|
Mike M: Of all the people on this Forum, you are IMO, the best photographer. But, while this is a great photograph, you have lost about half of the visual information you had when she was right there in front of you.
This photo contains too dark shadows, too light lights, the depth is flattened, and colors are somewhat washed and probably not accurate. You have lost much of the variance of color and tone in the skin - the warm/cool variations that are important to making not just a nice painting, but a great painting.
Now, that said, can you create a nice painting from it - you bet! BUT, if you have extensive experience drawing and painting from LIFE under NATURAL NORTH LIGHTING, then you will do a much better job of it - because you will understand the differences between photos and life and you will better approach life in your painting.
It is important to understand that the focus of portraiture is not to copy a photo as close as you can, but to approach life itself. The fact that photography and photo evaluation gets so much focus on SOG points to a systemic problem with drawing and painting skills among participants. Painting is hard stuff, no doubt! I, too, need more time painting and drawing from life - I am not nearly good enough at it.
It is much easier to be a good photographer than a great painter, and it appears to me, that SOG is too focused on the easy road. One distinctly gets the impression that copying a photograph is the goal and is what folks believe portraiture is all about.
Look at the work of Marvin Mattelson, Bill Whitaker, Daniel Greene, and Burt Silverman. Different styles, but these people all blow our socks off. Why? Because they paint from life - a lot. Their work approaches life because of that experience. They "see" like most of us currently do not - myself included.
We all use photo reference. The difference comes in those who understand the ultimate goal of portraiture is not to copy the photo, but to approach life itself.
Paint and draw from life under natural light.
|