Methods of creating a likeness
 

Sometimes I achieve a great likeness from life/ photo, but other times I do not. And of course I want to be consistent with this first before I try to do this for a living.

I am an eyeballer (wow, what a technical term!) I don't use rules or shapes or anything like that but I am very open to try anything that will help me improve.

So my question is: What's your method for achieving a likeness?

I am attaching an unsuccessful drawing I did last night to illustrate my need for help! I wanted to work fast and have fun, but got too involved. It's just a piece I wanted to do for practice and to get away from colored pencils for a little bit.

There are a ton of problems starting with the most important - eyes (my starting point), so instead of putting it in the critique section and then having to reimburse everyone for their worn out broken keyboards, I thought I'd post here as evidence. :bewildere

THANKS!

Reference
 

See I added some unintentional years to her. I'm not sure doing 'Aged Portraits' of people will be a success!

I think the likeness is very good. Softening the edges on the features will take a few years off her and improve the overall image, but otherwise -- good job!

If this is one of your unsuccessful efforts, could I please be your agent?

I rarely give much thought to "likeness" until quite late in the work, which will be long after I've put away the plumb lines or other tools I might find useful to get the parts of the "big look" in their correct orientation, in proper relation and proportion. There are few gumption traps as deep as having to erase or scrape off a "perfect" eye or mouth, or head or hand, because it was executed perfectly in an imperfect location.

One technique I use is to keep the artwork and the subject (whether live model or photo) close enough within my field of vision that I can pick out an area and rapidly look back and forth, back and forth, between the two. The mind's eye will hold both images long enough to register a comparison between them and tell you how they differ. This works (for me) for both shapes and values.

A couple of examples, using your drawing and the reference photo. Looking back and forth at the light area on the cheek on the viewer

So this guy goes into a bar . . .

Couple of later thoughts:

I once heard or read someone's advice on likeness, to look for those particularly distinctive features that you would exaggerate if you were doing a 10-minute caricature. Then, omit the exaggeration, but make absolutely sure that, at the very least, those features are present in your work, and that they're accurate.

One of those experiences that makes you wonder whether to go out and conquer the world or search out a bottle of gin, Daniel Greene remarked off-handedly, in response to a question during a public pastel portrait demonstration at his studio, that he wasn't all that concerned about getting a likeness, that getting a likeness was one of the easier parts of doing a portrait.

Thanks for the feedback!
 

Michele & Steven,

I have begun softening; thanks for the advice and response. Are we all eyeballers (I really need to find a proper term, this sounds so uneducated)? Is that how you do your work? So is it then that it just takes practice to become consistent? Do you have a usual starting point and measure features, jawline, etc. from that point, or do you sketch out the entire form and then add the details? Hope I'm not over stepping my bounds and asking a magician the secrets of his/her tricks. ;) I just really want to learn.

Steven,

I'd like a gin and tonic please! I can picture myself at the bar (after I've flashed my ID 5 or 6 times, which is not far from the truth) my head in my hands while I mull over this perplexing statement! If I weren't concerned with getting a likeness from the very start of the painting/ drawing I might have a real good chance as an abstract expressionist. I am starting to think it may just take practice, and practice, and experience. Guess, I just expect to be perfect at it right now so I can try to make a living, instead of going with the flow more and being patient.

Thanks for the caricature tip. And for everything you picked up on. I think the "looking back and forth" method is pretty much what I do. But maybe I need to work on spending more time with my eyes on the reference. You're so right about the lower lip and that is one that I had overlooked. I have started working on the cheeks. You have also pointed out something so invaluable by stating about the "structure" of the face, you made me realize that I am always looking at a photo as a 2-d object and working to just transfer what I see into a 2-d drawing and forget that it is a 3-d subject I am potraying. Thanks for that! I think that will be a huge help! I'm going to work on my values, keeping in mind the facial planes. And for all future work, when working from a photo I'll keep in mind the planes and that they are 3-D, they are 3-D, they are 3-D (my new mantra!).

You are so kind to take so much time to help! Thank you! Also, well this is a little embarrassing, but what are plumb lines?

Measure twice, put once.
 

As mentioned previously, there are an enormous amount of factors that convey likeness. For purposes of this post, however, I am assuming you are talking about how to make the face on your canvas look like the face of the model.

As far as I

Likeness vs. character
 

Well, it may sound strange but I don't think about it at all. I just worry about values, shapes and color and the likeness just seems to come.

