Interesting how this thread is developing!
Actually I am reassured at how most of you responded. Initially when the commission was discussed, I had not seen the source photo. When I eventually saw it my heart sank. Then the hubristic artist in me said, "Well if you are any good you should be able to turn this water into wine!" I think I would have been utterly intimidated if you had come back to me and said "Sure, easy as pie. Just do a little classical drawing of it first, slap in a little underpainting and using William Whitaker's palette you should, if you are any good, come up with something that is right up there with Bouguereau's finest pieces."
(By the way John, I am not sure how to take your comment that the photo "rather fits my way of painting" - as a compliment no doubt.)
However, this thread does have a very happy ending. Since joining this Forum I have noticed a strong need to improve and challenge my own art (something that the source photo could not achieve). It would have been very easy to do a painting that would have resembled the original source and I am sure the client would have been happy. But that is not what it is all about, is it? I would argue that the client is not the most important person in the portraiture process, it is the artist. Engage and challenge the artist and you are more likely to get a good portait. I think that portrait art would be in a sorry state if we catered to the artistic sensibilities of the client. And every time that I looked at that portrait I would have cringed. So, I have persuaded my client that although the photograph has tremendous sentimental value to him, and that I see that he has the potential to make an 'excellent photographer', it is not the stuff that good portraits are made from. I am in the process of convincing him that a portrait of his sons playing the Bass and the Cello would have the makings of an excellent painting. If he accepts this, oh my gosh, I will be back asking you about William Whitaker's palette.
