Only comment so far is that if those are clouds then the details of the stones on the tower shouldn't be too sharp so overall things reads as misty, cloudy and misty looking.
Window is too high and too tall. Use the people as scale refs.

yeah the dragon skull is not quite readable yet.  amazing so far 

Hello Christina,
On the contrary, I am extremely grateful for the advice of such a talented artist.


Ah, that is what I was afraid of. I'm just beginning to grasp some of the basics of composition, so I don't really have an eye for it yet. Maybe it comes naturally to others, but I have to take a theoretical approach.

Your image is very useful though. My only problem is that I don't really understand why yours is better. I suppose the diagonal line of the clouds from top left to bottom right gives the airship a sense of direction that my version was lacking? Giving the image the story you're referring, perhaps. And then the opposite diagonal of the distant clouds is there to give balance? I'm just guessing here. I know a picture is worth a thousand words, but I'm a bit slow, unfortunately.

Thanks again for your help.

(Updated the image above, which I edited before I read your post. As you can see, I have a tendency of dealing with small shapes first. That part is not ignorance, just childish lack of patience )

You're quite welcome, and thank you for the kind word.


In addition to what jalonso said, by using the clouds as paths for the eye, you can force the viewer to look wherever you want to! And this is not a matter of taste or talent or theory, it's practical, hard science.

You want people to take in the blimp, then the tower and then the ambience.  You have already placed the tower on a point of visual interest, a place where the eye naturally rests when looking at a rectangular surface.

( http://www.worldstart.com/the-rule-of-thirds/ <- check the photo with the ladybug. Your tower is as well-placed as that ladybug, so kudos! Read about the rule of thirds, if you wish, it will illuminate things a lot.)

The blimp is on another point of interest.

So. The eye (for us westerners) enters the image from the top left. Where does it go from there? It takes in the blimp (point of interest), which is what we want. Where to from there though? In your initial image, the eye has no path to follow. It gets lost in chaotic detail.

In my re-paint, the cloud is a clear path for the eye to follow: it takes the viewer's eye to the bottom of the tower (which is a point of interest). The eye continues upward, as the tower is a definite arrow pointing upward.
No need to even be subtle here! The shape of the tower fits our needs perfectly.

Finally the eye is (hopefully) led back into the image by the background cloud, so it can take it all in. The viewer's brain is pleased, the image is satisfying to look at, you win.

Sometimes it comes naturally, sometimes you gotta think about it (I usually have to think about it), but you need to look at a new image as a problem to be solved. It's mathematics and logic, even though there's more than one solution.
After you've solved the composition, you can add the details.

I actually really like your style.  Your composition never looks flawed to me.  Perhaps it's because it's in my nature to get enjoyment out of things that "defy" or stick out from the pack.  But then again, everyone has differing opinions and you should stick with your gut no matter what you're told (in my opinion)

Thanks, Frost Butt! It's definitely a difficult thing to find the balance between sticking with your gut and following helpful advice, sometimes. Although when I receive advice from people with portfolios like those of jalonso and neo, I'll happily try to test their instructions.

A Seinfeld quote comes to mind."
George Costanza: "I, for one, will not compromise my artistic integrity!"
Jerry: 'Artistic integrity'!? Where did you come up with that? You're not artistic, and you have no integrity!"


I did not consider that either. Thanks! Now, if I may trouble you further:

The whole idea behind this series of mine, with the excessive clouds and mountain tops, is to recreate an idea from the classic computer game LBA2, in which there is an alien world where people live on mountain tops seperated by oceans of clouds, which the inhabitants must traverse with airships, in order to avoid the "underworld".

So the idea is to create a vision where you replace oceans with clouds. In this picture, I wanted to draw the parallell to a lighthouse guiding an approaching ship to land, as you may have guessed. This is all rather irrelevant, except that I wonder what the composition would look like if I was indeed painting a lighthouse by the coast. The ocean would surely cut the picture more or less in half, except where the lighthouse (or a coastline) breaks the line. Would you still be looking to break the symmetry by using clouds, except that they'd be further away in the background?

Oh, you misunderstand. Perhaps I have expressed myself poorly. I know I am master of my composition. I know I can choose where the horizon goes. But it's common (though not mandatory) to use the horizon as a horizontal line, rather than a diagonal. So what I meant was:

I know I can choose to put the horizon high or low, vertically. Like this or this , roughly following the rule of thirds.

However, you suggested this , using the clouds to create diagonal lines. Now, since I'm basically drawing a parallel of a traditional lighthouse, I'm wondering how you would apply your suggestion to a more traditional painting with an ocean and lighthouse. Would it be something like this?

I do think you're spot on about two things:
My picture lacks depth. I hope to improve this by using colours and contrast more effectively, to show greater change from the nearest to the most distant clouds. Also, my picture has a nearly flat horizon, which is not really necessary (though perfectly possible)

Thanks for your help.




Edited by CELS - 10 August 2011 at 9:24am

In that case, thanks again. I appreciate your advice and hope I did not come across as obstinate.

This is the latest version. Trying to adjust the colours, create more depth and such. Any feedback is welcome.




Edited by CELS - 10 August 2011 at 7:33pm

Thanks a lot! I have no idea why that didn't occur to me, but you are of course correct.

I have tried to do a gradient on the sky and also started working on the clouds (although I now see that the clouds need further shrinkage in the horizon). I have tried to imitate the gradient technique from this lovely piece:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/53379.htm


I don't quite understand why you want to darken the bottom edge, however. It seems to me that this reduces the contrast and makes everything flat. In the dark, don't close objects appear brighter than distant objects?


Edited by CELS - 11 August 2011 at 2:48pm

Ah. My logic was that in the dark, the effect would be reversed. I suppose I should have checked my theory with Google image search first.

Note to self: Do not trust own logic when it comes to art :)


Edited by CELS - 11 August 2011 at 3:03pm

I love it.  It's so beautifully simple and the colors work so freakin well with the piece

the smoke is undeniably a mistake. It's leading the eye out of the picture.

Also, the background clouds can't really be so much brighter than the sky. What is their lightsource, if not the sky itself? http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/10620505.jpg <- Check how much darker the sea is compared to the sky, except where directly lit by the moon.

Also, the lone cloud near the tower? What compositional purpose does it serve? In 3D space, it looks really far off, because it's faded. But that makes no sense, because the size of its billowing shapes place it somewhere near the tower, behind it.

Finally, the hot air balloon at the bottom, is right in the middle, creating an inverted triangle with the other two objects in the scene. Inverted triangles cause a composition to look unbalanced and ready to topple (in this case, topple to the right).

The atmospheric perspective is much improved, keep it up.


Edited by neofotistou - 12 August 2011 at 7:55am

Alright, I'm going to submit this to the gallery now. Time to start something new.




Thanks for your help, everyone. I'm still open for further comments, as always.


Edited by CELS - 13 August 2011 at 2:25am

I'm very flattered. And I absolutely agree about the outlines. The clouds should be brighter on the top, not darker. I don't know why I've thrown out so many basic principles, just because it's a night scene. Oh well.