The hard part for me is not getting a simple likeness but in capturing the character of the individual. This is more than just capturing the forms of the face. Also in portraits we tend to have very subtle expressions. So it is very easy to come very close but, have something be not quite right. Sometimes when working from a photo, I can work for days and I can't seem to get that special something that instantly identifies the person. But I can do a quick study from life and get it in a hour. It may be that the photo just did not capture that fleeting expression that comes and goes as the person sits. Also the mouth moves as does the area around the eyes depending on expression. As Sargent was quoted as saying "A portrait is a painting with something wrong with the mouth".

I know this probably does not help you any but really there is no secret to capturing the likeness. It all comes down to hard work: the more you paint the more consistently you will get a painting you are happy with. Also you know even the best artist at times have had to do more than one attempt before they and the client were happy with the final painting. I love the story in E. R. Kinstler book about the Katharine Hepburn commission. In one of the captions it says that he filled forty pages with pencil drawings and color studies. Now I think that there is a lesson in that. How many artists try to go from photo reference to finished portrait with out any drawings or studies?

How much do I owe you all?
 

I can't believe this is free... probably shouldn't say that too loudly :oops:

Chris,

Guess I let my eyes do the measuring instead of actual tools, and think it's time I started using some! Thank you for your response. I have even printed everything out and will have it handy for my next piece. I am an inside-out drawer; from photos I start with the eyes, and from life start from the nose, and then put everything in relative to that one feature, and I'd say maybe 90% of the time it works out very well. My professors always hated my method. (But this topic would be better suited for the psychiatrist couch section of the Forum!) :sunnysmil But they never told me why or taught me how else to do it. I think I may try the other method and work outside-in just to see what happens. And measure with a tool.

I suppose I am using the plumb lines but never knew what they were called. I really need to work on the artistic lingo skills! As you can tell, I didn't learn very much in college and I'm paying for it now. (In more ways than one, also a topic better for the psychiatrist's couch!) Ha ha!

Well, thanks again for all the info! Which I have not taken lightly and WILL be using in the future! Maybe when I'm in Arizona visiting the family I'll stop by and get you that drink! (They're just a ways away in Tucson)


Michael,

Exactly one of my problems; I can get pretty close sometimes, but then something is just not quite right. I suppose there is no precise method to capture a likeness and the artist finds their own with practice. But I am looking foward to using some others' methods. I think we are pretty similar in that I never really paid too much attention and just tried to paint/ draw what I saw. But now that I want to try this professionally, I think I want to perfect it as much as I can. I just get too carried away in color and values, and start having too much fun pushing around the paint to not worry about holding on to a likeness. Thanks for your input!

Well, Carolyn, every artist has his way. Your way can be hard; you really need to get that placement of the first element right. But that does not make it wrong. Here is a link to a artist whose work I really like. Take a look at his demo section. You will see you are not alone in your approach. I would go crazy painting like this but he seems to make it work for him. I tend to block in large shapes first, then paint the details on them. But like I said have a look at his work you might like working in a similar style.
http://www.morganweistling.com/

Oh, Michael, great example, Morgan Weistling is an incredible painter! Like Morgan, inside-out painters also include Harley Brown, Richard Schmid and Doug Dawson. Burton Silverman is an outside-in guy. There is no wrong or right way - whatever works for you is right.

Michael, thanks for the link to a great website. I flagged many of his images for my "terrific portraits by other artists that I may never be able to equal" file.

Given the turn here, I would mention that Daniel Greene is an "inside out" guy. His concern is that if your outside calls are off, then by the time you realize that the eyes are going to be too close, you've done an awful lot of work that has to be undone. So he gets the eyes in the right size and position, first.

Of course, he also produces in a 45-minute demo a piece that I'd need 45 hours to do as well. (And if anyone's wondering, he doesn't just give those demos away. Bring your checkbook, and a reasonable bank balance.)

And I can't believe it's been left to me to tell you that Cynthia's working on month-end statements right now, for everyone who has received critiques or replies (with percentages to the respondents).

The good news is, there's no balance due. Contributions are based on appreciation and value received. Remit to the next person.

And a big thanks owing to Cynthia, once again, for making this incredibly valuable site available to all of us!

Thank you Michele for your appreciation!

