Mike,

I see Mari's point, maybe I can clarify what I think might be of some consideration.

I would describe what I see in your photographs, (and a lot of other photographs on this site) as having no middles. The light is too light, the middle value range quickly exhausted, and the dark too dark. The ratio of light to dark is too high, there is too high a contrast. Additionally, the way over-the-counter film is being developed in the last 12 years really pushes that contrast. It is an artifact of the developing process. (In the indoor photographs, it appears as though the value ends at 5, as Mari said, but in fact what is actually happening is what she is seeing as a 4 to 5 value is actually a washed out 7 to 9 value.)

Because I use the same camera/natural lighting as you, I would have solved the lighting problem thusly. Indoors, I would have moved the model further into the room, away from the window. The light to dark ratio would have been 2 to 3 instead of 1 to 4. Outside, I would have photographed the model on an overcast day. In a number of my photo sessions for outdoor portraits, there is even a slight sprinkle. The photographs, however, look like it is a bright sunny day. A sunny day, however, with more middle values.

I have noticed on a number of portraits on this site the tendency to want to paint the highlight as an entire plane. Instead of realizing that the skin of your African-American model in the light will be a middle value with a sprinkling of bluish highlights, if you just work from the photographs, you will be tempted to make the entire lit side of her face not just a light value, but push it all the way to white. This is not possible, her skin is a middle value. But if you trust the photograph as the truth, you will be thrown off.

Two more quick thoughts,

I would reconsider the use of 400 film. Although you can use it under low light conditions, it can become grainy and you will lose definition in the low light situations, (see your indoor photo and Mari's description of it, "...the indoor light gives everything shot in front of this window a mauve-cast". You would be better off with a lens that lets in more light and using a faster film...I use 200).

I would reconsider using a filter. It is okay if you want to clean up the image to see a simplified compositional mass, but you are knocking out some very important information, color and clarity.

I have painted a number of African-American faces, and the coloring is phenomenal! The purples, oranges, blues, reds and greens. From your photographs, I am not seeing the tremendous color range I know is there.

A closing thought. To become a great artist, you don't play to your strength, you play to your weakness. If you are bad at hands, you don't avoid hands, you paint tons of hands. If you are weak at clothing, you don't emphasize the head and play down the clothing, you commit the years, (yes, years...) to learn how to paint clothing.

Mike, you are good at composition, almost intuitively exceptional. You think about it, consider, pose your models, and your audience responds to your eye. You can slide on your magnificent compositions. But there is still work to be done on the quality of your photographs. I myself take marginal photographs, I admit it, but I work primarily from life, so my photographs are supplementary. If you are working from photographs exclusively, they had better be knockouts technically as well as artistically.

I would suggest to all here on the site that are working from photographs to consider an adult education course in photography. It is as important as taking classes in how to paint.

Peggy

Mari,

You have aptly described my condition and I yield to your last word.

Chris and especially Peggy,

I feel like I should be paying for all this. Peggy, I understand your comments and I give them great weight. As do I to Mari for showing a lot of grit in her convictions.

Mike, Debra Jones showed me a trick that I find is helping me see the advantages and disadvantages of my photos as never before. I will post your photos alterred with the water color filter on my Photoshop program. It seems to help.

Here's the other one. I find that just seeing my photos in this computerized way really helps my mind's eye.

Here's the uncropped version. Personally I think the interior photo is superb.

Linda,

I wish I could muster the courage to throw paint on the canvas the way the computer has done. They look pretty good like that don't they.

I have begun this painting (the indoor image). I am at the point where I dislike all that I have done so far. This is a natural progression for me. Thanks for showing these renditions, I can see where they can help by simplifying the values.

http://www.artscope.net/VAREVIEWS/MORTON0800-1.html

If you click on the link above, you will see some of the work of James Morton. He uses Photoshop alterations early in his work. There was a thread about it a few months ago on the Studio Forum. At the time I wasn't paying attention, because I didn't have Photoshop. Now I can't find it.

I think that just seeing these photos, adjusted in this manner, gives you the confidence to proceed, because it proves that they "can" become good paintings. Since I paint from photos, I plan to use the altered images at the start of my paintings. Instead of working from the realistic photo, I will try working from the "underpainting" filter, or the "watercolor" filter,which ever is better, for the blocking in part of the painting. And then I will switch to the realistic photo for the rest of the painting.

Like Debra Jones said, so many times I see a painting in a scene, and then take a photo, but the photo doesn't look anything like the painting that I originally saw with my imaginative mind. These filters help recall the original thought, that you had, when you took the picture.

I'm glad you decided to paint the first one. I like it the most, too. For me, it's because her expression has a softness that I don't see in the second and third photos. (Maybe her eyes were squinting ever-so-slightly in the outdoor ones because of the sun?)

Photo Choices
 

Mike,

If you can't decide which photo, it's best to start again. I say this as you have beautiful head shots but there are problems with the color on the first and composition on both. On #1 the frilly green curtain does not work with your sophisticated model and the skin color is too purple. In #2, the arm direction draws your eye away from her beautiful head and the flowers way over to the right are too distracting. Your film is way too fast. I use a slow film, Portra professional NC iso 160. It is low contrast, has good saturation on the light tones and definition in the darks. Tripod mounted and with a reflector I get almost consistently good skintones, as close as I've ever seen to life. It is too hard as it is to paint, make sure your resource marterial is the best. I'm a fanatic about anything involved with my work and sometimes do it over and over again to achieve my objective. Remember in the old days subjects were asked to sit for hours. They get away too easily today.

Sharon,

Somewhere up in the post I think I agree that the arm in #'s 2 and 3 is distracting. I have made a start on the indoor shot.

These photos were taken a couple of years ago. The subject is long gone. I am always in the market for an interesting face. I will even arrange a photo shoot with a total stranger, i.e., this person. This girl had a very interesting face. I would bet that the indoor shot was taken with 400 speed film, possibly even hand held. I try to get a little smarter each day.

When I have the space for a new project I go through my old photos and make a choice. There are times when I have to ask myself... shall I do this or shall I do nothing? I also try to post things that I think others may find interesting or may learn from.

One thing I am trying to do in this project is not be too slavish to the photo. In this photo I liked the girl's body and head. The curtain doesn't bother me a great deal depending on its intensity. As I go along, I may or may not leave it in. Thanks for your comments.