Anthony,
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
As it happens, I'll be taking more photos after Christmas. I am hoping this will generate a harmonious reference that does not require a great deal of adjustment or patching together of different images.
On the matter of smiles - it is true that most of the old masters never painted smiles. I'm not sure why, but I agree with the prevailing opinion that it was because:
1) many subjects back then had bad teeth; and
2) most subjects can't easily hold a convincing smile as long as needed to paint it.
But now, we have cameras, and nice teeth, and our subjects like to show them off. The lady I'm working with simply looks much nicer with a smile than without one. She is known for that smile. A portrait of her without it would not really be a very good portrait.
And while smiles are more challenging, they are not impossible by any means. Nor can it be said that the old masters *never* painted them. Bouguereau did. It's clearly visible in his
Nymphs & Satyr painting.
So, considering that I have both a camera to capture the moment and a subject with nice teeth, *and* she knows that she looks best with that smile on, I may have trouble maintaining my credibility with her if I try to get out of painting the teeth. In any case, they don't intimidate me. It is a simple truth that the smile takes me as long to paint as the two eyes do. The teeth are nothing more than small parts of a larger whole. I think I'm stuck with the smile.
When I'm done, I'm sure I will need to post that effort in the critique section, and you will have another opportunity to say, 'you should not have painted those teeth.' At that time, I will relinquish my bulldog grip on the matter and admit that you were right from the start. Then we will all have a good laugh at my expense.
Chris,
This is just the information I was hoping for. It will help me when I go back for more reference photos. And this time, I will get into their closet. I will be The Boss.
Thank you very much,
Will