Romancing the Stone
 

The good news was that it was a commission. The bad news was the resource photo. I think that this is every portrait artist's nightmare. The client in this instance is very attached to this photograph and I am sure will take a lot of credit for the success of the portrait (if there should be any) :). The photograph was taken 15 years ago, so the models are too old to patch in information that is missing. Actually the skin tones in the photograph are not too bad and I think that I can work well with the heads and hands. But the composition?? ;C I would really appreciate any help here - especially with cropping and background.

Dear Clive,

I doubt this is the answer you are interested in, but this is a case of sow's ear, silk purse. This photo lacks every possible element you will need to create a successful portrait: lighting, composition, color, and value. Cropping and background treatment can't rescue it.

I know how difficult it is to say "no", but I recommend you do so anyway. This client is talking to you about a commission because she believes you have an expertise she does not. Offer to take your own photos; offer to go through her albums with her; send her to a photo resotoration expert. You will come to regret it if you proceed - this I know from own experiences, recalled with great mortification.

Hello Clive,

I think that I would agree with everything that Chris said. If a gun were put to my head I would go for something like this.

Hello Clive,

Hopefully you'll be able to work from different references as Chris suggests. If you have to use the photo, I do like what Mike did, however I have recently read that the best way to create a successful portrait of two is to have them interacting with one another. In this case I think you may be able to remedy the pose by having the mother's eyes looking directly at the baby. That way they would not be competing for attention as they are now.

:) Good Luck.

I agree with Mike and Carolyn. I would definitely try to find some more photos of these people in that time period and attempt to stitch something together. Optimally it would be nice to find one of the child with eyes cast upward so that he or she was looking at the mother, just as she should be looking more at the child. I would also try to keep a hint of the rocking horse. Although it's an unusually unattractive one it helps provide focus. The whole thing looks doable to me.

I'm working on a portrait of a couple which is to be a surprise from their children. I have a number of photos with which I'm supposed to patch this masterpiece together but I'm enjoying the challenge. His head is taken from one photo, her body and dress from the same, her hair and approximate age from a second, her face from a third when she was much younger, and his shoulder from a photo I just took of my husband in a blazer because I didn't have a shoulder for him! Thank heavens for digital cameras. Possibly Chris would have declined the commission with those handicaps but the people are attractive and as Lon Haverly said elsewhere, in effect, I'd rather work than not. Go for it, Clive.

By the way, I love your work! I'm sure the finished painting will be lovely - much nicer than your references.

Just say no!
 

Clive, I completely agree with Chris.There is no way a painting done from this material is ever going to produce a good painting.

Do not ever change the eyes from your reference. That can make for some really creepy portraits.

Sincerely

I'll add my two cents and agree with Sharon and Chris. Better no commission than a bad painting out there with your name on it. I don't think any amount of painting skill could rescue this one.

Ooops, sorry about my post. Please disregard!

Thank you Sharon for being so honest! I really do appreciate it! I will never try to change eyes from now on! Your work speaks for itself! And I do appreciate your teachings so much! :D

Carolyn, I think your apology is unnecessary. Everyone has to experiment and see what works for him or her. Sharon and Michele may well be able to go through my portraits and find many errors so I am not attempting to speak from any level of expertise, but I have occasionally changed eyes from my reference photos and no one has ever seemed to find the resulting painting at all troubling. On the other hand I have sketched from life since I was a child and only went to photo references later in life when I began to do oils; this kind of apprenticeship is essential to understand anatomy and know what liberties can and cannot be taken with it.

I would not go so far as to echo John's vehemence because people need to find their own comfort levels and the other opinions were offered with sincerity and doubtless echoed their own truths, but certainly there is no one right answer. I find working with less than ideal reference photos to be a challenge because it forces me to be creative with my material, but it definitely is not to everyone's taste. I do agree with John about the lovely paintings that Clive has submitted thus far, which is another reason why I would be quite comfortable seeing him tackle this particular commission.

