Hannah and her shadows

[Brenda Ellis]

A friend of mine wants me to use this photo of her granddaughter to do a pastel portrait from. This little girl is impossible to get to sit still even for a photo; it's a miracle she could get these done!

However, I think the photo was done at Sears or some mid-priced photo studio and the lighting is rather flat and, while it's a perfectly okay photo, I don't think it would be an exciting portrait as is.

So I got experimental with Photoshop and played with the color balance and the burn tool and made my own shadows. I also tried to make the colors a bit richer as I think in the original she looks a little washed out.

I'm wondering if the modified version is convincing and better than the original version? I think I would have to adjust the color/lightness of the shirt in the new version. Am I playing a dangerous game trying to "make" shadows in a reference photo or has anyone else tried this?

[Brenda Ellis]

I went back in and touched up the highlights a tad with the dodge tool. I know her hair is now too green but I can adjust that in painting. Does it look passable? workable?

[Claudemir Bonfim]

Yep, you're right!

That first picture is rather flat, but the girl is so cute. I played this dangerous game with my little sister, unfortunately I don't have the references and she lives miles away from me. I took several shots of her and finished the portrait from life. The photos helped a lot, since she didn't stop even to breath.

I think you're on the right way, you need to work from as many references as you can and be careful about the values. Don't worry about working with photos of different positions and mood, all of them will help you a lot.

[Michele Rushworth]

I have done exactly what you are experimenting with when trying to put more depth into a flat photo. Watch out that the saturation increases along with the contrast however. You may want to tone that back.

I am concerened that this photo was taken by a professional studio, however. The copyright for this image belongs to them. Also, when an artist copies a photo taken by someone else we become little more than expensive photocopy machines. The interaction between the model and the artist is gone. All the creativity in the posing, lighting, costuming, etc is gone.

[Brenda Ellis]

Thank you, Michele. I hadn't even thought about that. I'll talk to my friend and see what she wants to do after I give her that information. I know that it is not infringement if you 'change the subject of the work substantially', but just changing the color balance and adding shadows is probably not changing it substantially enough!

[Claudemir Bonfim]

Originally Posted by Michele Rushworth

Also, when an artist copies a photo taken by someone else we become little more than expensive photocopy machines. The interaction between the model and the artist is gone. All the creativity in the posing, lighting, costuming, etc is gone.

You're absolutely right Michele, that's why posthumous works are a tough job, you don't know who you are portraying and you can't have that interaction.

[Brenda Ellis]

After struggling ethically and aesthetically with the previous photo, I finally went and got different photos. I took many many shots of this little girl. These two I like the best, but the light/shadow is very extreme. I think I can lessen the light/shadow contrast. I am not sure which is better. Both have deep shadows on her face, which I don't mind. I guess I'm really rebelling against the "happy pseudo-photograph" look.
Are either of these two worth working from?

[Mike McCarty]

Brenda,

As you stated, the lighting is very harsh and the compositions aren't complimentary, with the shoulder poof competing successfully with the little girls face.

Personally I don't think your efforts would be well spent on either of these images. I would definitely pass on the second. I love these compositional puzzles, and if someone held a gun to my head this would be the best design I could come up with for the first image. But, I think a little more digging would serve you well.

[Brenda Ellis]

Thank you, Mike. I will take a second look at the other photos or go take more photos. I appreciate and value your opinion. You just saved me probably a couple of weeks of struggle and anguish.

[Mike McCarty]

Brenda,

My advice is to find that one place where you can understand the light (to the extent that you can ever understand the effects of natural light). For me it was my dining room for many years. I must have taken thousands of pictures near this north facing window -- in the chairs, standing up, sitting on the table, lying on the table, lying on the rug.

This place I understood more than any other place. When I couldn't cajole a real person to pose I would set up still life's in the morning, in the afternoon, cloudy days, rainy days, trying to get a better handle on the lights effect.

For very small children it is even more important because your window of opportunity is so small, given their attention span. I would have all my gear set up and plop these little people down into my light and then just let them move (you can't stop them). I find that you can control the space around them, but you can only control them for brief spurts of time. So, you herd them, then you shoot away for as long as they will tolerate it.

But the key is the light which passes across them. If the light is good, and you are ready, you will find that they will at some point strike a pose. Shutter speed is very important as well for this kind of shoot, but that's another subject.

I once had to go out of town and photograph a little girl in an unfamiliar place. When I got there I looked for a place where the light looked familiar to that which I had created back home. This little girl photo is the direct result of the work that I had done in my own dining room. She was sitting on a coffee table for about one and a half minutes.

I would rather have a beautiful light than a beautiful model.