could be enhanced in places, but don't dull it, whatever you do: it carries you through the painting. And I agree with Robert Lavers on the points he raises.

Wow! Thanks so much for the feedback Ros & Robert(s) That's certainly given me a lot to chew on. I think I'll try a larger, 1/4 imp go at the same subject with a view to including your suggestions. It may seem odd, but I find this so much more difficult than watercolour (not that I'm any good at that, mind -but I have a policy of continual improvement!!). I think the tonal balance is the main issue - I find it difficult in oils to replicate the light of the paper shining through a thin watercolour wash. Anyway, onwards & upwards!

Well I like this one and don't have any problems with tonal qualities. For me the only area I would seek to improve is composition. All three peaks are the same height which could be improved by making them reduce just slightly in height as they recede - if you see what I mean - and possibly making the middle one a little bluer and the far one bluer still to aid recession. But i speak as a watercolourist and not an oilifier.

Hi Bill. re. your last reply, I found the transition from transparent watercolour to opaque oils very difficult so first I experimented in diluted acrylics like watercolour and then gradually increased its opacity and recently switched to oils. Ted Wesson was an established watercolour artist who later did some oils; I did find an early one of a winter scene in a gallery (why didn't I buy it!) in which he had used very thin oil in his watercolour technique, presumably to gain familiarity with the medium.

Thank you all for taking the time & making such helpful & constructive comments, it's very much appreciated. I was in two minds about posting this - I'm now really glad that I did.

Sometimes a painting needs light which will bring in those contrasts you're looking for. If I get stuck I sometimes just google pictures of the same or a similar scene to see what makes them better.