"Take Five"
 

Owing to a variety of plans and circumstances, my son and I will spend very little time together between mid-May and September. Though he is 13 now, keen observation suggests that he will be 21 when school starts again, and so I determined last week to get something of his present image and demeanor on canvas. It started out well enough and I had great expectations, but now I

Here it is Steven.

Hi Steven,

I like the moody atmosphere. I have a little suggestion but see for yourself what you do with it. The sax is a metal instrument, you can use the dark overall tone of the painting to make the sax extra shiny (is that proper english?, I'm sorry, it's not my native language).

To paint metal more convincingly the old masters used to make the parts around that metal darker, so it glowed in the dark. Perhaps you can do something like that in this work? Just a suggestion.

Greetings,
Peter

To clarify what I mean , I did a little 'retouching' of the image.
But see for yourself if this is what you want with the painting.

Peter

Thanks, Peter, your point is very well taken, and in another context (a still-life, perhaps) I would have pushed the "metallic" quality of the instrument, but my challenge here was to represent the saxophone in somewhat muted tones and hues and somewhat soft edges, so that this didn't become a portrait of a saxophone. The low light situation already means that the face is keyed down somewhat, so I felt that everything else, even metallic reflection, had to be understated below the face values.

I haven't tried to paint a lot of metals -- this was a challenge.

By the way, the original painting's darks in the shirt are darker -- I had hit them with retouch varnish before photographing the piece, but of course that introduced some unwanted glare. So the sax actually has a bit more contrast to its background than may appear.

Thanks,
Steven

P.S. Later note . . . I'll sleep on your suggestion. Perhaps a bit more reflective vibration from the sax would be, um, instrumental. Or I could have a light beam trigger a John Coltrane ballad whenever a viewer stepped in front of the painting. But then there's the tenor-alto thing. Gilda Radner was right, it's always something.

I miss Rosanne Rosannadana, wasn't it Mr. Fader from New Jersey who wrote...? Getting into obscure ref. I like the tone and mood of your painting. It seems very well executed. I think you doing the artist/father/artist re-re-rethink.

I like the painting as it is anyway. Judging from the picture.If you finish it this way, it's a good painting I think. I wouldn't change too much in it.

greetings,
Peter

Don't break up your light
 

I really like "dark, moody and atmospheric"...perfect for a young man who is just entering those interesting teen years.:sunnysmilI love this portrait!

Anyhow, I think that you have lost the unification of the light in his face...i.e., the left eyesocket is much too dark for an area that is surrounded by light.

Here is a crude (sorry) example of what I am talking about....in the picture on the right, I lightened your son's left eyesocket in Photoshop.

It is subtle, but I hope that you can see what I mean when you compare it to the unaltered pix on the left.

Shadows that are in the light are never as dark as a shadow in a dark area.

A few words: Steven, you are one cool guy! I LOVE your portrait!

We all think Steven is cool...and we need to tell him so he keeps coming back and making his delightful contributions to the forum!

Steven,

I think you did a great job on your son's portrait. It is beautiful. I just enjoy reading what you have to say and how you say (write) it.

I would leave the sax as is and maybe lighten the left eye as Karin suggests but only a tad. Even if you didn't, it doesn't bother me. I think painting the people you see everyday can be particularly difficult.

Do you think you caught his likeness? He is a handsome boy if you did. He must be fighting off the girls. I still see some pink cheeks!

I like the way you used the red and green. The green has enough earth tones in it so I am not reminded of Christmas colors. They work well together.

You should be pleased with this especially if you caught his likeness. What size is it?

Thanks, folks. Sometimes you know what's bugging you about a piece but you need to have someone else's confirmation to bring your focus to bear on it. Karin, I understand what you're getting at. I've noodled around with that eye a great deal and had begun to do so somewhat carelessly and in frustration, which is part of why I stopped the presses and decided to post the piece for critique. A couple of days' worth of Hippocratically doing no further harm to the patient. I surreptitiously "studied" the structure of my son's eye this morning before he took off for school. One interesting thing about that eye that I'm just going to have to capture is its Scandanavian structure (from his mom), which includes an upper lid that is slightly "fleshier" than we'd normally expect, creating a bit more body shadow than "usual" right above the upper eyelashes and falling obliquely in quite a straight line to the outside corner of the eye, rather than following the spherical shape of the eye. (Can you tell that I can "see" the eye, I just can't paint it, yet.) The fullness of that area should be -- and isn't quite yet -- picking up more light than it is. I have had the whites of the eye lighter, too, but it made him look like he'd been assimilated by the Borg, probably because I've got the iris and pupil too dark. Then there's the issue of the eyeglasses, most problematic on the shadow side of the face, where I have the challenge opposite the one you mentioned, Karin -- not wanting a too-bright value stuck into a dark area.

