Painting backdrop skies?

[svedblen]

Quite the artist!
I agree with the others and yourself. The clouds are the best handpainted clouds I have seen. They are present and visible but still do not overtake the picture. So you nailed the sky.
The mountains are also very good, at least in the third pic from the bottom where the dark patches (ridges?) are gone. Very convincing. When scrolling down in the post and reaching that pic I first thought it was a photo (that was supposed to be a compliment  ).
But as you have noted yourself, the problem is the trees. They need to be better if they shall match the sky and the mountains.
In the two last pics, how far away is that mountain supposed to be? In the pic without trees it seems quite distant (10:th of miles) while the trees appear rather big and looks to be much nearer, as taken from their size only. Can that be part of the "problem"?

Sorry I can't offer more specific advice regarding the trees. I would never dare paint a tree myself.

[GaryHinshaw]

What backdrop?  With foreground modeling like that, the backdrop really recedes in importance.  New module?  Beautifiul!

The sky looks excellent.  I have nothing to add to the expert commentary above re the hills.  But whatever you do, don't let the backdrop steal the show.

[tom mann]

The sky looks great!  I would tend to fade out the hills much more so than they would appear to be in photos, and "haze up" the distant ones even more.  In other words, only provide a hint that they are there.  Trees I would only suggest with large darker areas and leave out the singletons.  Kind of like this photo:



You can spot individual trees, but your eyes aren't drawn to them so leave them out.

Rust on that hopper is very nice, btw.

[MVW]

Ya gotta be happy with those results, Ed, especially for your first time around the block. That's the kind of work that gives the rest of us knuckleheads the courage to give it a try.

Jim

[PAL_Houston]

The secret is to use a brush, and to blend white into the blue as you go.  Latex paint is cheap.  Practice!

[ednadolski]

Hi Guys, thanks to one and all, always appreciate the comments.   I've already started on a second one, the nice thing about these Masonite panels is, they are cheap and not part of the layout so if you don't like the results it's easy just to start again.

Tom, that is a great pic, and you've inspired my new technique:  do a project first, then try to find a similar-looking proto pic and say, "Yeah, I meant to do that!"     Actually tho my painted mountains are supposed to represent those same ones in your pic that are just above the right-hand marker, and from pretty much the same perspective too    They actually are not quite as far away as those most distant ones in your pic, but those far ones would certainly be there on a full-length, 'real' backdrop.

Gary that's not a new module, just an old scenery test piece of foam board less than 2'x2' (mostly done to try out the static grass & some grout for soil).  You do bring up a good point about not overpowering the models - here is one example that is really kind of getting there (IMHO) (and even tho the models aren't even done, it would be a really tall order to stand up in front of this kind of backdrop):

/>https://themuralworks.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/train7.jpg
https://themuralworks.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/train8.jpg
https://themuralworks.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/train12.jpg
https://themuralworks.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/train13.jpg


That said, I do think that Tehachapi is somewhat an exception to that rule, since the sky and mountains are a big part of the overall experience, almost as much as the trains.  So there is a balance, tho I am quite confident I will never need to worry about my puerile painting skills getting anywhere close to 'stealing the show'

Lennart you are quite right, those distant mountains really aren't actually too far back.  I was just at the Loop about 10 days ago and I could see that they are actually 'connected' to the hills in front of them by a ridge that appears rather foreshortened in photos.  So it does tend to throw off the sense of scale a bit. Another thing, those hills also have a fair number of rock outcroppings which really aren't too well represented in the painting.

Rod and Scottl you raise a great point about the light/shadow.  I'll probably try some of that out on a piece of white cardboard to see if I can make it work. (Don't artists call that sort of thing a "study" or some such term?)     In fact the more I look at it, the more my flat/blob trees are looking like my hills have a case of the 'measles', so I had better figure out a way to improve on this

Hi jimmo thanks for pointing out that part about the one-point perspective.  I have that exact problem on my current loop backdrop.  That has all of the 'puffball' type of clouds, hopefully going with the less distinct and hazier kinds will be more tolerant of changes in the viewing angle (within limits of course).

Once again thanks to all for looking! 

Ed