Painted Landscape

[Kerry Perkins]

It's been raining for days here in Southern California and yes, it is big news here for several reasons! Nothing like a rainy day to make me want to work on images, and painting is my new thing. :c3: I've been wanting to try this on a landscape for some time and finally had a go at it. This is a scene from Bosque, painted over with the mixer brush and a couple of textures added. The nice thing about using a brush instead of a filter is that you can control the light and detail in the image without using luminosity masks and selective sharpening. It really is addictive and I highly recommend having a look at it. It does require some patience and there is a pretty good-sized learning curve, but once you get the hang of it the possibilities are endless.

[Kerry Perkins]

Here's the original photograph to give you an idea of what I did.

[Cheryl Slechta]

Beautifully painted, Kerry! It looks like a technique that you could get really wrapped up in - I'll have to check it out. Congratulations on your much needed rain:S3:

[Diane Miller]

Very nice -- I really like you new painting style. I think I'd consider cropping off a bit more sky to get the horizon further from the middle.

I may have missed it in a previous post (been swamped lately) but where does one learn about this mixer brush thing?

[Nancy Bell]

I love both the glow and the softness you achieved in the painted version! Beautiful! It is very useful to see the before and after image.

[Kerry Perkins]

Thanks for the comments! Diane, there are lots of resources out there on the web, you just have to search for "painting in Photoshop" or some such.

[Dennis Bishop]

I like the composition with the stream coming in from the bottom reflecting the sky and the trees, and I like the amount of sky you show. I've been an advocate of painterly for a long time, so I like that, too. I'm not sure, though, about the trees showing more detail than the vegetation in the lower right. I do like the way the colors are blended together in that vegetation, but I'd have tried doing that part with an extra layer showing finer detail over the layer you have. This is no doubt at least partly because I'm not a fan of out-of-focus foregrounds. In addition, I'm used to seeing landscapes painted with detail and contrast being stronger in the foreground and weaker in the background.

[Anita Bower]

I've come back to this to see what i think of it the second time. I agree with Dennis about out of focus foregrounds (though I just posted a photo on my blog with such a foreground). I like the curve of the river and the gorgeous line of trees. I wonder about there being a bit more balance between the trees on the far right, which are very bright, and those on the left, with are rather dull. Maybe less of a difference. Also, what about allowing more detail into the foreground? I hope you continue to share your "paintings."

[Kerry Perkins]

Thank you all, I appreciate the comments and thoughts. I definitely see what Dennis and Anita are talking about. I painted this image this way because the workshop instructor insists that a painting should have only ONE focal point, where there is more light, detail, and contrast. I had wondered how that philosophy would work with landscapes and have determined that it just doesn't! It is logical to think that way perhaps if there were a house or barn, or some other man-made structure in the scene, but for a pure natural landscape I agree with both of you. I think the detail in this image should go from foreground to background in decreasing levels of detail and the light should be consistent. I am going to revisit this one and will post the updated version. I do appreciate these comments and rest assured that I don't take them lightly! There is a lot of wisdom in this group. :c3:

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Very pretty Kerry. I like it as presented. Can't wait to get started in on this!