Young Woman
 

Hi all,

I haven't been here much due to my shoulder, so I've been doing some landscapes, thinking they would be easier. Ha, this is a whole new ballgame!

But, I'd like some feedback on this photo. I fell in love with it as it came up on the screen. I also have about 100 other reference shots that will help me.

What do you think?

Jean

Hi, Jean, long time no see, and sorry to hear that the physical impediments are still in play. Also -- I've tried some landscapes this summer, thinking I needed a break from the "too hard" portraits, and what a shocker. I have a renewed, deeply felt reverence for landscapists.

I tried to capture your image, using two different browsers, to no avail -- not your fault, but the result of my dial-up connection on a noisy, semi-rural line and my antiquated software. I'm not going to do anything about either, as I'm gradually becoming a happy Luddite.

So I'll have to just use words to say that I would definitely not try to produce a painting from this photograph. It simply cannot pass even the initial "squint" test, which shows a dark, roughly human-shaped object in front of a brilliantly-lit background. You would have to invent about 80 per cent of the lighting to make this work. Better to begin with a better resource. Your subject is interesting and beautiful and deserves to be placed in lighting sufficient to bring out those qualities.

Hi Steven, and how are you? I'm surrounded by so much beauty, I finally decided to paint some of it. Certainly not as detailed as portraiture, but it's taken awhile to just duplicate green!

I've changed the exposure on this shot, maybe this will help change your mind. I also cropped closer so you can actually see more of her face. I'm not worried about the background, as I won't be painting it exact anyway. Can you squint better this time? I love the rim lighting in this, so please fire away if you think it will still be an awful painting.

Jean

Using my personal limitations as my guide, I have to say that I would still have trouble making a satisfactory painting from this. The extremely narrow value range in about 95% of the subject would have to be handled more deftly than I could manage, in order to communicate a sense of form.

I understand the allure of rim lighting and in fact one of my all-time favorite paintings (I guess I may as well admit that it

Now, twelve hours later, I'm looking at your second post on a different computer (Mac), different platform and browser, and different eyes (no lights on other than the monitor), and some of my "objections" or cautions are lessened.

I guess you'll just have to try it out and see what works. That will be the only answer that matters in the end.

I blew the photo up to a 7.5 inch head size, stood across the room and looked at it. I don't have to squint, just take my glasses off (instant blur) and I could easily make it out. I'm glad you took the time to check it out again, thank you!

Everyone loved this shot as soon as it came up, she looks so classic. I really want to try it, so I may give it a shot. If it doesn't work I should know quite early on, and will simply go with our second choice and start over.

At least you've helped me be more aware of the problems I'm facing with this and I appreciate your honesty. The background is blown-out in this shot, but I have others that aren't. When I was actually photographing it certainly was not this light. It also was photographed on my front porch, so all I really have to do is go outside to see the accurate colors.

My landscapes have mainly been of the view in my own yard. It was time to paint what I see everyday. Not as easy as it looks.

Jean

Hi Jean,

I've attached a modified version of your photo after using Photoshop's Levels and Brightness/Contrast controls. I don't think the lighting is a problem with this photo.

I'm not sure I like the facial expression or awkwardness of the shoulder and strap on our left, though. Just my opinion. Lovely model. Can you post some of the other shots you took?

Hi Michele,

Thank you for your reply and many, many congratulations! I've listened to the silence and thought much about Steven's comments and have been negotiating with the client about this particular pose. I love the backlight and the softness of her face in this shot. I also didn't like the arm position on the left and have done some studies. I moved the tree from the background to the forground and that works much better. No awkwardness, and it stops the eye instead of leading the eye right out of the painting. My biggest problem with this shot is her other arm. I want her hand in it. Period! She lives out of state, so I can't get her back here till Christmas so I will have to use a stand in. Then see if I like that.

I have many other shots that I love also, but they seem so "normal". I'll be back in later and post them. As I said before, I've been talking to the client about two other poses that were nice. So I'll post those.

Jean

Jean, I don't readily venture into this particular area of the forum often, but this is a perfect illustration of how difficult it can be to read form from a photograph.