Thanks Leslie

I guess I am just trying to convey that I felt embarrassed after giving advice since others know SO MUCH more than me! I suppose that's why I don't post often! Thank you though for lifting my spirits! I hope to post something GREAT soon ;)!

Best Wishes to you!

It's not about guts...
 

Administrator's Note: John Finnegan's earlier post where he refers to the "gutless advice" given by artists before him was deleted. The following posts refer to the one that was deleted as being outside proper etiquette for this Forum.

It's about what makes a good painting vs. what makes a good photograph - further, it is about stacking the deck in your favor by using only the best reference you can get.

Bad reference only makes your job that much harder. Portraiture is not about copying photographs - it is about creating good paintings that are somewhat timeless and "live" on the wall.

In this case, the reference photo is not good and I feel that I would have a pretty hard time making a good painting out of it. It is lit by a flash which has reduced the value transitions and created a lighting situation which is not appealing. The left arm of the lady is odd and subtracts significantly from the composition. The figures are not in very interesting poses - it looks like a photograph does - a captured moment, not something that is timeless like a portrait should be.

That said, if you do decide to take the commission, then you will need to do a significant amount of rework and extrapolate some forms in order to make it a better painting. You will want to move the lady's arm into a position where it makes more sense and it shows her interacting with the baby a bit more - a lot of extrapolation there. You will want to expand the field of view so we are not so close into the forms - there are too many edges cut off - at least extend it on the bottom. Again, you will have to determine the position of the lady's legs, how the rocking horse extends down, and define the baby's feet and legs.

You will hear the professionals on this forum arguing a lot for using the best reference - that is because we have experienced the tragedy first hand by fighting bad photos and trying to make a painting that is good from them. After one or two of those, you begin to realize that it is just not worth it - not for your head, not for your heart, not for your portfolio, and certainly not for your wallet. A lot of extra work and time to make something good from something not good - you end up making pennies on the commission if not losing money all together.

So it is not about guts, it is about being a professional portrait painter and what that really means - jaw droppingly good paintings every time, without fail. You don't get there from bad reference.

I stand by 'gutless'
 

First of all, I object to the idea, 'I couldn't/wouldn't do it, so you couldn't/shouldn't either'. That was the attitute that prompted me to come out with 'gutless'.

Second of all, the photo reference is actually quite good. Go to the SOG main page and sift through the portrait artists there. There are no great painters there. Some are good, and a lot are average, but none are great. What I'm sure about the painters there is that they all had glowingly beautiful reference photos for their paintings. So, big deal? The quality of painting is still, on the whole, very average. The great photo reference doesn't matter, and the ability of the artist does.

The photo reference here is a perfectly simple and strong balance of lights and darks. The values are already there to make a strong painting. It rather fits Clive's way of painting even.

Clive,

Crop the photo a bit on the right, up to near that vertical fold of the shirt. You'll want to make the background a solid or near-solid dark value (like however you did it in the girl with the hat and the girl's back). Keep the picture to three or four values, the simpler the better. Bend the kid's right leg into the picture, resting it on the horse. Move the woman's right hand to the horse's mane, and point her left hand/arm towards the baby in a casual way.

If you hit the values right, the mother and child will just radiate from withing the painting, and the owners of this fine painting will spread the word about you.

Post updates on the painting please, I don't like to write here, but I stop by to look around.

John

(Message to Khaimraj Seepersad: I private messaged you, but never heard back)

John: Let me suggest that you go and read the rules of this forum in the Posting Guidelines and Proper Conduct Section.

If you cannot abide by them, then you need to go elsewhere.

I couldn't find the posting guidelines. I wanted to be a little tough because I thought there was good info to get across about the possibilities of this painting, but it was getting muddled with ego. I get riled up sometimes and I don't mean to offend, but I will call it like it is. In that way at least you'll know I'm sincere when I say something is good (like your Chase and Peyton and Clive's Woman's back painting).

Anyway, today was kind of an day off for me, and tomorrow I'm back to work and won't have time to post. A regular one-hit wonder.

