Soaking Wet
 

Hi again!

This was my very first pastel portrait. It is my daughter, Marissa, soaking wet in the bathtub. You can't tell much - except the glistening on her face (it's water).

I sprayed this with fixative, then I noticed it became a little "fuzzy-looking". I've decided not to use that anymore.

The face is also a little warmer than I liked, but I thought it was fairly good for the first one.

I don't know that I can make any changes, because of the fixative, but any critiques are certainly welcome!

10" x 8" on Strathmore pastel paper

Thank you,
Dianna

That post came out a little blue. Here is a better photo of the portrait.

Great work, Dianna.

I'll leave the subtler points to those who are qualified to make them. But I do have one bone to pick. You have some very sharp, narrow shadows around the face, behind the baby. That's a dead giveaway that you've copied a flash photo. The flash makes those shadows, but you don't have to include them in your painting.

Otherwise, very nice work!

Jeff,

Thanks -- yes, I'm real bad about drawing EXACTLY what I see. That's good and bad. I don't think I can take those shadows out now. I'll try. Thanks for the advice. I'm learning as I go along. I have gotten some great advice and tips from this site! Before long I ought to know what I'm doing (ha).

Thanks again,
Dianna:o

I think it would be risky to try to remove them. It's just something to keep in mind when working from photos in the future.

There's no mechanical or chemical reason why the application of fixative would prevent you from making alterations in a pastel. In fact, the intermediate application of fixative, with or without an additive of particulate such as pumice or marble dust, is an oft-recommended method of restoring "tooth" to an area that has become too saturated with pastel (or just worn down) to remain workable.

The problem that you may encounter is that the fixative may have changed the values and hues in your painting. Therefore, you'll likely not be able to simply reach for the exact same pastel sticks you used in the first go around.

There's extensive discussion of views on the use of fixative in pastels somewhere in here, but I've been insufficiently clever to conduct a successful search for the thread. Even moderators get the blues sometimes. I'll keep looking.

But even if you can't match the hue and value exactly, just softening the edges of those flash-induced shadows would help reduce their harshness.

As for copying the photo "EXACTLY" (as you put it), that's at the very heart of almost all cautions about the use of photos. It's a worthwhile exercise, just to see if you can reproduce with absolute accuracy the shapes, values and color, but it doesn't result in a piece with anywhere near the emotional or artistic content that a deliberate, controlled lighting scheme would offer. At the very least, give yourself license to eliminate the obvious photo "clues" -- the hard-edged shadows behind the subject on both sides, the "catchlights" in the eyes that aren't in fact highlights but are merely direct, dead-center reflections of the flash, the bright round spot of highlight aimed straight at the viewer from the middle of the forehead. Those sorts of things.

Others likely have a different take on the placement of your signature, but I'm always a bit uncomfortable with a signature placed alongside an edge of the figure (or even "shaped" to fit some curve within the figure or the clothing). Once you've gone to some trouble to create a shape bounded by an edge (with whatever lost and found qualities you might incorporate into that edge), it seems a shame to compromise it by using it as a guide for a cursive or "handwriting" style of signature, placed in whatever attitude (here, nearly vertical) the edge happens to present. While it's very important that the signature be handled as part of the overall composition, it can look a little gimmicky when it's kind of "hidden" in or around the central portrait subject. By analogy, you wouldn't, after writing a letter, squeeze your signature into some available space within the body of the letter -- between paragraphs, say -- but would give it its own distinctive placement and purpose.

Steven,

Thank you so much for your critique. I will try to soften the edges of those shadows -- if I can't eliminate them totally. I have not used a flash since I learned about it from everyone on this site. I am very much a beginner in photographing my subject. I posted my newest photograph of my son (my next victim) on the critique section about the photos (I can't remember what it's called). I used only natural lighting.

This was the first time I put my signature along the lines of the subject -- experimenting. I won't be doing that again, either.

Do you think a different color (darker or brighter) background would benefit this portrait? It would be easier to disguise the harsh shadows and redo the signature that way.

Thanks again for your time!
Dianna

No, don't try to change the background. That will implicate all the edges of the figure and it will be a nightmare, probably spoiling the piece.

My saying that you could apply pastel over fixative was intended in a more general sense, rather than as a suggestion that you should do it here. The fact is, those shadows are so dark that it will probably be impossible to eliminate them even with layers of the light background color, and even if you could, it would only be by loading gobs of pastel into those areas, which in turn would make them stand out anyway.

If you tinker with it at all, you might just lightly smudge a zigzag of pastel down the hard edges to soften them, and leave it at that.

I would, however, reduce the size and intensity of the catchlights in the eyes, and move the one on our left off dead-center (it should match the catchlight in the other eye).

Steven,

I did successfully lighten those shadows. I used a tortillon (spelling?) over it lightly to loosen the fixative, and that also smoothed out the edges. Thanks again for the advice. I'll do a better portrait of her later (she has lots of hair now). It's time for a new one anyway.

Thanks again,
Dianna