"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.