Riley
 

I need some opinions. While taking pictures of this girl's sister, I snapped a few of Riley lying here. Her mother loves this and wants it painted. What do you think?

:D

Hi Mary,

I would paint this in a minute. It's a wonderful example of the beauty and variations in the color white. The composition is interesting and natural as well. The window is the only thing I would change. Perhaps making it a blank wall, light in color, receding.. The vertical lines of the sofa help bring the eye up away from the strong horizontals. I wouldn't make the stripes so dark, just a tad lighter. You may have to design the folds slightly to bring the compostion back to the girl. It reminds me so much of Cassat's Girl in the Blue Chair. Go for it!

P.S. How's that baby doing??

Hi Mary,

I like this photo as well. I wonder what you think of this slight modification, removing some of the material from the couch back behind her.

Nice classic pose. I think the modification Mike suggested with additional stripes takes too much attention away from the face. I like all the whites, too. The head seems oddly disconnected from the rest of the figure. Maybe it's the lighting. Did you use a fill flash?

Alternate pose
 

Here's a different pose I am considering.

Hi Mary,

Beautiful lighting and expressions in both photos!

I like the placement of the legs and feet much more in the second photo, and I like the hands in the lap better, too. I find the white fabric distracting in both, though, mainly since it hides some of the child's head. Painting all those folds is something I wouldn't have the temperament (nor the skill) to do, particularly in such a haphazard fashion. I guess I would probably want to at least arrange them in a directional fashion to support movement to the center of interest, which is something I would never try to invent. By the way, I very much like the stripes as a counter-balancing directional; I would also be in favor of reducing their contrast.

Since you already have the mom on board as a willing client, why don't you go back and take more film? You already have a successful formula for the lighting and pose. However if you decide to go with your photos on hand, I think you can easily and successfully combine the two.

Hi, Mary,

What lovely, natural, unposed moments. I think they would make beautiful subjects for portraits.

Perhaps the disconnection Michele mentioned is due to the top of the dress being pushed forward, and not resting against the little girl's body. I've pushed it back a little in the attached photo; what do you think? Does the head look more attached to the body?

Yes, it looks much better. Like others have mentioned, I love all the colors in the whites. Fun to paint!

The one thing that distracts me is the way the fabric, behind the girl, rises above the couch. This, to me, is an odd shape. I think if you can reshape, or eliminate this element you will have plenty of information using the two photos to create a beautiful painting.

After looking at the two pictures side-by-side, I think the second one is better for several reasons. One, as Chris said, the hands and feet are in a better position for a portrait, and two, the girl's face is prettier. Since I'm so crazy about photo editing, I couldn't help but play with this one, too. I brought the bodice's shoulder down (which is pushed up and forward like in the first picture), and I also brought her head up just a little, so it would align better with her body. I brought the pillow up with her, so that it would continue to look like she's resting in it. Hope you like it.

What if
 

I agree that the photos are beautiful. Unfortunately, to my way of thinking they aren't good photo reference for a fully resolved painting. The ambiguous nature of the dress lost in the surrounding bed sheets, in my estimation, will not translate well as a painting if you try to recreate the scene.

The folds of drapery should reveal, to a certain degree, the structure of the body and not confuse it. I just don't think this is happening here. I feel the background is also overwhelming the subtlety of the little girl's face. However, if you have a lemon, make lemonade. If I was to do a painting from this photo I would lose the background into a soft vignette and get rid of the feet, which seem floating and detached from the body. I would focus on the face and let the rest of the painting be soft.

I took the liberty of playing with your photo (what I've done is far from perfect) to get across the general idea. Sorry if I offend you by altering it but I think it offers better possibilities as a painting!

Lovely!

Wow!
 

You have all given me so much to think about!

I agree with Giselle about the adjustments to the dress, and MARVIN! Wow, that is beautiful! I LOVE losing the couch. My one concern with this is the mother is "feet" crazy. I know she would like to loose the couch too, but I don't know about the feet. I will show her these and see what she thinks.

