still life in the style of....
I've enjoyed Vicksart's "in the box" series; they remind me of 16th-17th century Flemish still lifes. I decided to try some still life in the manner of these old masters - not making photos that look like oils, but photos with a similar feel in terms of lighting, composition, and subject matter. This 1st try was done with stuff I already had at hand, so looks kind of Christmas-y. I thinks it's too busy, but then this style of painting tends to be full of detail and lots of different textures. I'm interested in general critique of composition, lighting and technique, but if you're familiar with this period in art history, suggestions specific to the period would be appreciated.
FunkyL wrote:
I've enjoyed Vicksart's "in the box" series; they remind me of 16th-17th century Flemish still lifes. I decided to try some still life in the manner of these old masters - not making photos that look like oils, but photos with a similar feel in terms of lighting, composition, and subject matter. This 1st try was done with stuff I already had at hand, so looks kind of Christmas-y. I thinks it's too busy, but then this style of painting tends to be full of detail and lots of different textures. I'm interested in general critique of composition, lighting and technique, but if you're familiar with this period in art history, suggestions specific to the period would be appreciated.
I've enjoyed Vicksart's "in the box" ser... (
show quote)
IMHO. (Still Life not really my cup of tea). Yes - it's busy, but that's all right - however, I do think that the blank top corners need something in them - a gradual fading out of the busy-ness.
Looks a bit like a cluttered worktop. If that's what Flemish still life is like, fair enough but I think you should ask yourself if it's something you want to emulate. I would hope to find at least a focus of interest if not an actual indication of some purpose or functionality of what's being portrayed. And I think there may be a reason why dark backgrounds work well with still life.
Delderby wrote:
IMHO. (Still Life not really my cup of tea). Yes - it's busy, but that's all right - however, I do think that the blank top corners need something in them - a gradual fading out of the busy-ness.
Thanks for your input. I don't do still life often, but I wanted something to work on over the winter, and this seemed like an idea. I agree about the blank top corners. I had added a faint vignette to the photo before posting, but it needs something more.
R.G. wrote:
Looks a bit like a cluttered worktop. If that's what Flemish still life is like, fair enough but I think you should ask yourself if it's something you want to emulate. I would hope to find at least a focus of interest if not an actual indication of some purpose or functionality of what's being portrayed. And I think there may be a reason why dark backgrounds work well with still life.
Thank you for your thoughts. Next time I'll be more selective about the items I include, and try a darker background. See if I can draw attention to a main subject before the viewer starts noticing all the details. Some paintings of the time look like beautifully rendered precursors to "Where's Waldo?" Back when these were painted, the patron seemed to want to show off his wealthy lifestyle, the artist to show off his ability to render accurate detail in a multitude of textures. In addition, the protestant church forbade overtly religious subjects, but a moral on the ephemeral nature of wealth and life was often indicated by the inclusion of blown out candles, wilting flowers, human skulls... Apologies for the art history lesson, I'm kinda thinking as I write...
The lighting feels very flat, suppressing textures instead of enhancing them.
Orphoto wrote:
The lighting feels very flat, suppressing textures instead of enhancing them.
Thanks, Orphoto. I noticed that the texture of the plaster wall did not show. I wanted some softness in the lighting, but used too many light sources, I think. Next time I'll stick to the light coming in the window from the side... still soft, but from only one direction. If you or others want to make lighting suggestions, please bear in mind, my photography budget is limited; I have one off camera flash, with cable attachment, not wireless. Any other lighting is ambient, or made up of lamps borrowed from other parts of the house.
I agree with too much clutter. I think you have a lot of interesting items in the picture but some back. Less is more appealing when setting up a still life. Make sure all elements have purpose with one another. In your image you have some oranges. To me that is ok but the one with the orange peal is out of place. It doesn't look like this is a place setting at a table where people are eating and leave an orange peal amongst all the other stuff.
Ok, I had to google Flemish Still Life Paintings to see where this is at. I would say you did a great job. The items look sort of haphazardly placed, but again, comparing them with some of the models you're certainly in the ballpark. I wouldn't have the patience to compose all of that. I agree that a darker background would be helpful, and also perhaps lightening up on the subject. Good job.
Thanks, WolfMark! I haven't done version 2 yet, but will be reviewing your input along with the others when I'm ready to try again.
User ID wrote:
Words fail me.
User, I was not expecting after this much time to see additional critiques to my still life. I generally like what you've done with it, but would appreciate at least some words to let me know what you did and why. A critique is more useful if the receiver understands how the changes were made.
User ID wrote:
Words fail me.
Please provide us with your comments about how the image can be improved and/or the aspects of what you like about it.
Further, please refer to the rules of this section, specifically Paragraph 3 which states, in part: 3) People commenting on the OP's photo may not post their own photos in the thread. For instance, if the OP is asking for a critique on a picture of a blue bird, other members may not post photos they took of blue birds they think are superior or informative.
Best regards and happy shooting
Hip Coyote wrote:
Please provide us with your comments about how the image can be improved and/or the aspects of what you like about it.
Further, please refer to the rules of this section, specifically Paragraph 3 which states, in part: 3) People commenting on the OP's photo may not post their own photos in the thread. For instance, if the OP is asking for a critique on a picture of a blue bird, other members may not post photos they took of blue birds they think are superior or informative.
Best regards and happy shooting
Please provide us with your comments about how the... (
show quote)
Yes yes the rules ... describing visual ideas with words always gets way too convoluted, so I need the shortcut of visual examples.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.