New mother and son
 

I started this one last night and worked way too late. I'm trying William Whitaker's Nupastel technique, but got carried away (again) and added more colors. I think I have to do much more blending and lightening of mom and son's face and skin tones. Now I'm wondering if I should go back to all earth tones ( the browns and reds) ditch the gold tones in her sweater and use soft beige in the baby's garment.

This is my step-daughter Alice and her new son JD. I took this photo when he was 2 weeks old. I'd like this to be an heirloom for my husband so am willing to start over if neccessary. Your guidance will be sincerely appreciated.

Jean

Couldn't keep my hands off it
 

As I walked by this painting I fully intended to leave it alone for a while. Haha, couldn't do it. Here's where I'm going with it. It's 24 x 17 inches, Canson Mitientes in sand.

Jean

Jean,

I would work on the mom's hand and make sure that
the fingers are anatomically correct (the ring finger and pinky in particular looks funky), before building them up further through the use of color.

Study your own hand first and observe how the nuckles are slightly wider and how the fingers taper as they get closer to the fingertips. Fingers that are stretched still have little bumps and protrusions that will reflect or cast slight shadows.

Hands can be a challenge, but they can add so much to a painting, when successfully rendered. Have fun!

Ready to stop now
 

Well, done but for any suggestions you may have.

Jean

Close up
 

Jeremiah Deacon (JD), my new grandson.

Close up
 

Alice

Jean,

The hand and fingers look so much better now. I really like the closeup of Alice. She looks so angelic and reminds me of Italian madonna painting.

Italian Madonna
 

Hi Enzie,

Alice has that very classic Greek, Italian look of the old Masters. Her heritage is Portuguese/Welsh, but has none of her father's Welsh look. It took a while to get the hand right, it had to look correct anatomically and still be supporting the baby gracefully. I had to change it some from the actual pose cause it just didn't look right as you noticed.

I can see already that I need to work more on JD's frenulum (under the nose). It's crooked.

I couldn't seem to stay with all conte in red tones. So decided to limit the pallette to all earth tones, very soft. Did some new things on this that were really fun. Michael, I used your stiff dry brush technique for blending. It was really painting with pastel! Thanks. I also used William Whitaker's kneaded eraser trick and actually felt like I was drawing with it. I had two brand new ones, never used one before. So, a gratifying experience all around. Thank, you Cynthia, for this Forum.

Jean

You're welcome, Jean!

Reference photo
 

Here's my reference. I had converted it to black and white to work on values, now I don't know how to change it back. Oh well, I changed a lot of colors anyway because of the monochromatic theme.

Jean

Jean,

I

Steven
 

Hi, again I've printed out your comments and will post the results when I'm done. I knew I could count on you to help me create the perfection that I'm looking for.

One question, is this an example of a well done piece of art or is it more on the line of a greeting card illustration? No offense is meant to any of the illustrators on the forum. I hope you understand what I mean. I loved doing this work, and wish all my projects had this much personal involvement. Please be honest.

Thank you for your time,
Jean

Oops, I referred to Mom's eyelid on our right. It's her right, but on our left. Sorry for the confusion.

Okay
 

I got it now.

Jean

It's a nicely executed pastel that may or may not work on a greeting card. (I used to freelance text for lines of alternative greeting cards, and it's not easy trying to guess what will have broad, much less targeted, appeal by the time it hits the market.)

All things considered, were you not constrained here by the reference photo, I think some changes in composition would be effective, but really, you've done some excellent drawing in difficult perspective and handled the pastels very well.

Have I weaseled out of that one yet?

No, not yet
 

What changes in composition would you suggest. I won't be changing the composition on this one, but for future reference. This was also a picture that I just happened to get. Alice isn't really very motherly, so this pic was unexpected.

I wasnt hoping to sell this as a greeting card illustration, but somehow it looks like that to me. I wanted to do something that showed "love". Does this make any sense?

Jean

Wow, feet to the fire. You're a serious student, and I feel terribly unworthy to counsel you. You realize, of course, that I'm not a real doctor, I only play one on TV. (I don't even have a Master's! -- Dr. Science and I just hang out. I wish.)

Let me say merely that upon first viewing the initial post, my 'composition" thoughts were that the mother's and baby's postures -- spines, if you will -- were parallel, both riding hard across the same angles of the piece. Even with the relief of the mother's hand, it wasn't much relief. Mom's head to baby's head to Mom's hand is only at a slightly different angle of the same line, running hard out of the picture. It's like streaks of shooting stars through the night sky.

Mom's hair drops straight down our left side, almost a hard frame -- but that's not what you want. (Some of the variation that you obviously searched for in the hair-to-cheek contact might have been sought in the left (ours) of the hair mass.)

All I can say is that some kind of circular or roundabout visual track would serve you well. It's hard to say how the constellations might have been better arranged to suit the zodiac. But I think a turn, with more of Mom and less of child, might have been a place to start.

If I were a computer whiz, I'd 3D turn this to focus on Mom's expression and less on the baby's full-on expression. Let's face it -- except to dads, grandmas, other interested parties -- babies kind of look alike, from any angle. I think that this is a portrait of Mom, with infant. (Yes, okay, maybe a Madonna and Child, as long as we're not talking about THAT Madonna and THAT child.) I'd give the infant less importance, artistically.

But I only practice medicine on TV, and art-talk here. Did I say that? (All pros reading who would like to consult, now is the time.)

P.S. I knew about your greeting card reference. I was goofing.

Is your shingle still out?
 

Just teasing, Steven. I agree about the hair, and the circular composition. I'll see if I can pose her next time, she'd be an interesting subject alone too, her face is very dramatic.

I was hoping that her hand and lower arm wrapping up on the lower right would break that strong diagonal.

I have to disagree on one thing though. All babies are not created equal! I've seen some pretty strange looking infants. My oldest son was nicknamed Kojack and cue-ball until he was over a year old. Now he has hair almost down to his waist that I would kill for. I have to paint him.

Jean

Perhaps a new thread here . . . I don't know if we can get away with "Baby Pictures". Maybe "Future Portrait Subjects".

I know what you mean -- even at two weeks, my kids were beyond being mistaken for anyone else. Cherubic as they were (little wings and everything), I'm not sure a portrait in oil or pastel would have offered much more information than the 6,723 photographs I took of each.

And of course, now I'll never know.