Thank you all SO much for your input, I'm getting excited about trying this.

I vote "off with the feet!!"
 

Hi Mary,

I'm with Marvin -- off with the feet -- they are distracting to the beautiful face/upper body.

Save the feet for a standing portrait maybe??

OK, well
 

I have discussed much of your thoughts about this portrait with Riley's mother and these are her thoughts.

1) She is crazy about this picture and the idea of Riley lying down.

2) She really does NOT like the sofa and would like it to fade out or not be noticed at all and also likes the feel of lots of whites, the way Marvin's example worked.

3) This is her 3rd portrait, the other 2 are 23x36 and she wants this one to be the same size. So you would almost have to include the feet to fill the canvas.(AND she loves young feet)

So, knowing the dimensions have to be 24x36 and what the mother's preferences are, do you still talk her out of feet? and then what do you do with all of the odd space? Also how do you treat the sofa?

Thanks so much, I'm getting ready to get started so I need to try to resolve this soon!

I would do several 4" x 6" thumbnail sketches, not elaborately detailed, to explore the questions you're asking. I like Marvin's approach, and think you could get that to work in the size format you're looking at. Do some with and without the feet. If you keep the feet, they work to stop the eye from sliding off the canvas, and redirect the viewer back into the pictoral space. You could knock their value down slightly so they don't compete, or you could cool off the temperature of the flesh to help them recede.

In the beginning of this thread, you mentioned you were taking pictures of Riley's sister. How is that portrait progressing?

Who's the Boss?
 

There is a fine line, between being an artist versus being a pair of hands, that we all must negotiate. For me personally, if a client wants me to do something that I feel won't work, I will do whatever I can to convince them of the error of their vision. After all the painting has your name on it and is a reflection of you. After all, there is no place to write on the painting that the feet idea wasn't yours. I feel we as artists have an obligation to create works worthy of our signatures. That said, she is the boss and it is your decision whether to give in to her for the sake of the money.

If she wants the painting to be a specific size you need to plan your painting and photo shoot around it. Also you could do the painting and give her the option of buying it. Sometimes clients need to see the painting since they can't pre-visualize the way the artist can. The reality of holding a painting in her hands will hopefully diminish what she sees in her mind

Ahhh!
 

Well, I called Sally and said why don't we reshoot this and see what we come up with, she said great, then screamed and dropped the phone.

About 15 minutes later I got a phone call, Riley was apprarently tired of her curls! She had found a pair of scissors and whacked away! Poor Sally, I am going to play with this and see what happens, thank you everyone for your input.

Mary

What do you think of this?

1. Tone down bright areas in the photo - the lower portion of dress, area just below right elbow, area near foot - to keep focus on the face

2. Bring out the hair on the right side of face

3. Uncover the left arm as in the second photo.

4. Remove all extraneous detail from the painting, while still showing the feet.


My computer graphics tools are limited (ironic, considering I earn my living as a computer geek) so the retouching is a bit crude. One of these days, I'm going to invest in Photoshop.

Bet the mom is happy you captured her daughter in these photos before the hack job on the hair! (My daugthers have also taken matters into their own hands as far as hair styling goes!)

I agree with everything Marvin has said about how you're the expert and should try to convince the client of why your vision would work, but I also love the feet! If YOU love them, I think you can find a composition that works. Then everybody's happy.

Defeat de feet
 

Am I the voice of sanity? Perhaps insanity! However I think that including her feet is a mistake. Because they are unclear and the shapes are neither descriptive nor beautiful. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, so why even try?

Here is a painting of feet by one of my heroes, Monsieur Bouguereau. How good was his reference? I believe we tend to overlook the painstaking care the master artists took in assembling the necessary information they required to paint their great works. The truly great ones are those that continually went the extra yard.

If I'm unsure about any aspect of my painting I ask myself, will including it make the portrait better or worse?

I love the photo. I would include the feet, but make the one piece of white fabric that sticks up past the sofa, lay down on the top of the sofa. I would choose the second version of the photo. It reminds me of Alma-Tadema.