giants meeting

[Yanifska]

Hey guys,
this is the piece I am working on currently, and I got a bit discouraged today because I noticed I didn't follow my initial sketch and I feel it's not as good as the value sketch.
I have made a lot of little changes and when it all adds up it is not as  good as the initial idea....
So what do you think guys ? Should I try to get back to what the plan was, or try to compose with what I have now ?

[Baoto]

Hey! I don't think the piece you've come up with is beyond saving, though I agree, that the color version lacks something the value sketch has. It does not read quite as well, I am getting distracted from the main focus, the giant in the middle and the castle, by stuff in the middle- and foreground.

I've tried my hand at a quick overpainting to show you what I mean. I toned down the contrast where I feel the viewer shouldn't be looking as much, and added some contrast where needed. I would also suggest detailing the castle more, as that will also help direct the viewer there.

Oh, and I uploaded the overpaint flipped because you said you were getting discouraged, and getting a new angle usually helps me when I reach that point. :)

[Yanifska]

Hey! I don't think the piece you've come up with is beyond saving, though I agree, that the color version lacks something the value sketch has. It does not read quite as well, I am getting distracted from the main focus, the giant in the middle and the castle, by stuff in the middle- and foreground.

I've tried my hand at a quick overpainting to show you what I mean. I toned down the contrast where I feel the viewer shouldn't be looking as much, and added some contrast where needed. I would also suggest detailing the castle more, as that will also help direct the viewer there.

Oh, and I uploaded the overpaint flipped because you said you were getting discouraged, and getting a new angle usually helps me when I reach that point. :)

Hey thank a lot mate,
I am currently redesigning and pushing more the creatures.
I think I understand what you are trying to do by toning down the bright areas in the foreground and close to the border.
However I am quite uncomfortable removing completely the bright area on the very foreground, maybe It should have a more interesting silhouette If it has to be that way.
anyway thanks for the insights.
All in all I like how I pushed the light and colours and I learnt a lot, I just hoped the result would be much more impressive.
I think I should redesign the castle, it's really busy and have no clear shape and forms.

[Amit Dutta]

where's your original sketch? hard to judge without that. In my experience when you have a feeling that your original sketch was better, always go back to the original sketch no matter how much time you have already sunk in.
No amount of polishing a turd will make it gold. Go back to the nugget you found and polish that up properly. In general your piece ain't that bad; I would play with lower contrast on things that are meant to be really large...too much contrast implies things close to us, so apply this to the figures.

*edit: Ok wait, so the value sketch was your original you meant?  Well what I said still holds true I guess. Look at the contrast in your value sketch, compared to your colour version, more contrast, so the depth breaks a bit. 

I'm gonna also chuck this here to show how contrast and texture density is huge in implying distance and scale. Notice smaller lower contrast shapes in the distant figure, larger blocks of colour and shapes, higher contrast in the foreground. The far background has very little contrast except in key focal points, and is largely just shape and value.

[Yanifska]

where's your original sketch? hard to judge without that. In my experience when you have a feeling that your original sketch was better, always go back to the original sketch no matter how much time you have already sunk in.
No amount of polishing a turd will make it gold. Go back to the nugget you found and polish that up properly. In general your piece ain't that bad; I would play with lower contrast on things that are meant to be really large...too much contrast implies things close to us, so apply this to the figures.

*edit: Ok wait, so the value sketch was your original you meant?  Well what I said still holds true I guess. Look at the contrast in your value sketch, compared to your colour version, more contrast, so the depth breaks a bit. 

I'm gonna also chuck this here to show how contrast and texture density is huge in implying distance and scale. Notice smaller lower contrast shapes in the distant figure, larger blocks of colour and shapes, higher contrast in the foreground. The far background has very little contrast except in key focal points, and is largely just shape and value.

thanks Amit, 
I was trying to do that, I guess I got carried away.
edit: could you be more specific about what should be improved in my piece ? You are talking about issues in the depth, that there is too much contrast in some places.
Are you suggesting that the scale of the textures isn't right, cause I am not sure how I could improve it. For example the grass on the fore ground is at a much larger scale than in the background.
I personally feel the city could use more clarity.

[Amit Dutta]

In general it has a bit too much contrast. Look at the city, so much bright rim lighting against the medium dark value..
The sky in the area where the sun is, is very overblown. You should probably use only values greater than 90/100 in very small areas of your painting, but that area is mostly all 90+. Even Baoto's paintover doesn't go far enough to reduce this. It's probably also because colour relativity really affects value perception and it can radically change how bright things actually appear. I definitely recommend checking the values of your piece periodically as you get into colour.

It's not so much the texture scale that breaks depth, but look at the value sketch. You have birds, you have more defined silhouettes and overlap in the city layer, you have that little lone tree in the foreground which very effectively suggests the scale. You've lost all that in the colour pass; not enough to break the depth, but it does affect it.

I agree your city is a little messy in value control. More clarity I've found doesn't mean more detail and more values but actually is usually about the most efficient simplification wherever possible, and more subtle changes. The more  fiddly value work you have the more messy things will look. The more I learn, I realise that it is simple but subtle value control that makes a huge difference. 

I will pop this piece of mine here. Not because it is the best example ever, but I don't want to spend more time hunting, and it is a similar time of day, and has large objects and scale in it.

Check out the subtlety in the sky value transitions, it might not be apparent that there is a value range going from 50-100 in the sky alone. It also looks like the highest value lights are used relatively sparingly. In this case, talking to that previous point on colour relativity and perception, the majority of the orange sky area is actually around 99 and is the same value as the white/yellow of the sun. It's the subtle control of hue and saturation that makes it appear much less bright.

Look also how simple the statue things are in value and contrast to imply that scale. There is a definite intentional value transition within those objects but it is so subtle it appears as a single value. Makes a difference though.