A scene from Yorkshire

Hi Glennis. well, you said you are not enthusiastic about landscapes. and (no offence intended) it shows. Your flowers, geese, dogs etc are second to none and I admire them greatly, but I struggle to think this is by that same talented artist! Stronger tones in the foreground (rocks and water) would help push the background into the distance. The bridge surely wasn't that pale? (Perhaps it was, I wasn't there) so could use a fairly strong wash of say sienna, or perhaps brown madder. This would help make the bridge the central interest, and look more solid? Probably not the comments you were hoping for, and I apologise. i probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Please feel free to delete this if I cause offence.

Tony, No offence taken. I need critisism it might make me me go forward with landscapes. I have attended a work class for trees which I found very helpful, but not one on the overall composition. I know I paint pale, I think it's because of the layers of pale shades for the flowers etc. No the bridge wasn't that pale and I agree I haven;t done it justic, that's why its in the archives!. I may get it out and have a play around with your comments and see if it improves it any.This is the 'kick in the pants' that I need, thank you. Watch this space for the next attempted landscape, it will be a while as I am in the middle of a commission for a dog portrait.

It's good to try out new things to paint, as Tony says, your usual paintings show that you have a good knowledge of watercolour. As with anything, it's all about practice, my occasional flower and animal paintings are pretty sad, again proably through lack of practice. if you start to paint landscapes regularly, I'm sure they will quickly improve. A good tip I was given was to practice painting in one colour. Say burnt umber or paynes grey, and use different strengths of washes to get the tones. Just don't get too good, ok?

Perhaps you struggle with landscapes for the same reason I do. When I do a portrait or still life the subject matter is quite small and precise. However, landscapes are huge and I get totally befuddled by what I should put and and what to leave out. Photographs of landscapes are even harder as you feel compelled to include everything you see in the photo. Nightmare! I think you are doing the right thing and just going for it. Gradually you will work out what you have to do to get them up to the same high standard as your other work. That is not to say that this isn't a very pretty and competent painting, but your hesitation about your landscape painting skills show through a bit. Completely understandable and the cure it practise, practise and more practise. The more things you get wrong the clearer the path gets in my experience. A lot of people would just stick to what they know produces the results they want - so hat's off to you for stepping outside your comfort zone. I think your rocks and trees are very nicely done as is the stone work of the bridge, so you are getting the vast majority just right.

Glennis darling, as you do not paint landscapes regular this is more than a good effort. --- If I painted the subjects you paint , they would not be anything like this [ your work is amazing ]--you only need two or three more painting and your landscapes will be the tops.----- thinks about your darks and shadows, these will make or break a painting

Thank you all for your constructive comments - as they say on these reality TV programmes - I will take your comments on board and try harder! Thea I agree, I do find them daunting and what to put in and what to leave out, and practice is what I need to do. Stephen and Charles, thank you for your comments you are all very encouraging.

I won't presume to critique since landscapes are not my strong suit either, but I agree with Charles - practice makes perfect and we all have to start somewhere. I'll say this, Glennis - your greens are pretty impressive and I love the clarity of your colors.