Hmm, how's $20/year sound? :)

Cynthia, what this site has done for me in launching my business is truly immeasurable! I wish I could afford to pay you the true value that I think having this site has already given me, and I'm sure has given many others.

I was thinking the other day where my business would be right now, one year after launch, if I hadn't had this site.

Here's what you've done for me:

I have learned an unbelievable amount about portrait composition, color, lighting, painting technique, marketing, pricing...I could go on and on and on. I think it would have taken me ten years to get as far as I have in this first year because of what I have learned from this site. In fact it's possible I NEVER could have come this far, without the Stroke of Genius website.

Your site showed me it was possible to create a career that gives me constant joy and a solid income while staying home with my kids. What a tremendous gift!

Thank you again, Cynthia!

Thank You Everyone!
 

Morgan Weistling's work is incredible! What an inspiration! The demos are amazing, thanks for the link Michael. Guess there is hope yet! ;) Thanks also Chris and Steven for the names you've mentioned (Wish I could find some more of their work). I really like that I can call myself an "inside out painter". Maybe that will be the name of a show - ha ha, I can dream! I am excited to get practicing and I'm sure with more experience everything will fall into place. Thanks so much for all your input and time, I really do appretiate it!

And of course a huge thanks to Cynthia... but, please wait to raise the rates until I am a successful painter! :sunnysmil Don't worry, I'm practicing!

Carolyn, I thought your sketch was excellent. As far as the age goes, it looks to me as though there is more distance between the highest part of her hair and her eyebrows in the reference photo than in your work. I suspect that if you enhance the height of that hair the proportions will be more appropriate to the child's actual age. When there is less space between the top of the head and the eyes the person looks older. Otherwise the fullness of the cheeks and the development of the chin on your drawing are all correct for the age of the child in the photo.

Everyone has a different way of approaching a subject, and as Chris says, no one way suits all. I don't graph or use plumblines; I do it all by eye, going back and forth as Steve describes. I start off with a dilute blue wash on the entire canvas and then use more concentrated pigment to sketch in the composition. At the same time, I'm roughing in the likeness (there is a three-step demo on my site.) Once I'm satisfied with both I start adding more color. Occasionally when I'm wrestling with a portrait I'll measure relative distances between eyes and mouth and so forth, comparing the reference photo to the painting (i.e. the distance between the top of the eyebrow and the top of the nostrils is the same as the distance between the bottom of the nose and the chin in the photo; is it the same in the painting?) Another handy trick is to turn the painting and the reference photo upside down and compare them that way (unfortunately that can't be done with a live model - another advantage of using an alternative.) It's amazing what a fresh perspective, literally, this gives you, and you can see discrepancies a lot more clearly. Often they'll just pop right out. Or you'll see that even though something may be nagging at you, it's not the shape that's off. Some people use a mirror but I find it too hard to compare the two that way.

A lot of times I don't bother with any of those techniques but just eye the reference photo and the painting. I find that I need the most help when doing portraits of men with short, conservative haircuts; I suspect that's because there's no fudging the line of the skull and jaw. There's no hairdo to obscure edges and shapes; it's all just out there. Everyone's got his bete noire, I'll bet.

Carolyn,

Actually, I was teasing about $20/year for the Forum. The Forum is free, but it costs to be on the main site...considerably more than $20/year.


All who expressed appreciation,

Your kind words make it all so very worthwhile. I love what I do anyway, but nothing beats having your efforts appreciated!

Leslie,

Thanks for the compliment on the drawing. Your input is appreciated! I'll go back and see what I can do about the forehead. That's the good thing about drawing with charcoal, I'm sure I'll be able to fix it. And thanks so much for all your tips. I am a strong believer in flipping the piece upside down also. A teacher had us do that in jr. high and I was amazed, and have been doing it ever since. But sometimes, I guess I still can't quite see when things are off a bit. But I'm sure more practice will help. It's so nice to hear what techniques others use, so thank you for sharing and taking the time!

Carolyn, we all got here the same way, by benefiting from others' advice, so it always feels good to give back. If you do make changes in your drawing based on some or all of the tips you've gotten, do please post the finished work. It's so much fun to see the progress of a piece.

Forgive me, as when I tried to post my image it was too large, and when I came back all the points I was offering were gone. So I am going to now post the image and simplfy all I said.

First, methods I use in establishing placement if you would like.

Also (I hope this is OK) I used a digital example on your pic to show what I am talking about.

