Shmush wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:26 am
I’m still trying to get my mind to think “negatively” to create depth. When you were creating your background, how did you know it would complement and not compete with your foreground since all you had in the foreground was white?
Well, WHITE is part of the answer. Only the butterfly contains white - very deliberately. As I'm working the background, I'm alongside the midground or foreground elements, so I just have to have a basic idea of how I'm going to treat those. Then I draw the background to suit it. And nothing is carved in stone. I can make changes - lighten, darken, erase - anything at any time.
Even though you “invented” the details in the background, did the original photograph give you the suggestions of what would work? Or is it sometimes a matter of working back and forth between background, mid-ground and foreground until it looks right?
That's a two-part question.
I "invent" to add both depth and interest. The photo contains out-of-focus elements, which I don't favour. That's not how we see. A camera can only focus on one plane at a time. Our eyes refocus as we move them around. So, for us, the background is as sharp as the foreground. That's what I have in mind. Then, to suggest depth, I use "disappearing into the gloom" rather than losing focus.
No. I don't flit between background, midground and foreground. Never! That defeats the system. OK, it's not a rigid system - I can move around if I want to, but I try to not do that. Only if it makes logical sense at the time.
The main reason for not flitting around is that it involves guesswork. Drawing a foreground element that crosses over a midground element
that hasn't been drawn yet means you have to guess at the values required for the foreground. Get it wrong, and you have to redraw - and bit by bit the drawing becomes soft and muddy. Preferably,
draw once and move on.
The video will explain all that... and more.