Wow this is great, feels like chalk.

In re: the commentary posted at ConceptArt.Org - Moonlight, especially implied moonlight (meaning that the moon isn't in the frame, and/or it's not a full moon) tends to be just that - implied. It's a ghostly "barely there" light that only marginally distinguishes shapes, and usually doesn't do much for color at all - colors under moonlight tend to be only minimally-hued and appear more as shades of gray.

Sitting that close to a fire, on the other hand, tends to produce intense, yellow-to-red spectrum highlights. Part of the reason people squint near fires is the intensity of light, not just the intensity of heat. The colors will end up being washed in the warm spectrum, but will retain more of their hue than in moonlight, especially considering the proximity of the figure to the fire.

I tend to approach the cropping/composition from where the viewer is intended to sit. The perspective you have now would place the viewer next to the fire and the figure, which works fine. If you want the viewer more distant from the figure, you can get that by expanding the canvas.

I did a similar piece back in February, and for mine, the intent was to have the viewers standing a bit away from the figure/fire, and thus the composition is expanded away as well. Also, with the moon being a crescent on the horizon, its effect on highlighting is virtually non-existent - mainly some minimized backlighting to help define shapes (such as the back of the hair). 99% of the lighting in the image comes from the fire.

[link]

I tend to also use diagonal compositions; there are two diagonals in that piece above, which create a triangle composition popular with Renaissance and Baroque artists. I offset the triangle (it's not directly centered) because directly-centered and or center-weighted images drive me crazy. (I have done a few, intentionally, but they never end up among what I consider my best works, just because it's not a composition style enjoy.)

I've also heard a lot of criticisms about diagonal composition, so I know it's not for everybody.

Personally, I like where your composition is now, but...yeah. Diagonal and left-weighted.

Yeah, I took enough art-history classes to hear about the whole triangle composition, I don't really ever think of that stuff. I draw it, than I crop it randomly till I see a way I think it looks strongest. <.<

Thanks for the indepth critique, I knew I could count on you.

--
__________

Mistress Paco
Striving to Comment more frequently!

I don't consciously do it most of the time. Way back when I first started my college-level art courses, I had a professor who made us push our comfort zones to use different composition techniques. At that point, I was consciously doing it, to the point that I used a ruler to section out my canvas/paper before I started. I've tried pretty much every type of composition, and the one I do naturally (not thinking about it) is the diagonal composition. Every once in a while, the rule of thirds slips in, but usually only when I do a genre piece or something that's dictated for class, like a still-life. Nowadays, I tend to work more like you - I draw what feels comfortable, and then sometimes tweak the cropping if it looks a little off.

No problem on the critique! I'd actually write critiques more often, but it seems few artists actually want them these days. I think someone needs to tell the up-and-coming generation of artists that feeling butthurt once in a while is part of being an artist.

This is a very good piece. The character looks interesting and has that haunted look that I love in your illustrations. However, I wish there were a bit more glare on the character's face. It would make her interact with the lighting of the environment a lot better. This also means that the shadows in the illustration need to be more pronounced as well. Other than those tow points, I don't have any real problems with the illustration.