Indoor vs. outdoor photos
 

I have two photos which I like. I think I am partial to the first one, shot in my favorite window light with 400 speed film.

The second, shot a couple of feet from the first on my front porch, could be cropped in several different ways. I think I am partial to a cropped version. I thought I would post it as I shot it. After you get the pose you want, if you widen up a bit it gives you much more creative flexibility after the fact.

Here is one cropped possibility. The arm is a little too much of the scene for me.

Hi Mike,

I just returned home from an Oklahoma trip - you should get to the Cowboy Hall of Fame before September 8 to view the "Prix de West" exhibit showing William Whitaker, among other great contemporary artists.

Anyway, about the photos here, I find the indoor photos lack a full value range. Look at the darks in her hair. While I agree there is a lot of color to be observed in black hair in shadow, the indoor light gives everything shot in front of this window a mauve-cast. While this works sometimes, and certainly you shoot and paint beautifully, I think your indoor photos might be limiting your full tonal palette. Does this make any sense? I've noticed you use the same value range in your outdoor work, however, so this might just be your unique "voice" as a painter, the way you see light falling on objects.

If the latter is true, is a camera as unbiased as people seem to think??

I don't think I understand. I want to understand. The indoor photo seems to go from way light to way dark. Do you mean that it's just all light and all dark and nothing in between? If that's it, then it's just my technical photo limitations showing.

Say this one more time, only different. I can be a little thick at times.

I'll try to be articulate this time. Look at the shadow on the girl's cheek indoors vs. the shadow on the girl's cheek outdoors. On the indoor cheek, the color is very greyed out on my screen, and very mauve/chalky. I don't have a value scale in front of me, but I suspect the darks here are only at about 4 or 5. The outdoor cheek shows color that is much more saturated, not chalky or greyed down.

As for tonality - the outdoor photos seem to have a broader tonal range, which helps flesh out your paintings. Here's a link to a Kramskoi portrait on this forum http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...light=kramskoi (you may have to scroll down to see it) -- while I do not feel its necessary to have a wholly dark portrait with only the face lit, I do notice that in my work, if I don't use a large value range, the work stays too flat.

In other words I notice a distinct "palette" in your indoor photography. My last comment about the camera not being so "objective" after all refers to the fact that your photos have a very distinct voice -- someone could pick them out of a pile and assign them to you, it is your handwriting, very unique. Your recent painting of Victoria (I think I'm remembering correctly) shows this same beautiful color scheme. Was the light in the Caribbean the same as the light in your dining room?

My only relevant observation is that you might want to explore a broader range of tonality in preliminary sketches. Most of your values seem clumped from 1 to 4 or 5. I'm not suggesting you change anything, but you might be interested in your results, if you shake it up a little.

Mari,

My philosophy regarding photography goes something like this: I have worked more than a little to bring my skill level up to where it is. But where it is, is OK with me. What I want from a photo is a road map which gives me good composition and a reasonable modeling of the features. I know that there are several skill levels above mine regarding photographic excellence. I just don

Mari,

As an after thought...some of this window lighting signature you speak of may have to do with the fact that I often use a soft focus filter. These filters will create a soft hazyness (chalky?). They also will smooth out some complexion problems in close up shots. I am ambivalent about their usefulness regarding the end product painting.

...and of course none of the above is anything but another "self-taught" painter mumbling about light. Who do we need permission from, God, Pepsi Co., Congress (such a complex world) perhaps some Internet-based painter copyrighted the term.

When it comes to my own work, I'm blind in one eye and can't see out the other.

The filter, huh? And here I thought Tulsa was the supermodel capital of OK.

Dear Mike,

I just have to comment on your wonderful options here. You have two excellent opportunities. I see very much how you use your own awareness of the camera's limitations and refuse to be a slave to it. As a matter of fact, the camera never, ever tells the truth. You have to tell yours.

As I look at the two options posted, I am struck by the different, and equally strong, impressions I get about your (gorgeous model, BTW) subject. I am compelled to gaze back at her in a very inviting way in the first option. In the second, I feel that I must stand at bay. I like the idea of starting out with a resource image that has impact.

It is a pleasure to see your work and read your very gracious comments.