Indoor vs. outdoor photos
 

I have two photos which I like. I think I am partial to the first one, shot in my favorite window light with 400 speed film.

The second, shot a couple of feet from the first on my front porch, could be cropped in several different ways. I think I am partial to a cropped version. I thought I would post it as I shot it. After you get the pose you want, if you widen up a bit it gives you much more creative flexibility after the fact.

Here is one cropped possibility. The arm is a little too much of the scene for me.

Hi Mike,

I just returned home from an Oklahoma trip - you should get to the Cowboy Hall of Fame before September 8 to view the "Prix de West" exhibit showing William Whitaker, among other great contemporary artists.

Anyway, about the photos here, I find the indoor photos lack a full value range. Look at the darks in her hair. While I agree there is a lot of color to be observed in black hair in shadow, the indoor light gives everything shot in front of this window a mauve-cast. While this works sometimes, and certainly you shoot and paint beautifully, I think your indoor photos might be limiting your full tonal palette. Does this make any sense? I've noticed you use the same value range in your outdoor work, however, so this might just be your unique "voice" as a painter, the way you see light falling on objects.

If the latter is true, is a camera as unbiased as people seem to think??

I don't think I understand. I want to understand. The indoor photo seems to go from way light to way dark. Do you mean that it's just all light and all dark and nothing in between? If that's it, then it's just my technical photo limitations showing.

Say this one more time, only different. I can be a little thick at times.

I'll try to be articulate this time. Look at the shadow on the girl's cheek indoors vs. the shadow on the girl's cheek outdoors. On the indoor cheek, the color is very greyed out on my screen, and very mauve/chalky. I don't have a value scale in front of me, but I suspect the darks here are only at about 4 or 5. The outdoor cheek shows color that is much more saturated, not chalky or greyed down.

As for tonality - the outdoor photos seem to have a broader tonal range, which helps flesh out your paintings. Here's a link to a Kramskoi portrait on this forum http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...light=kramskoi (you may have to scroll down to see it) -- while I do not feel its necessary to have a wholly dark portrait with only the face lit, I do notice that in my work, if I don't use a large value range, the work stays too flat.

In other words I notice a distinct "palette" in your indoor photography. My last comment about the camera not being so "objective" after all refers to the fact that your photos have a very distinct voice -- someone could pick them out of a pile and assign them to you, it is your handwriting, very unique. Your recent painting of Victoria (I think I'm remembering correctly) shows this same beautiful color scheme. Was the light in the Caribbean the same as the light in your dining room?

My only relevant observation is that you might want to explore a broader range of tonality in preliminary sketches. Most of your values seem clumped from 1 to 4 or 5. I'm not suggesting you change anything, but you might be interested in your results, if you shake it up a little.

Mari,

My philosophy regarding photography goes something like this: I have worked more than a little to bring my skill level up to where it is. But where it is, is OK with me. What I want from a photo is a road map which gives me good composition and a reasonable modeling of the features. I know that there are several skill levels above mine regarding photographic excellence. I just don

Mari,

As an after thought...some of this window lighting signature you speak of may have to do with the fact that I often use a soft focus filter. These filters will create a soft hazyness (chalky?). They also will smooth out some complexion problems in close up shots. I am ambivalent about their usefulness regarding the end product painting.

...and of course none of the above is anything but another "self-taught" painter mumbling about light. Who do we need permission from, God, Pepsi Co., Congress (such a complex world) perhaps some Internet-based painter copyrighted the term.

When it comes to my own work, I'm blind in one eye and can't see out the other.

The filter, huh? And here I thought Tulsa was the supermodel capital of OK.

Dear Mike,

I just have to comment on your wonderful options here. You have two excellent opportunities. I see very much how you use your own awareness of the camera's limitations and refuse to be a slave to it. As a matter of fact, the camera never, ever tells the truth. You have to tell yours.

As I look at the two options posted, I am struck by the different, and equally strong, impressions I get about your (gorgeous model, BTW) subject. I am compelled to gaze back at her in a very inviting way in the first option. In the second, I feel that I must stand at bay. I like the idea of starting out with a resource image that has impact.

It is a pleasure to see your work and read your very gracious comments.

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.

The curtain doesn't bother me either. I would just adjust the color of the skin until it was right.

Adjusting color
 

Skin tones are impossible for me to adjust to complement a background. I'm afraid to try it. I always try to get a background to go with the skin tones first because it makes it easier for me. I find faces so hard to do anyway. You must be very accomplished to be able to do that! I applaud you! What I said also was that the model was too sophisticated for the frilly curtain. But that's my humble opinion.

I find that I am accomplished 2 days out of 5, and I don't know which ones it's going to be. I'm pretty sure one falls on a weekend, and some days I can't work. So as it turns out, I can go for months and never be accomplished!

I was going to send this letter a few weeks ago, but I got waylaid at a workshop in NC, so while the thread seems to have moved on, there still might be some interest in the following....


Mike,

I just returned from a photo shoot and information gathering in San Francisco and while going over the quickie digital shots, found this example of a smaller light to shadow ratio in the kind of composition that you favor.

I am probably not going to do this painting, but I thought it was a good example of being able to get dramatic shots without losing the detail in the light, or the detail in the shadows. The set up is morning sun, west window key light, white wall reflecting warm fill light.

Peggy

Detail

This will work well with a north window towards the center of a bright day, if you put a large mirror on the dark side of the subject, making sure that the light from the window bounces back into the shadow. I prefer that kind of light to the orange color of the average house lighting. Another possibility is using a flourescent full spectrum light for the fill. I have tried that recently, but the light seems too soft(diffused), and I lose the shadow.

Sharon, a portrait can be done in any color at all. For example black and white, or sepia portraits are common.

Peggy,

Thanks for remembering me. That's a lot of great information in that photo. You mentioned that this was a digital photo, what quantity of pixelation does this camera have? What type of light generated the warm glow on the shadow side, was it spotted (narrowly directed) in any way?

Oh, Peggy! Perfect exposure, lovely pose, gorgeous warm fill light -- part of why you are the master that you are. Even your photos are beautiful!

Thanks, Mike and Michele.

I borrowed the digital camera from the client because my husband asked me to leave mine at home so he could play with it. I used a standard Nikon 35 mm for the rest of the shots. This was just me running all over the house with the second daughter trying out lighting conditions, and finally settling in on the window of the stair landing. The digital was a Vaio, as I recall, and I used the highest resolution. There was no auxiliary lighting, no tungsten or florescence illuminating the room. Just the reflected light off the wall at the base of the landing. I do like the cool cool key light with the warm reflected light. We played around with some poses, and I have two rather dramatically different poses with the same lighting on the same stairwell. When I left (three weeks ago) the parents hadn't decided which to do. The Dad wanted this pose, the Mom, another more dramatic one.

Peggy