H
hammers
Guest
Thanks for details. Will keep record of your advice. Though I was somehow aware that first and second figure from the left required shadow under them, I tried to put a soft shadow at their feet mostly because, in the general context, the view appeared smooth without sharp contrastsHi Hammers, the figure scaling looks good in this one, and you have created an interesting picture, which encourages our eyes to explore the foreground details - nice work.
There is bright, directional sunlight in the scene, and the figures are generally suitable for such lighting conditions.
The large shadow beneath the tree tells us that the light is almost directly overhead, and coming from above right, throwing very dense shadows beneath every solid object, and slightly to the left. This is true of everything in the foreground, moving back into the middle distance.
The tall outcrops of rock in the far distance have softer lighting and softer shadows because they are much further away.
All of the figures inserted in the foreground require sharp contrast and dark shadows of the same quality as that beneath the tree, because they are within the same viewing distance as the tree.
The three crux figures nearest the viewer obviously do not require any shadows because their shadows are out of sight below the bottom of the picture. As you are aware, this is a useful compositional device to avoid depicting shadows.
I have tried to demonstrate the effect of increased contrast and shadow density/direction here -
soliciting the viewer's attention on all points of the scene. But of course your technical exceptions are always correct , accurate and useful.
Thanks again