Good luck to all,
John

John: I apologize if you could not find the section. Let me direct you to:

http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1673

and

http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1671

and

http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1629

No worries, and I hope it helps you to better understand our replies to you.

Your paintings
 

Mr. Finnegan,

Since you find so many of our (SOGS) paintings average, I would like to see your paintings.

Could you please post a few for inspiration? We all like to learn from painters who have a real mastery.

Sincerely,

Excuse Me? If you look at the complete list of artists represented on the SOG site you will find more then a few very acclaimed artists. And there are artists among them who work from life and not from photos at all, so your statement that they all had glowingly beautiful reference photos is irrelevant.

So Mr. Finnegan, please give me a link to an artist who you do consider a great artist. And maybe let us know a little about yourself so that we can learn who this great art expert is. I would very much like to know where you learned so much about how to create a great painting from a poor photo. I could use that information the next time I am asked to paint one from inadequate reference.

Kudos to the professionals here who maintained the respectful calm in the face of provocation.

Special note of thanks to Michael G., for manning the watch with conduct above and beyond the call. Your service decoration is in the mail.

Steven

One man's ceiling is another man's floor
 

John Finnegan has voiced an opinion that has obviously pushed quite a few buttons. I don

[quote]I don

Performing Miracles
 

Interesting how this thread is developing! :) Actually I am reassured at how most of you responded. Initially when the commission was discussed, I had not seen the source photo. When I eventually saw it my heart sank. Then the hubristic artist in me said, "Well if you are any good you should be able to turn this water into wine!" I think I would have been utterly intimidated if you had come back to me and said "Sure, easy as pie. Just do a little classical drawing of it first, slap in a little underpainting and using William Whitaker's palette you should, if you are any good, come up with something that is right up there with Bouguereau's finest pieces." :D

(By the way John, I am not sure how to take your comment that the photo "rather fits my way of painting" - as a compliment no doubt.)

However, this thread does have a very happy ending. Since joining this Forum I have noticed a strong need to improve and challenge my own art (something that the source photo could not achieve). It would have been very easy to do a painting that would have resembled the original source and I am sure the client would have been happy. But that is not what it is all about, is it? I would argue that the client is not the most important person in the portraiture process, it is the artist. Engage and challenge the artist and you are more likely to get a good portait. I think that portrait art would be in a sorry state if we catered to the artistic sensibilities of the client. And every time that I looked at that portrait I would have cringed. So, I have persuaded my client that although the photograph has tremendous sentimental value to him, and that I see that he has the potential to make an 'excellent photographer', it is not the stuff that good portraits are made from. I am in the process of convincing him that a portrait of his sons playing the Bass and the Cello would have the makings of an excellent painting. If he accepts this, oh my gosh, I will be back asking you about William Whitaker's palette. ;)

Re: One man's ceiling is another man's floor
 

Mr. Mattelson,

Thank you for that post. It really exactly sums up what I was trying to get across. I can't think of anything else to say that you didn't cover right there.

John

Re: Performing Miracles
 

I maybe saw something in the paintings you posted that you didn't. I saw a lovely sense of strong, simplified shapes. I can almost see the painting that could have resulted from this reference, and it would have been good. I'm not trying to put pressure on you. You might want to check out the portraits of Louisa Matthiasdottir and David Hockney.

John

Mr. Fournier,

Velazquez and Anders Zorn. Zorn worked from some truly awful black and white photos and made great paintings. It's no big secret how he did it.

John

Mrs. Daniel,

I suggested the Studio Products site because I thought that Clive could benefit from searching through the forum there. I know that portraiture is big business and the atmosphere of this Forum reflects the heirarchy of the business. The SP forum is a much more hands-on, finding-solutions-to-problems type of place. They are two very different places, each with some value.

John

To get back to the original question. Is this a good photo to use to paint a portrait from? I would have to reject it because the subjects do not interact therefore a painting done from it would not communicate anything.

