Nice couple

[Janet Kimantas]

This is my son Daniel and his girlfriend Sam. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback on this before I put it away for a week or two. It's certainly my most ambitious portrait to date and I just feel like I can't even see it any more. I've included the reference shot - complete with choppy editing.

Thanks in advance, Janet

[Judson Eneas]

I like it. I think however you need to add some more highlights to your sons face and neck as well as his hair. How old is your son anyway?

[Richard Monro]

Janet,
This is lovely. My only suggestion is to recheck your measurements. The faces seem to be wider than the reference photo suggests. Also, the skin colors seem to be on the yellow orange side, but it could also be that the painting colors are not posting accurately. Sam makes a lovely model, but that may just my bias. My bride of 26 years shares many similar features and hair color.

[Janet Kimantas]

Hi Judson,

Yes, I agree about the highlights, but every time I tried to add them, they looked "painted on". I'm sure that it was a temperature question, I just never figured out how his skintone was working with the light. And he's 20 next month, what's up, did I overdo the line in his forehead? He's not tall (5'11ish) skinny,broad shoulded and has a small head. I will put this away for a week or two and maybe it will all become clear.

Thanks, Janet

[Janet Kimantas]

Hi Richard,

When I did the initial drawing I created a grid in Photoshop on the pic and a grid on my canvas. I drew within the grid in a sketchy-kind-of-way and then drew/painted what I saw. I took regular shots of the work as it progressed and superimposed these over the original pic. Some things I corrected, some I did not. The general proportions seemed fine, so I think that what you are seeing may be a distortion of the final painting. And the colours are a concern for me also. All those years of illustrating where ease of reproduction is paramount. I do have a hard time toning it down. You are right there.

Sam is indeed a beauty. She is kind, considerate, down-to-earth, loyal, unaffected, smart as all get out (in medical school this fall). And I will bet that in 26 years she will be even more beautiful(!!!)

[Sharon Knettell]

Janet,

This is a nicely posed painting of a lovely couple.

The problems as I see it are of values, squint your eves and you will see that her face recedes a bit as it is receiving less light. You have both faces the same value. You have also done that with the features, each one looks as though it was separately painted. You should do some mass studies first to strengthen your painting of form and not concentrate on the individual details of features. The highlights in the eyes are not necessary and make her eyes pop too much.

Do some some quick monochromatic studies of form to loosen up and get away from concentrating so quickly on details.

I prefer the turquoise to the olive green as well.

[Chris Saper]

Dear Janet,

I think you are off to a great start here. I do fully agree with Sharon and Richard's comments, and will add a few of my own.

Regarding drawing - both faces are a bit too wide, on both sides. You've done a really nice job with some very difficult hands. The curves in her lips might be smoothed a bit. Check the angle and width of his mouth, and the placement of his chin - the chin should head west a little . There is plane break where his cheekbone moves down to connect with the cheek, and it may be a bit high.

Looking at values, she needs some deep darks along the face silhouette on our left. Slightly darker values in her neck, there inner curve of her arm, his neck (especially the Adam's apple area), will help add a sense of volume, His hair on our left should go lighter.

Edges: softer edges all along his shirt and hair will support what is going on here. The almost black painted shirt next to her hands, make her hands seem to float in front of the shirt. You can fix this easily by softening and darkening the areas of her hand that touch shirt/shadow, and by changing both the light and color distribution in his shirt. You've handled his necklace beautifully.The red leaves in the background have edges that are much sharper than they should be. Forget the photo, you'll need to have soft and lost edges in the background to keep the background things where they need to be. The sky holes (in this case wall holes) through the red leaves need to be darker in value than the background behind.

Color: I agree you have warm color in both light and shadow, and I think you should leave the light cool and shadows slightly warmer. Cool the stone in the background.and the lit areas of his shirt - as opposed to the red highlights in the shirt.

