I've adjust your photo to what I think it probably looks like. You've certainly created recession. The trees are obviously receding - centre, left, right - into the background.


There are - as you're very aware - white spots in the drawing that need to be removed. You could pick out the worst offenders with a pointed 2B. But if you have whole areas of them, you could do as you suggested and fill each section with solid tone - maybe HB over 2B - and then cut the shapes in with Blu-Tack. That should work because you're not trying to erase back to white. However, layering it all with 2H will only serve to dull the highlights - especially the essential ones. You need to get black into those holes.

What concerns me more is that lack of black and sharp edges within the background foliage. I've only had time to tackle a section of it. You need those blacks within reach mass so the viewer's eye has something to compare the foliage to.

By creating black, sharp-edged holes the masses of foliage spring forwards. You might think that's counterintuitive,but it isn't - because now you can push some it of even further back and create yet more depth.

Also, without those sharp edges, the foliage becomes a single mass - like a big sponge . You can also use a few well-chosen black holes to sharply describe the edge of any bough passing in front. It's all about edges.

I love the texture of your foreground tree - and that the surface detail degrades as my eye moves to the midground and then background tree. But - and we're back to edge again - do you see how the second-lowest branch of the foreground tree at the right tries to merge into the background tree behind it? Sharpen those edges and it will spring forwards. It has nothing to do with the tree behind it, and those sharp edges will separate the two.bb