Roses
 

This is a completed painting done several years ago which I'd like some reactions to. I won't attempt to color responses by talking about what I was trying to do, but any feedback or pointers would be appreciated.

Hi Leslie,

I think the chid has a lively expression, compliments for that!

The thing which bothers me is how dominant the roses are. The colors and brightness of the roses are very similar to the those of the face of the little girl. I personally feel that painting them darker and smaller would have been better.

Peter

Thanks for your comment, Peter. Yes, that was one of my questions: how the roses work. But I'll hold my rationale until I see if there are any other responses.

I checked out your website; nice work! I liked your portraits.

Hi Leslie,

I agree with Peter on the roses. They seem to be competing with the figure. I was wondering myself how could one make the roses more on the background? Do you mute the colors? Use different colors?

I don't feel qualified to critique a painting better than mine, but it's easier to be objective with somebody else's painting than our own. Just let me say this:

1-Too many centers of interests in one canvas and

2- Too much green with too little variety of color.

The piece has a charming decorative quality. By that I mean it seems like an illustration, very flat and pretty.

It doesn't seem like the child or the roses inhabit a real three-dimensional space. There are a number of reasons for that:

1. The roses seem to exist on the same plane as the child's face, because they have the same level of detail, color and edge sharpness.

2. The faint outlines around various areas of the figure add to the flatness of the form.

3. The flat frontal lighting on the child.

4. There is a narrow range of values.

Is this what you were trying to achieve? If so, I think it's a successful decorative piece, perfect for a lovely greeting card illustration. (Having done some greeting card illustration myself, I remember the kind of thing they asked for.)

The first jpeg may have made the picture appear flatter than the original looks; this one is truer although the flesh and flower tones are missing some of their warmth and pink hue. It was completed about five years ago. I saw the child against those roses and the similarity between the textures and colors of the skin and of the petals really grabbed me, so I painted it this way; the title "Roses" refers both to the flowers and the child and I actually meant them both to have the same importance. It's a rather Victorian conceit - it's very sentimental but then, it's my grandchild. I suspect that accounts for the "greeting card" feeling that Michele pointed out.

I posted this for a critique because someone suggested that the flowers shouldn't be as prominent as the face. It sounds like the consensus here is that they shouldn't be. The point about the flatness of the planes and narrow range of values is also well taken. Thanks for all your input!

Leslie

Whoops! Here it is. This is the third adjustment but the best yet. For some reason I can't do this well myself.

Hi Leslie,

I think it depends on what you are aiming for. You said you liked the similarity between the roses and the face of the child. Without knowing that, one would say the roses are too dominant. But when you want to create a piece in which there is a rhythm or a pattern in which the roses and the child are connected, one can think about taking this more to an extreme and exaggerate the similarities between them even more. But to do this you will probably go into a whole different area than what you regularly are aiming for in painting a portrait.

I saw your work on your website. I like the idea of doing portraits outdoors. I especially like 'Linda's Garden'. Beautiful atmosphere.

Greetings,
Peter

Peter,

This wasn't a standard portrait - more of a figurative work. But if the concept wasn't conveyed as I intended it then it failed, and I need to go back and rethink what I was trying to do. A piece should be able to stand on its own without explanation; that's why I didn't try to provide a rationale when I first posted it.

The latest scan is the closest one yet to the actual painting; it's brighter and there's more contrast than in the one at the top. I don't know whether that addresses any of Michele's concerns but I can see that there should be more tonal range anyway.

Thanks for the compliment on my work. I love portraying people in settings which are meaningful for them. It adds a lot to the statement about them.

The issue with flatness in the form is mostly because of the frontal lighting in the original photograph. This can't be changed, so you'll be limited in how much roundness and depth you, or anyone else, would ever be able to convey from the reference you had.

You could minimize the flatness by removing some of the outlines I see, mostly around the hair, if you're inclined to make changes to this work. You mentioned it was done several years ago so maybe you'd rather go on to something new.

Michele, are you saying that it would be easier to achieve a more rounded, three-dimensional look if the face were lit from the side instead?

And by the outlines around the head and hair, do you mean the backlit effect? I was trying to emphasize the secondary light behind her to separate the head from the background, but apparently that didn't work either?

You're right, I'm not going to go in to make any changes on the canvas at this point; I'm just trying to use this as a learning experience. The issue came up regarding the prominence of the roses, but apparently there's something to be learned about light sources as well. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The single most important thing you could do to improve future portraits would be to light the subject from the side, with only one light source. The light shouldn't be exactly to the side, but rather at about 45 degrees and up 45 degrees. This can be artifical light or a window.

I highly recommend you read the many threads on the forum about how to light your subjects. It will make a world of difference in all your work. A good place to start is in the "resource photo" section of the forum.

There are also a number of great books you should try to look at. Try this link: http://www.portraitartist.com/bookstore/photography.htm

I highly recommend "Professional Secrets for Photographing Children." It gives a lot of tips that apply to any subject (not just kids) and the best part is that it includes simple effective lighting diagrams.

I don't see any evidence of backlighting in this portrait, but what appears to be a light outline around all the areas of hair. Backlight would show more of a directional quality to it, (ie just on the upper left edges, or just from the right) instead of being around everything as it is in this painting.

Good luck!

The proportions and layout look well planned.

Since you are mostly going for tips and pointers, I'll go ahead and add my humble opinions.

One thing I noticed about your work is your use of color. Your colors are a bit unnatural. They appear too "plastic" and too colorful for lack of a better description. There is a pasty quality which may or may not be what you were going for. I'll try not to repeat what's already been said either to avoid being redundant. However I will have to recap on the edges. A lot of the edges seem too blurry and weak. One of the causes of this is using too "dry" of a brush technique. To sharpen the edges and make them pop, try using a medium or thinner and try to minimize the brush strokes. This will also help for creating good hair.

I know you're probably familiar with the work of Sargent so I would suggest that you study his paintings and look at how he was able to achieve some of the effects that he did. It should help out.

Hi,

I'd like to comment that I think this is a lovely piece, and that I would not add depth/modeling to the figure or diminish the roses' intensity. The reason why is that I think the painting works on a 2-D level that is innocent and pleasing, and that the pattern created by the roses and the girl's head are synonymous with each other - she IS a rose.

What I would do to "finish" the painting is:

1. For the background, I'd "weave" a slight amount of light brown vine/stem pattern into the bushes to play off the "vines" of hair from the little girl. This ties in both pattern and color (the background is too "all green")

2. For the little girl, add a "rose applique" to her dress, nothing too bold and maybe you only see a third of it, but again it flattens and integrates the composition, and emphasizes pattern.

Just a different opinion to consider.

Linda

Linda, I like your ideas; you see the painting more in the way that I do and they fit well with what I was trying to say. Which is not to diminish the validity of the other critiques; especially if this were a commissioned portrait I would have needed to focus much less on those roses and more on rendering a convincing, three-dimensional child. As I mentioned, I'm not going to make any changes now; I painted this five years ago and the little one is now almost eight. But I'll be posting another one for input here to see what reactions it gets. And then perhaps I should post one that I *think* is well done and fits all the proper portrait criteria and see how I fare with that. Thanks for your suggestions.

I like this piece, not so much as a portrait, but as a nice design with a beautiful child. The only thing I would change is the intensity of the green. I would tone down the green a bit. I love the color of the child's skin and the roses, and find the design very pleasing. It seems to me to be like a "poster" rather than a portrait. I know this is the "portrait" forum, but there is nothing wrong with using people for decorative art.