Just my two cents on the "claw". Seems you've overly-defined the fingers. As they recede, they should probably also fade a bit and the edges could become diffuse. I have a 19th century portrait in my dining room. The woman's hands are the least defined features on the figure. A few brush strokes, and they're done.

Lisa's comments hit the nail on the head as well, but de-emphasize the fingers and they won't be as problematic.

Steven,

Thank you for the url's. I like your work, very impressive!

Jeff,

Thank you - good idea on the fingers.

Finished - for now
 

I posted this in Unveilings because I am done with it for now. There are still things I am unhappy with, but even with all the good advice I don't yet have the ability to fix it yet. I am posting it here as well so anyone can feel free to critique. I should have done that instead.

The reason I am soliciting critiques is because even though I may not be able to fix the problems now, I may be able to in the future. Besides, I want to see how others read this in case I am missing anything.

It has been a disappointment for me. I can't clearly explain why. It is just not what I was going for. I loathe to admit that maybe the belly was a mistake. I WANTED that belly so badly.

One good thing, this thing has drawn people to my studio in droves. It's a small town and people talk....it's all been positive so far.

Here is how I have left it for now.

By the way, that line of the post is not crooked on the painting - just my bad photography.

Dear Kim,

I thought I would make a few observations, mainly dealing with your focal point. I am not sure what you were wanting to achieve, but I think that this painting is more a portrait of a tummy than of a pregnant woman, and I think has happened for several very specific reasons.

Elements that work to create a focal point include strong contrast, strong color, and sharp edges. All three are more strongly at play with the outside edge of the belly, much more so than the face. The light is also stronger on the belly than the face which further underscores the tummy as the focal point.

The strong vertical post is an element that diminshes the composition, in my opinion. It actually acts as an arrow, literally pointing the viewer toward the tummy as focal point.

Fortunately, all of these things would be easy to modify if you chose to do so. You have done a good job with the fabric and figure, and I think that the background foliage is a successful choice. I think that that the mood (especially as I cover the tummy and post) is also very successfully conveyed.

Last, you might want to check your values in the reflected light on the top of the shoulder and the right edges of the arm and back.

Chris,

Thank you for your critique. When I can stand to look at her again I will get rid of the post asap. I was wondering originally if that was just too much background with the foliage, that's why I put that darn thing in there. (Where were you when I started? Most likely working on your own paintings I suppose.) ;)

I will soften the edges of the belly and look at those values you mentioned. This is just what I needed. My only question is the belly - I do want to leave it and I do want to soften it, but I guess I am afraid of lowering the value too much and having it not look realistic for the light on the rest of her body. I will try it anyway. Thank you again!

Kim, nature (painting from life) takes care of many things. You don't have to paint the whole from life either. You can make observations of parts (cloth and background say). If you think photo, f5.6 will give you the soft background, but your eyes can do that too-and better. If you look at stuff like the background from life you see shapes and colors that a camera won't give you and it's very liberating.N. Fechin below;

Tim, thanks for posting the Fechin, it's lovely.

Chris, I disagree with you on the aspect of psychological focus here. When you expose the tummy you are essentially creating a painting of a "two-person relationship" instead of a traditional "it-all-leads-to-a-single-face" portrait. It's a conceptual (pun?) issue. I think it's appropriate to give that tummy visual weight.

Having said that, though, I don't like the vertical stripe, either. I think verticals are really strong compositional tools and I almost always want to see them fuzzed out, lightened, darkened, shortened, narrowed, or taken out altogether.

Again, this is one of my favorite topics, so excuse my attraction to trivia. I think the value of the tummy might be too dark and too warm. In pregnancy, the tummy is cooler than usual, and probably doesn't see the sun too much either. A very pregnant woman of caucasian descent has a high likelihood that her skin becomes more translucent, and blood flow increases. So, there should be a good deal of veinous blood cooling the value of the surface of her belly and chest. In addition, the skin is probably very taut, and more shiny. But these things are out of our normal range of portraiture experiences, so how would one represent that? I keep picturing Bougeureau's reclining woman on the sand, the one with the giant wave that's about to crash down her. She has beautiful bluish skin tones.

Maybe Tim's on the money - painting from life would have been great, but the pose would have to have been seated, and Kim, you'd have to paint really fast!