Composition (probably should have been first in this note):I think we accept 'stuff' in photos that we won't in a painting. You have, I think, a bit too much of a tangent at the bottom of your painting where her forearm shirt and upper arm converge. Also if you have posted the full frame images of both, you will probably run into a tangent problem at the top of his head once you place the painting in a frame. If this is the case, you can't do anything about it now, but in the future, remind yourself that there will be a 3/8 " margin all around that will be covered with the frame's rabbet. Sam can give Scarlett Johanssen a run for her money.

Keep going and Good luck!

[Janet Kimantas]

Hi Sharon,

Ah, yes, the value thing. You are so right. of course. I recall reading a thread quite a while ago in which Peggy Baumgartner (hope I spelled that right) discussed value-massing. At the time I thought good grief, what else is there that I need to worry about that I've never even heard of? So In this painting I tried to simplify the values in order to emphasize the composition. But I over-did it and instead of her 3 distinct value masses, I guess I've got two, maybe two and a half. This really isn't a simple thing that we are trying to do here, is it? Thanks so much for your time in commenting. I thought I might have another go at this one, but I'll probably get them to pose again and try a whole new painting. It's all about the practice.

Thanks again, Janet

[Janet Kimantas]

Hi Chris,

So good of you to take the time to comment on my work. I've long admired your paintings (and a particulary nice pastel or two in your website). I'm taking every single thing to heart and I believe that I will set them up again this weekend and try to solve the same problems in a different painting. Unfortunately I have to deal with that guy, too. Maybe I can get Sam to wear a pearl earing! But I don't know about the cruelty issues - she won't wear diamonds because of the human cost in their production. Possibly something in cruelty-free organic driftwood harvested in an evironmentally sustainable way! And she is going to be my model many times to come, figurative and portrait. She could blow most of these half-starved neurotic starlets right off the map.

Thanks again, Janet

[Michele Rushworth]

Hi Janet,

I'll add my two cents to everything that has been written above, all of which I also agree with.

You have tackled a very complex subject and perhaps for your next painting a simple head and shoulders of Sam will help you simplify your thoughts and go after the key issues that need to be mastered first.

You might want to pose her like the Vermeer painting "Girl with a Pearl Earring." One person, one strong light source. Sit her somewhere indoors, with the interior lights off, about five feet from a window, so that the face is three quarters in light, and one quarter in shade. A pose with lighting like that will make your job much easier and you'll be able to clearly see what areas belong to the light and what areas belong in the shadow.

Let's just look at Sam's head for now, in this painting. The major problem is something Sharon and Chris talked about. That is: the relative brightness of all the light and dark areas. The key thing to remember is that the human head is essentially an egg shape. The facial features that are stuck on that egg need to have all their lights and darks determined by whether they are sitting on the lighted part of the egg or the shaded part.

To be specific, nothing on the left of her face (from our viewpoint) in this painting should be above a dark/middle value. The eye on our left should be entirely in shadow. The whole eye and its socket is much too light (the rim of the lower lid especially) and so it comes forward and flattens out the entire three dimensional egg feeling.

The same thing is occuring down the entire left side of the head which should all be in shadow. The upper cheek below the eye on our left is too light, for example. Another area where this problem is conspicuous is in the lighted rim along the outer edge of her upper lip. It's been painted too light all along its length, but especially on the left side.

As a quick exercise, draw an imaginary line down her face to denote the edge of the light. Nothing on the left of that line should be as light as the shapes on the right of that line. Squint at the photo and this demarcation will be much easier to see. (In fact squinting every minute or two will help you immensely with your values throughout.)

One final comment and that is that there are too many undulations in the contours of the forms on her face. The lips (as Chris mentioned) shouldn't curve up and down so much. This undulation is particularly an issue along the lower left edge of the face all the way down to the chin. The ins-and-outs of a face shape, especially one so young as hers, are generally much more subtle than we think. Remember that basic egg shape.

Good luck and I look forward to seeing your next painting! And by the way, I didn't learn any of this at OCA -- I learned it all on this Forum and at books and workshops recommended on this Forum!