"Monica"
 

I know I haven't done much posting (was away at two painting workshops--will discuss them in another area!), and I haven't really introduced myself, but here I am requesting advice on what you think of this photo.

I took a lot of pictures of Monica on a very sunny day, and decided none of them worked well for the type of informal, relaxed, outdoor portrait she would like. So she sent me a stack of photographs her husband took, and there were several good prospects, but I like this one best. I know it's backlit, and as a snapshot it might not provide me with enough detail, but can you see any other things I should look out for? Anything I should emphasize or play down?

I've already done a value study and a color study, and will put them up as soon as I take a picture of them. Looking forward to your valuable and much appreciated input!

Value study for "Monica"
 

This is the value study of "Monica." OK, I admit it, there was no face in the original. I created that entirely on the computer.

Another thing, the picture of Monica is very dark. I will lighten it and put it up again.

Lightened photo of "Monica"
 

Hope this turns out better.

Color study of "Monica"
 

This is the color study. Needless to say, both studies were done FAST.

I await your comments with anticipation!

Monica
 

I was not approving at first. But, as the pictures became more lightened. I could see the values better. It appears that you are on the right path. The only comment that I can make at this moment is the white blob at the top of the picture behind the roses. It keeps drawing my eye to it and out of the picture. You may want to take it out or toning it down considerably.

Hi Gisele,

I think this is a great source photo, and that you will enjoy painting it. I agree with Tom that the white blob is a problem. When I cover it with my hand, though, I feel that the composition is too heavily weighted to the left. In lieu of the blob, I might think about scattering a few skyholes along the hedge, with the larger sky holes to the right. They will be shapes that need no other explanation and allow to move the viewer's eye in a comfortable way.

Good luck!

Wow, this is great!
 

Thank you so much, Tom and Chris! This is what I was hoping for: to have someone draw attention to something I wasn't seeing. Maybe it's because I know Monica so well that the entire composition of the photo eluded me. My eyes are always drawn to her! The "white blob" (a bit of sky) will certainly be toned down, or redistributed, as you both suggest. I saw what you meant when I covered it with my hand, Chris, the composition was definitely off-balance. So I'll play with those pieces of sky, and put up the results on the critique area of this forum. I believe that's where painted progress reports belong.

Thanks again, and any other comments are welcome, too!

As a back up, I also noticed that the lightened wall in the second photo tends to direct the eye out of the picture. I would suggest that you handle the wall as it is shown in the first darkened picture and put a shadow in as a stopper that would direct the eye downward to the feet which would direct the eye up the legs into the face.

Response to Tom re: wall values
 

Thank you, Tom. I agree with your comments. I see how the eye is led out of the frame in the value study, and how this does not happen in the color study, where that part of the top of the wall is darker. I will definitely darken the wall as in the color study. Thank you for taking the time to help me. Watch for the results on the 'critique' section.

Hi Gisele,

One last thought about the skyholes, if you choose to employ them. They are always darker in value than the sky, when the sky is shown. So they would be rendered in a blue, rather than in a white.

Chris,

I'm really curious about the natural phenomenon that makes this happen. I know that the sky is always more blue overhead than near the horizon, so my inclination would have been to make these "sky holes" light, since they are exposing a part of the sky that's low (near the horizon). The darkness, or blueness (is there such a term?), to which you refer, does it occur because of the surrounding vegetation? Would it be the same if it wasn't vegetation, if one was seeing sky through fence holes, say? Is it because a smaller amount of light is coming through? Does darker equal bluer? I want to know because this is a very important concept. I'm sure this won't be the only time in my life I'll be confronted with this situation, and I never would have known to make the sky darker/bluer in those sky holes.

Thanks again, Chris, and I'm really dying to know the reason.

Gisele,

I am definitely not a landscape painter. However, I can offer some information from John E. Carlson, "Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting", page 57:
I can't speak to the optics involved, only that this is a matter of observation. In the case of your painting, the light you see in the photo has more to do with the value clumping problem of film than it would if you were painting the scene from life. The sky holes in your hedge need to be darker than you show them, but still light enough to read as sky through the hedge. They need color, so you would want to consider a greyed-down blue, of a temperature you need to decide.

I have used this same principle in painting hair, where bits of background show through. The "holes" in the hair get a darker, greyed-down version of the surrounding background color.

Although Carlson's book is on landscape, every portrait painter should read it too, since it is overall, a book about observation.

As to the optics involved, I will attempt the rationale behind the deepening of the color, not much, but, a shade or two darker. The suns rays striking the particles in the air causes the atmospheric disturbance which changes the color of what you are visualizing. Those images in the distance are dim and blurred. Those images that are closer to the viewer are more sharp and colorful. So, when the tree shades those air particles between the viewer and the object being viewed, there is less atmospheric disturbance to distort what is being seen. Therefore, it will appear a shade or two more pronounced than that which is seen on the perimeter of the object being viewed. This is pretty general but does it make any sense?

Chris, thanks for the tip on the book. I'll have to spend my life's savings and get one. ;)

This is fascinating stuff! I never cease to marvel that life keeps presenting one with new opportunities for learning. I never knew this! And it seems like a kind of important thing for an artist to know!

Before sitting down to write a response I ordered "Carlson's Book of Landscape Painting," as well as your book, Chris. So many people have raved about it, that I intended to do so for some time anyway. I thank you for this important information.

Thank you, also, Tom, for your insights. You've both been very helpful.

The books have arrived, and I've spent hours perusing them. There is no doubt that "Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting" will serve to enlighten me for many years. Thank you for recommending it, Chris. And, I think I've read your book, "Painting Beautiful Skin Tones with Color & Light" twice by now. After reading it once through, I keep going back and forth for specific information.

The painting workshops I attended in Woodstock, NY recently, had already introduced me to a complementary palette; your book supports and confirms what I learned. On the whole, there is so much excellent information, and many useful demonstrations, that I would advise any portrait painter to have a copy of it in their library.