As for size, it's an oddball 20-5/8 by 26-1/2, a prestretched linen format I bought in a Chinese art store. Should be a lot of fun trying to find a frame. The size was deliberately chosen to accommodate the composition in a slightly less than life-size rendering.

Mike -- Was there ever again a line-up like Gilda, Laraine, Dan, Bill, John, Chevy, Jane and Garrett. And I'm still operating under advices (and dispensations) offered by Fr. Guido Sarducci. (Talk about dating oneself.)

Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks, I'm taking notes as fast as I can.

Steven

Good job Steven.
The only thing I can point out is that the left eye seems to be lost in the shawdow. If you could somehow define it a littlemore. Or maybe your scan doesn't do it justice. Anyhow, I am attaching a rough fix up that I hope illustrates my point.

That's a pretty good call, Joseph. My former instructor just e-mailed a similar observation. I'm going to have to drag my son back out to the studio after school and make some quick colour notes. The challenge, as Karin alluded to, is that the lightest light in that eye shouldn't be lighter than the darkest dark in the other (save perhaps for an accent or two in the latter). Easy to state, hard to "see".

Thanks,
Steven

Later note: For the benefit of those trying to learn something from this process, my statement above of a "rule" shouldn't be taken as gospel. In fact, on reconsideration, I now feel that the rule does not apply when the form itself dictates a dark shadow even in an otherwise lighted space. A deep indentation is going to be filled with shadow, whether on the lighted or shadow side. There will be a difference in intensity (just because of reflected and ambient light bouncing around), but it will be very peculiar to the shapes and lighting involved.

This is a wonderful portrait! With all respects to Karin and her genius, I disagree with her eye shadow thought. But I think Joseph's sax thought is a consideration, though certainly not a requirement for this painting. You have the final say: artist's license. Regarding the eye being lost, I think not. The shadow in this particular area will be its darkest right here, because of reflected light on the right most side of the face causing it to lighten a bit towards the right. I like the fact that you dared to leave it dark. If the face were lighter in any way, it would not match the rest of the painting. You would have to follow suit with the shirt as well. That would be a mistake.

I would do about half as much as Joseph did with the sax, so that the metal has a little more sparkle in one or two spots, but not so much as to compete. I think you wanted to feature your son more than the sax.

I like the shadow values. Some would feel compelled to show more light in these areas, especially the face. It is very subjective. I think that is the beauty of this painting, and certainly on of the most difficult decisions as well. It would ruin it to change part of it. It is very well balanced in my view.

It is very much a Sweeney. THAT is a compliment. Your style has come through here.

from Cynthia:

Ah, if only I were that easy.

But, I contradict myself . . .

Anon.

I really like the mood of this portrait. I don't feel qualified to get nitpicky on technical stuff, but I know it gives me the feeling of being connected to the boy, of looking into his eyes and understanding something. It is a sensitive and touching piece. I do find myself looking for more of the left eye, but I think that would be the case even in person, with someone in shadow. That could be a good thing!

I just finished one of my daughter, and if I ever get better with understanding this new Nikon camera, I will post it. Right now I feel as if I need to go to the Borg School of Technology to understand it! Anyway, I just wanted to say Well done! I really like it a lot! :thumbsup:

To be honest, I think the eye is good as it is now. I feel that you lose something of the atmosphere by changing it.

Peter

Not exactly what I said...and here is the general principle (I call it "the uninterrupted flow of light") and what I meant in my comment:

Light flows across an object in a path from the center of intensity (highlight) and should not be interrupted by any dark shadows in its flow. (i.e., shadows appear lighter in the light - they never equal a true shadow).

True shadows ought to connect into a pattern whenever possible (the eye on the left is "disconnected" therefore it ought to be slightly lighter than the eye in shadow on the right).

Light should be separated in a consistent manner from shadow. No light should appear in a shadow and no dark shadows should appear in the light. (i.e., the left eye shadow breaks the flow of light and must be lighter than any single shadow on the dark side of the face.)

I believe this to be a solid principal of handling light and not just my subjective opinion. It would apply to all other areas of this painting found in the "path of light" ....I just mentioned the eye because it was so darn obvious (to me).