You will see to the right, the corrected or partially corrected pic, then in the middle the photo, then your's to the far right.

Let's go right to it...

I agree with all that was said, establishment and placement is absolute. Getting this before moving toward detail is needed. However, it is not an guarantee that you still won't have to make refinements along the way.

The eye can trick you, so this is why checking your landmarks will assist you greatly.

Right off, I noticed on yours as I was trying to find what was different between the photo and your piece, that the shadows on the cheeks were higher than that of the photo. As you can see, I corrected that.

Then I noticed her left eye, meaning the shadow around it and eyebrow placement, was not exactly shaped right. I made the correction somewhat, though not complete, but just enough to demonstrate my point.

Also staying there at that eye I noticed the width from the shadow of the eye to the edge of the face was too wide when comparing it to the photo.

I made the correction to demonstrate. Also, then if that was too wide, the left face edge is not in the proper place. That right there, even though you got the shape correct, inproper placement will throw the rest of your feature placements off.

I corrected that on both sides though on the right side it was not as severe.

I then changed the location of the neck ever so slightly, as it was off because of the width of the face had been off.

Note you weren't off by much, but enough to add years, as you say, to the face.

OK, I have demonstrated enough. What this is showing is to look and see where a shadow is, then confirm its placement with several landmarks, the nose maybe, edge of an eye and so on. This will help you get everything in the right place.

You are doing great work and I hope I have been some help.

Mark

Mark,

Thank you so much for taking the time to do all that. I have done quite a bit of changes to the piece but it still doesn't look right. I think you are absolutely right about the eyes being liars some times. I think I started off wrong on this drawing by relying only on my eyes and not on measuring, so I think this one may just get scrapped and I'll have to try a new one. I will definetley use your advice for the next piece!

Leslie,

Think I am just going to have to start over. If it works out I'll post the new one in the drawing section. Thanks.

Carolyn, don't scrap it! It's great! The suggestions were intended to help you convey the correct age of the child and they would take very little effort and modification to apply. This is the part I like best about drawing or painting: when the tough work is done and only minor tweaking is necessary to bring the work to a satisfactory conclusion. It should be easy to make those tweaks, especially since you're working in graphite. (Actually, oil would be easy too but I'm not sure about watercolor; that's why I don't use it.) Please, don't scrap it!

"Who's Daniel Green?"
 

I lead off with this quote of a statement I made in another thread to amplify the fact that I am not very much into the world of art around me. I just draw and work. Draw and work. I quickly learned who he is, (although I admit hearing his name mentioned a little around here) and what he has to say about drawing "inside out," which is really the topic of this thread.

I am an "Outside Innie." Here is why. I have noticed that almost without exception, I can recognise an "Inside Outie" by the trouble they have with the eyes. The "Inside Outie" begins with the eye on the artist

When drawing the second eye, your big old hand covers the first eye.

This usually results in the following:

I always follow a procedure that begins with the overall layout of the outline of the head, then the hairline and outline of the face and neckline. The features are laid out last, and often not until the preliminary shading is done. I just draw the eyes in turn. This gives me a chance to build a structure upon which to carefully place the features. It also establishes the overall placement of the portrait on the page before getting carried away with detail.

Granted,the eyes are important. All the more reason to get them right by building a framework for them.

The very best artists can be roped into this method by obsessing over the eyes by drawing them out of turn.

So what are you, an "Inside Outie", or an "Outside Innie?" And why?

I am glad I was merged into this thread, as I somehow missed it before. I am also pleased to see your wonderful drawing, Carolyn. My post is no way a critique of your work.

Measure, measure, measure . . . and measure again.

Every artist with whom I have studied hounded me (and others) about measuring.

In reference to that comment about Daniel Greene's comment about it not being particularly difficult to get a likeness: I've studied with him twice, and this comment is usually in a section of his presentation where he adds that while a likeness isn't that difficult to get, it is the judicious use of color, value and edge that transforms a likeness into art.

I also studied with a charming guy named Charles Cross of Loveland, CO, who told me one time that he got into portraiture because he was endlessly fascinated by "what makes him/her look so much like that." And, of course, if you'll take the time to measure, you'll find out that his/her brow is a bit high/low, the eyes are a bit wide/narrow, and so on.

Chris Saper is dead-bang right, too. Measure, and paint. The likeness is usually the easy part. Making it art is the tough part.