4. When depicting natural formations (like the lake shore line here) in perspective, it is sometimes a good idea to change the reality to make it more believable. Though physically correct, some things might work against you, in the way that instead of creating an illusion of depth, they suggest something else. The part of the shore line I pointed out with the arrow is what I am talking about here. The suggested form (see dot line above it) creates that illusion of perspective and depth much better then a line curved the opposite way (as in the original). This, again, is a minor detail, and more of a suggestion than a requirement to fix. Also, it is not necessary to get the whole lake in the frame – extending it to the right might be good for the overall composition of the piece.
5. The mountains. Even though they are just the background here, the photorealistic depiction of the girl forces you to go the photorealistic route all the way. The original mountain tops do not look natural enough, and are therefore distracting. Take a look at the suggested lines I drew here, and if possible some photographic reference of mountains. Try to achieve more random, smooth, and natural forms there. Also a couple of “layers” (one mountain top behind the other), fading in the distance will create a feeling of depth and space.
6. Clouds – since the light color is warm (yellowish), and the clouds colorless, it is impossible that the clouds would be white/neutral grey, like here. Give them a warm, yellowish glow, or even pink/orange colors. Again, a look at a cloudy sky at sunset should give you enough inspiration here.
7. The wings. In a bird’s wing, the feather size changes with the distance from the top of the wings, as I’ve tried to depict here, so you have tiny, delicate feathers on top, and successively bigger ones when you go down. Swan wings might be a good reference.
8. This dark shadow here is not entirely justified in my opinion, especially taking the frontal light source into account.
9. The shadow on top of the shoulder suggests an almost full frontal light, and while the setting sun will be low on the horizon, it will always be lighting the subject slightly from above. This, however, would mean you have to rework quite a lot, and I don’t think this detail is significant enough to justify that. Just worth mentioning in my opinion.
10. When you look at the “box” I drew here, you will notice that it lower part is lighter then the upper part, almost like a gradient. The opposite would be better – the lighter part would be the upper half of the dress, thus forcing the eyes to go up and ultimately focus on the face. A great example of this can be seen in the portraits you can see at museums and art books, done by the great masters. Remember that areas of high detail and light are the points the viewer focuses on. In portraiture, these are usually the faces and the eyes.
11. Highlights. I think toning them down a bit would be a good idea. They are too harsh compared to the soft light in the rest of the image.
Article by Rafal Hrynkiewicz.