The test of whether a painter is great or not probably doesn't happen in their lifetime so I would not presume to express an opinion on any living artist's work.

As for all the other discussions in this thread, all I can suggest to those who visit this Forum is that they read and read. I have spent years obsessively studying classical portraiture techniques and I have achieved a far greater understanding of the subject over the past few months since I have been visiting this site.

Cynthia, I have done many searches of the web and still haven't found a site which comes anywhere near this one for quality of information, classy appearance and ease of use. You may not paint portraits but you are an artist nevertheless! :)

[quote]I don

Clive,
 

In painting a portrait of one person you are painting that individual. If you are painting more than one person, you are painting a relationship. A child and a mother are no longer Joey and Sally, they are Madonna and Child. If there is no connection between separate individuals in a group portrait, I think the painting is flawed.

On the bad photograph brouhaha, in my classes, I find students going out of their way to make things difficult. I tell them there are enough challenges involved in doing a good painting without intentionally putting road blocks in your way.

It seems that every year I will have an excited student show me the reference material for their first commission. Invariably, it will be something like "...seven figures, full length, Grandma's in a wheelchair, and the finished product no bigger than 16x20." (I am not making this up, this was an actual "commission" a student brought to me. Oh, she would get $500.)

When I suggest the artist might be better served by turning down that commission and doing 10 noncommissioned 20x24 head and shoulders portraits, (which would take much less time than the 7 figure painting), they say they "like the challenge" (...see paragraph two....)

I'm glad you seem to have worked it out, Clive. Know that those of us who have cautioned you to, in the words of Steven Sweeney, "Put down the photograph, raise you hands over your head and slowly back away", that we are saying all this after learning the hard way that we only have so much time on this earth, and spending six months slaving over a bad painting that we will not be compensated for either monetarily, through knowledge gained, or by producing portfolio material, is not the best use of our time.

Peggy

New York
 

I agree that this portrait forum is head and shoulders (pun intended) above the other forum sites and I too feel safe here. I appreciate the decorum and gentleness in which most of us conduct ourselves which is obviously a reflection of Cynthia's genteel demeanor. This is why I too choose to play here exclusively.

That said, I look for the meat of the message and not the packaging. I also am not offended in the least by being denigrated by someone I don't know from Adam, (after all, my work is on the site) even though, as I have previously stated, one of my goals is to be universally loved.

I may not agree with his assessments but I am always interested in hearing other viewpoints. I chalk up his lack of diplomacy to his unfamiliarity of

Ahhhh, that is sad, but I am glad that you are here with us Marvin. I live in a small place where complete strangers smile and wave as they pass by. In my artsy little rural town we don't need our "deflector shields" raised, so an attack of any kind is a nasty jolt and sends us running for cover.

Anyhow, I find this Forum a breath of fresh air and so necessary for artists like me who live and work in isolation - yet want to be in the company of other artists. Incivility doesn't work for me.

Not so sad
 

I'm glad to be here too!

Incivility doesn't work for me either but I deal with it. I've had contact with many crude exteriors that have housed hearts of gold. On the other hand I've dealt with gracious gentleman all too happy to stab in the back. I've learned to not judge books by their covers.

The day my youngest son graduates high school the moving van will be backed up to my front door. Meanwhile, my family and the wonderful people I am privileged to have in my classes provide me with a terrific core of nurturing.

Also the museums and the auction previews at Sotheby's and Christie's provide me with the greatest teachers that have ever lived.

And of course, the meditative and nurturing act of painting always soothes my soul.

Mr Finnegan
 

Sure, I will agree that these are great artists, but how about someone still alive today that might be around to answer questions and give instruction?

Velazquez was dead long before film was invented so he would never have to deal with photographic reference of any kind. He would, however, ask the subject to pose as he wanted and in the lighting he wanted. You will not find a single Velazquez portrait with the poor lighting of a camera mounted flash unit.

