Samantha
 

This is Samantha, my latest work in progress and I need help with the shadow areas.

According to my notes,

Original Black and White Reference Photo.

Closeup. She has one brown eye and one blue one, isn't that neat?!

Enzie, she is a girl after my own eyes! (heart) I am not fond of burnt sienna, and would have opted for some other color. But you used it well.

Enzie, I thought I would give you my feelings towards the composition and color. I won

Lon and Beth, thank you so much for your comments. I haven

Hi Enzie,

If the painting is dry you should be able to experiment with glazing some darker values into the shaded areas.

You may be too focused on what you perceive to be a problem. When you restate the darker value to a shaded area, don't step back and focus only on what you have just done. Step back and look at the whole painting with a very general gaze.

Also, in this regard, if you just pick a single spot and created a darker value, you will have possibly changed the overall value scheme. What you have done may have been completely right but until you follow through on other areas it may look wrong.

I think your painting could use some of these darker values. I too struggle with this.

Mike,

My husband and daughter both agree with you about my being too focused on the shaded areas. They both think it looks good and recommend against darkening the shadows on her skin. I think it's time to work again on the background and the dress and re-check the values.

Enzie,

I actually think that most of the problem exists with the outdoor photo (I'm guessing outdoors). When you photograph outdoors, in the open, the light will wash out most of the values that you would like to have, giving a very homogeneous flat look. I think that if the photo had more of the darker values naturally, you would see them and paint them naturally.

Your perceived problem may be rooted not so much in your abilities as a painter, or even in your ability to see things correctly, but in what you have chosen to view.

Months ago, somewhere on this Forum, Karin Wells said (paraphrasing): "At this point I don't fret so much about how to paint as much as I do about what to paint". This is one of those pearls that sticks with me. In a sense we are like actors, our careers will be judged as much on our ability to pick parts, as on our ability to play them.

Mike, you are so right about all the points you have made. I, too, like to be able to dictate what I like to paint and in what settings, but at this stage of the game, being humble and subjective is the order of the day.

It seems that getting the larger value shifts correct will be much more important than those smaller areas you were asking about.

Take a look at the monochrome version of your painting that I posted just now, alongside the reference and -- this is really important --squint.

The face in the painting lacks a three-dimensional quality because the values are much closer overall than what the reference photo shows. The left and lower parts of the whole head need to be darker to create a sense of roundness.

The same is true with the overall value of the bodice of the dress. Because the plane of her chest is vertical, and even facing downward slightly, it is much darker than the upward facing plane of the skirt.

I think that getting these large value masses correct will make a very big difference in the painting as a whole.

Squint, squint, squint!

Michele,

I have to appologize for not being able to reply right away to your suggestions. I have been extremely busy.

I had worked some more on the painting and had actually done some of the things you have suggested by using the monochromatic setting through Photoshop. I still don't know what to do with the shadow next to the eye though (viewers left)and have to find the time to check out toddlers at the park on a sunny day.

Well, I just wanted to make sure to thank you for taking the time to offer suggestions.

This example may make it easier to see what I mean. Using the eyedropper tool in Photoshop, I grabbed a sample of the values from the lower left and the upper right areas of each baby's face.

In the photo reference you can see that there is a huge difference in the value of those major head areas. In the painting, the value is almost the same when comparing the upper right to the lower left of the head.

Photoshop is a great tool for clarifying and checking this sort of thing, but if you squint, the difference is also quite apparent.

Hope this helps!

Michele,

What a terrific graphical demonstration of your point!

I agree, and great illustration, Michelle.

Furthermore, once you get those basic values and large shapes correct, you'll see where placement of the features is off, throwing "likeness".

That dress, by the way, is absolutely fabulous.

Enzie, you wrote:

Doing that won't help you, and will actually make things much harder for you.

The value of that little shadow is important, yes, but just a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the importance of the value issues you'll need to sort out first in the overall head.

Also, looking at other kids' heads with vastly different lighting angles will cause you far more confusion than help. Just study your original photo.