I hope that this clarifys what I have been trying to say...please look at any painting by Vermeer to see an example of this principle of how light flows in an uninterrupted fashion.

Steve,
Quick and crude, here is my suggestion for your portrait of the young Paul Desmond. (I bought "Take Five" forty one years ago to test our first stereo).

I like the overall concept but want (or can't) to see something in the shadow areas and dabbed some light into the face on the shadow side. For what it's worth I thought the light in the dark area might provide a counterpoint to the dark eye on the light side. Did Dave use counterpoint?

:)

no further comments...

Okay, okay, I do comment!

Karin will probably tell us that there are things happening in those vermeers which prove her point, about how the light falls. But hey, who cares about the rules !?
Steven is the painter, and he is free to do what he wants with the painting, rules or not.
And... if you really, really look close at the works of someone like Rembrandt you will find many, many inconsistencies with the so-called 'rules'.

Peter

Dear Steven,

I really like this painting too, and am not troubled with the darkness of the face. (If you want to try to tease out some info in the shadows of your source photo, light it from the back [p.65 BTW]) If I were to suggest anyuthing in the value department, I would perhaps lighten the value of the background, without changing the hue, toward the right side of the canvas; a slight value shift would explain the silhouette, and not require any more info in the face shadow.

In the Sax department, the ony change I might make is to shift the temperature of the highlights from warm oranges to cool tones. As you know, I am rather compulsive about color temperature; not knowing your light source (it could go either way), because the other hues in the sax are very warm, I'd probably go for a little temperature relief, value and temp, but not very saturated in hue.

Best wishes, Chris

Thanks everyone. I've certainly been given enough to think about, so that I can move back into the studio today and put your contributions through their paces. I'll activate Lon's "Undo" software in case my execution doesn't come up to the level of my intentions. No doubt I'll be able to post the results in due course. Wherever it is in a couple of weeks is where it'll have to stay for the summer.

For the record, my inclination is to try at least a little bit of almost every suggested direction, while maintaining the overall mood and sense of the piece as it appears now. I can do a different look when I get him back out to the studio with his guitar. It's 6:15 a.m. as I write this, and from his room next to this one is already emanating shock-rocker licks at woofer-warping decibels. I'll probably have to transport that sound out to the studio to get him to tolerate another portrait sitting. A painter/dad has to remain flexible.

Geez, my 200th post. Now I have to start paying the SOG surcharge for excessive use of bandwidth and disk space. I'd better just go paint for a while.

Cheers,
Steven

For Peter Jochems:

:) Your kind and thoughtful examples proved my point and I thank you so much for posting the Vermeer details.

As you can see, only the Vermeer on the upper left has the shadow on the left eye disconnected. This is a good example that shows how Vermeer understood the principle and made the shadow lighter in that (left) eye socket.

Rules can indeed be broken. But the principle that the rule is based on cannot be broken if one is to paint well.

And yes, I agree, Steven can paint any way he wishes too.

Dear Karin,

That very last sentence, that's the only thing I wanted to hear.

Peter

Uh . . . Short time-out, or "Take Five"

I'm familiar with most of the contributors and am able to "read" their styles and I once again thank every respondent who took the time to have a look at the piece and comment. I'm a sponge for information and I have soaked up every available drop from this critique thread, which I have now collected in a vial and am using as my medium for the revision. I obviously cannot implement every suggestion, but no contribution was without value, if only because it made me articulate for myself why I might not carry it into the piece. But again, I appreciate what everyone brought to the table.

Cheers,
Steven

Hi Steven,

When I put the portrait of your son next to those heads done by Vermeer, I wanted to prove that similar situations of how the light falls can be found in the work of Vermeer. Of course it would be a subject for debate, but that's not why I post this message.
Just wanted to say that I hope you don't get the wrong impression of what I wanted to say with it. It's unfair for anyone to get his or her work compared with the great masters, I didn't mean to do that. Just wanted to make that clear.

Greetings,
Peter

Thanks, Peter, not a problem, I understood exactly why you posted the pieces. I understand, too, that cyber communication to all involved in the discussion is fraught with difficulty, because we can't see body language and don't have eye contact and can't possibly know everyone's background and we're all here on different premises and under different conditions.

Stick with us, we have the odd quirk and incident but as a group we're probably as civil and as informative as most groups of right-brainers.

Cheers,
Steven

I tweaked the portrait in Photoshop, giving it a little more contrast and less brightness. I think this still preserves the moodiness while giving the portrait a little more energy and also bringing out the highlights on the sax without making it dominate the painting.