As for Zorn's use of B/W photos - he took them himself with the subject in a pose and composition of his choosing, and these photos he used were supplemented by life. His photos were not flash photos, which flatten form. B/W film (even the glass plate negatives used by Zorn) has a greater value depth than does color film of today...and values are more important than the color. I am familiar with Anders Zorn's work and I do not recall seeing a poorly, flash lit portrait among them. And his best work was painted from life and not from photos at all. He did not even start to use the camera until late in his career. And, although he is dead so we can not ask him, I have doubts that he would create a portrait using a photo he did not take himself and without having the subject pose as he wanted.

I am sorry, but you have not convinced me that you are sharing practical knowledge that will help anyone here. If you think that a even a good portrait painting could be produced from this photo then kindly prove it to me - find a professional portrait artist that will take this commission based on this reference alone. I would love to see the painting. But since Anders Zorn is now dead I guess we can't have him do it; so who do you recommend one should hire for this portrait commission? Since you say "The great photo reference doesn't matter, and the ability of the artist does" who do you feel has this ability who is alive today to paint this?

My intention is not to have you prove anything about your ability to paint, since you may have a lot of training and knowledge beyond your ability to paint. But, please, I would like to know where you get the idea that good planning of composition and proper reference are not important.

Proper reference, unless you are going to have your subject pose and paint from life (which I highly recommend), along with good preliminary sketches, is of utmost importance to producing even a good portrait. Oh, and in case you feel that is a gutless way to work, I can back that statement up with quotes from some of today's most highly acclaimed portrait painters. But maybe that would not mean anything to you, since you name only 2 artists that are not alive today to ask their opinion on the subject. And the fact that a few of these artists actually have a page or a link on the SOG site which you so quickly discounted as not having the ability to produce a great portrait.

As for your advice: This still will not solve the problems of the lighting which is most important in any painting, or the fact that the baby's leg is cut off. Also the fact that pulling off the changes you suggest without any new reference and without doing some sketches of the subject from life would be incredibly difficult. In the end, it would still, even with the most skilled artist, produce a less then desirable painting.

A great artist might be able to produce a well- executed painting from this but it would not be a great painting. And they would have to make up most of it from their head since the reference does not offer the information needed to make the changes you suggest. The artist who is posting this photo is not even close to the skill of Zorn yet you would have him go ahead with this painting that even a artist as skilled as Zorn would have a hard time pulling off. And you think that is good advice?

Re: Mr Finnegan
 

I'm glad you took the time to write, Michael. Yes, he often supplemented them by painting from life, but to my knowledge, he always edited and composed to the canvas. He used photos to get perfect values in his paintings, and a general layout, not to mechanically transfer the subject
It's a matter of taste, I guess. I, and many others up here, think his best paintings were his bathers, where he did use photos.

You'll never find any initials after my name, but I would do it for $500, 16" x 18" or so. It's really only a two day job.

The composition is handed to you in the photo, and it's a dynamic one (I spelled out the minor adjustments). There are three main values in the picture, which is all you need for a succesful picture. If you need a photo to come up with a decent flesh tone, you shouldn't be a portrait painter.

This is very, very simple stuff. Anyone that claims to be a portrait artist can do those changes I mentioned in their sleep. The only hard part would be painting those enormous glasses... seriously.
I saw the painting of the girl in an orange hat. He would do fine (I'm not trying to embarrass the guy). Best of all, the commission giver would be thrilled, and the world would be spared another painting of a cello.

I'm sorry for the eye strain, I can't figure out the proper quote function.

John

I wonder how many people, excellent portrait artists or no, could actually extrapolate a baby's leg or a woman's arm where none existed in the reference material. In a recent post someone mentioned needing to begin drawing as soon as the model left so that the memory of the features would still be clear enough to obtain a likeness. People have varying degrees of visual memory; I could no more sketch in those details that make a person's face unique from memory alone than I could fly. Nor could I fabricate a leg where none was present in my material. When I painted the governor and his wife I changed the length of the shirtsleeve that the client requested because my reference photo didn't reveal that part of the subject's arm, and I didn't want to paint something that would not ring true. There is often a distinctive quality even to an individual's upper arm which I would be loath to ignore. So although I felt that Clive's reference photo provided him with some good information, I would definitely have needed more photos of the subjects to give me everything else I needed to make the necessary changes, were I to have embarked on that commission.

