Last week I wrote about the two sketches I did of this subject. Tonight I have the first watercolor study. There's not a great deal to say about it, but it is very, very light - not unusual for such a study. However, it does make it difficult to see:
Very little detail work has been done yet, but I did include the windows in the farm house so one could both identify it and find it. The reddish roof is a nearby out-building. The orientation of the house isn't accurate, but it doesn't worry me in this first pass.
The colors I used for the distant mountains are not as I'd like nor as well applied as I'd wish. The farthest range was originally so light I could hardly see it even when it was wet so I changed the color. That one looks almost grainy and spotty. The middle and the closest mountains are too close in color to make out the difference between them.
While the trees are all right, I didn't do very much to distinguish them. My plan was to go back in after the paint dried and add definition, but there wasn't enough time. The same is true of the field.
Oddly enough, I think this study has elements of both sketches even though that was not a conscious decision this morning. Right now I am using generic pieces of paper I had prepared (cut from a larger sheet and taped to my foam board) after I finished working on the studies for the Mews. I did that so I wouldn't have to face that chore when I'd really rather paint, but now I feel compelled to use them correct proportion or not.
Before I go on, I'll tear and mount sheets proportionally correct even though they might be smaller than the final painting. All and all, I am enjoying this exercise, but I don't think it is a terribly exciting composition.