(Updated) Needs more Ummph?
 

This is a work in progress, and my first paid :) portrait commission.

For some reason, I feel like this portrait is just lacking impact... Not sure if it's the lighting (it was very neutral/gray in the original reference photos, so I pushed it to more warm/cool - was that the wrong decision?) or just that the eyes lack a highlight (should I add one? - there was none in any of the reference photos taken that day) Any other ideas?

(I should note that their hair, limbs and his shirt are still very rough!)

Acrylic on Canvas,
20" x 24".

Thought close-ups of their faces might be helpful.
Him. . .

. . . and her.

You've got a nice start here. Congratulations on your first commission!

What distracts me about this is the placement of her arms. What is she doing with her hands behind his back? It's awkward. If there is any way to change that, I would.

Hi Kim - Thanks!

You're right about her arms... her hands were actually folded over each other on the rock. I've been wondering if I can just tuck them in closer across her belly so that the arm is foreshortened from her elbow to wrist as if it's across her tummy there and have the folded hands showing on the rock in that little gap between them... I'll have to play with it.

They're just roughed in, but here's what I was thinking I'd do with the arms...

I like that much better - looking good.

I think you need a wider range of values in their faces. Look at the picture in black and white and you'll see that there is very little change in value at all. You used different colors to indicate shading, but kept the same values. Am I making sense?

Someone once said that the values do all the work, but the colors get all the credit.

Jeff, I think you hit the nail on the head, that's why the painting seemed flat. The underpainting had a lot more value variation in those shaded cheeks, - didn't realize I had lost it when applying fleshtones. Hadn't thought of converting the image back to greyscale to recheck the values - will make that a habit from here on out!

Thanks so much!

Updated image (progress as of 10/26), with a wider value range in the faces, also the arms and legs further along. Still working on the faces.

and close-ups. . .

I've still got some work to do one her upper lip (edges and deepening shadow immediately under her nose), and her hand (pushing down the light values/contrast a bit so that the hand recedes), but otherwise think this is getting pretty close. I'm meeting with the client Monday to make sure she's happy with the likeness before finishing touches and varnishing. (Sorry, I can't post the reference photos at client's request - but I think the likenesses are good).

Several families in the same neighborhood as this client, have expressed interest and I suspect the success of this painting will impact whether or not any of this interest is converted to commissions.

So -- any critiques, comments would be more than welcome. Thanks!

and him...

Hi, Terri,

Well of course without the reference I could never resolve this for myself, but I've always had the sense that the girl's far cheek (on our left) bulged out just a slight bit excessively. The distance from the tip of the nose to the edge of the face "seems" okay, as does the distance from the corner of the mouth to that edge. When I stroke the Photoshop brush between those points, however, and remove some of the convexity in the line between them, it just looks more natural. Of course, reality trumps assumptions like that, but it might be one last thing to double-check.

Hi Steven - Thanks!

I'm not posting the reference in deference to the mom's wishes, who felt it was OK to post a portrait of her kids, but didn't want an actual photo on line. The reference photo for this girl was not actually one I would have picked (and should NEVER have shown to the mother!)- but of course, that was the one she HAD to have. The girl is very pretty in real life, not heavy, no double chin, but in the photo, not only were her teeth showing (I tried to downplay them with not too much contrast, but still keeping the overall shape etc.) but she had her chin pulled in giving her the appearance of a double chin.... So, I did alter the chin (removing the extra one) and pull in the contour of that cheek by about 1/8 of an inch between roughly even with the upper lip and where it meets the chin. So, you're right that the cheek was not spot on... but the alteration was somewhat intentional and the mom likes the likeness. So I guess I'm stuck with it for now -- though I certainly didn't intend for it to look unnatural! Hopefully it's not too off that a non-artist would notice?