This is an interesting thread which is taking on a life of its own. Glad to hear that you've resolved the issue for yourself, Clive! Please share whatever comes of it.

Performing miracles
 

John,

Far from being embarrassed, I am flattered at your perceptions of my ability based on a few photographs of my work posted on this Forum.

Do you have any specific references to all of those "cello paintings"?

Re: Performing miracles
 

Clive,

No, I was just kidding about the cello. I've noticed that one of the first things a painter (and parents) will stick in a kids hands are instruments and pets. There are probably more creative solutions.

John

Post your paintings
 

Mr. Finnegan, I would agree with Marvin that it can be of benefit to us to get criticism that sometimes disturbs the sense and security that we have about our work. It is even more important that we are familiar with the source of that critcism so we can judge its value.

It is easy to take potshots at us, we have our work up to review. I have asked you before to post your work as to be able to better weigh your advice and observations of our failings.

Sincerely,

The composition in this photo is unexecutible to me as a painting, so, no, I think it is not handed to me. And who said anything about the flesh tones? And three main values? What does this mean? Personally, I would want a complete value range in my reference. The face in this reference is reduced to just features with out good modeling light by the flash.

Oh, I would like to see this simple stuff pulled off well. Even the great Sargent struggled with parts of paintings, and that was with what he was painting sitting right in front of him. You seem to have a rather strange view of what is simple and or your idea of a finish is different from mine. Although a slight change in a pose can be done easily, even the best of artist will have a stand-in pose in the new position or use their own hand or use part of another photo as reference when making a big change - and the changes you note are big changes, since the right hand is not visible at all in the reference photo.

Since you insist that it is easy, and that this photo has such great information, I must ask please post some of your work. I really would like to see it, since you have to be one of the best artists I have ever had the chance to meet. I say this because I have had instruction from some very, very talented artists who would still not make the kinds of changes without reference of some kind to guide them, even if it was just to do a sketch of someone else in the position they wanted.

The instructor I most admired would have refused to paint any commission from any photo (except maybe a if the person was dead, but in that case he would want many photos of the person so he could see their features from different views) since he only worked from life. Although he could paint from memory after his subject left he would never make changes like you suggest from memory. He would have the person pose again in the new position. Why? Because it is not easy, as you say, to pull off the changes as you say and not have it look contrived or unnatural in some way. Moving a arm more than 1 inch affects everything else, not just that arm.

Just curious
 

Marvin, would you paint a comissioned portrait from the photograph referenced in this thread?

Sincerely

Hmmmmm!
 

Short answer: I would.

Long answer: I would have to be reimbursed for the amount of time it would take due to the fact that this would involve a great degree of difficulty.

In my previous life, as an illustrator, I frequently had to deal with creating believable paintings around mediocre head reference. I did a number of movie posters that utilized the following strategy. I would find models who looked similar to the subjects needed to be depicted. At the photo shoot I would recreate the lighting set up and arrange a composition around the original head positions. It's a heck of a lot more work.

Not all paintings have to be in form lighting (this is the most ideal lighting) to be effective. Norman Rockwell created some beautiful paintings in a front lighting condition (like the photo that started this discussion). So did the Pre-Raphaelites.

The bottom line is, I feel that I could indeed create a painting that would be beautiful and satisfying for the client. If people have an emotional attachment to an image and they are looking to have it manifested as a painting, they can be very happy with less than my greatest painting. Would this be as good a painting as one I had carte blanche on? Probably not, but sometimes great achievements can be manifested in spite of cumbersome restrictions.

I feel as a portrait artist, my first obligation is to please the client and prepare them for what I feel I can best do under the circumstances. Forewarned is forearmed!

I wouldn't recommend that anyone not in full command of their artistic faculties try to do what I just described. DON