I return to Steven's first advice: I was able to capture your image and put it up next to a Waterhouse drawing of a girl's head in a similar pose but lit in a way that describes form instead of hiding it. The Waterhouse girl is very softly rendered, but the light is clearly describing the planes of the head and the features of her lovely face.

Hi Mari, I'm surprised to see you here, but glad that you decided to take a look at this. Thank you for taking the time to illustrate your point so beautifully.

I think I fell in love with her hair in this photo, and now I'm really seeing the dubious decision to base my choice on "hair" and not her face.

Here are two more shots that show form much better, and one just for personality. I could not get this young woman to stop smiling so we're going to have teeth in this painting!

I've lost her hands in one shot but have another showing the same placement, so I'm unconcerned about that. She's looking right at her mother and I like the love that shows so obviously in her face.

We also have the direct gaze toward the camera, which also is very engaging. She was sitting on the porch railing, hence the weird look of her hip on the left side. I would change that, and tone the brightness way down. I couldn't get her off the railing either. She said she was a little shy----Haha, no way! I loved working with her.

Of course her true colors came out with her "little angel" pose.

Jean

Since I haven't really chosen my ref yet, I've done very little cropping and no studies.

Hi Jean,

Just a little something to think about. Should the shoulders be lowered to show the neck more like in your latest references?

Hi Allan,

It's good to be talking to you again. Are you referring to the first pose? I think the problems there were with the lack of light on her face. I'm glad that you pointed out the shoulders also, they are quite high.

Jean

Hi again. This is the ref we are going with. I'm happy because of all the wonderful colors in her skin, and the expression on her face. Eyes are highlighted very nicely. I didn't like the posed look of her hands, so I went with a cropped version.

I'll be bringing the background trees up, but they will be very loose. My only concern right now is the post. I like the variation of texture and the strong vertical, but may not be able to pull it off in paint. So wish me luck, or doom me to failure! ;)

Jean

I forgot to mention, I'm removing the tree on the left and replacing that area with more leaves. Also, the area of her hair the "kisses" the post will changed..............must have no tangents, must have no tangents, must have no tangents (repeat to self twenty times a day).

Jean, what about cropping above the bend in her nearer arm? Also, couldn't you eliminate the post altogether? If you are painting an upper body portrait, a simpler background often works better. All you would have to do is take another reference photo of her in the same position, but move her out slightly from behind the post so that the light falls on her left (our right) side.

Hi Alex,

I'll sleep on your suggestions, thank you for commenting. I can't reshoot her as she lives out of state and I won't see her again till Christmas. But I will go through my shots again to see if there is one with her farther away from the post.

Jean

If she is not available, you could use a stand-in. You already have the shape of her arm; all you need is to see how the light falls.

You're right Alex. I'm going to remove the post, and get a stand-in for the lighting on her arm. But why crop it above the bend in her arm, I've always felt that an arm leading straight down looked blocky, boring, etc and I love that little sensual curve of a soft bend. Her left arm creates the slight impression of a circle and keeps the eye in the painting.

Convince me. What is your reasoning? Please keep in mind that I value your opinion and respect your talent, I'm not being argumentative, just curious.

Jean

Hi Jean,

Convince you? Oh-oh! Well. . .I think the way you have it, the hands look cut off. In other words it says to me, "She can't paint hands." Now of course I know that is not the case!

I tend to see portraits in terms of certain groupings. There's the "head-and-shoulders," or "head-and-upper-body" which takes in the torso. But when you get down near the hands, it seems odd not to put them in. But honestly, Jean, everybody's got their own way of looking at it. That was just my reaction.

Hi Alex, hmmmmmmm. i don't know if I'm convinced yet. I never considered that someone might think that I cropped it there because I couldn't do hands! I just love that sensual little curve in the inner elbow,
and the circle that is created with the folds of the fabric and her arm. I think I'll do studies of this both ways and see how they turn out. :sunnysmil

Jean

I've continued this topic in the "Works in Progress" section.

Jean