My first Old Master Copy

[Janet Kimantas]

I had a blast doing this, and I believe I learned something too. I was told in no uncertain terms today that this painting is finished; that I alway overdo; that I need to learn when a painting is finished, let go and move on. I don't think I was listening very well. This looks like it needs one more session!

Thanks for taking a peek. Janet

[David Draime]

Hi Janet.
First of all, I know why you've had a blast copying this one - it is such a magnificent portrait. It's a powerful example of why Bouguereau is one of the greatest painters ever. I've got a canvas with this very image sketched in and ready to go - I can't wait to start it. And you did an excellent job in getting close to the original.

The drawing (proportion, position of the features, etc.) is nearly exact - which leads me to believe you either projected it or used a grid system. So, nothing to critique there. Your color is very good in my opinion. In some places, the flesh tone as it transitions into the rosy cheek areas - I think Bouguereau's colors there are a bit cooler, and in the original, those tints are very close in hue and chroma. You are getting that incredible, (unbelievably) light grey that Bouguereau uses to great effect in the midtone to shadow areas. It's what makes this painting so incredible - how so much of the form of this face is achieved not with light vs. dark tones - but a delicate use of warm and cool tints. In the hair, I think you are overdoing the burnt umber/sienna - it is used very sparingly (and a bit darker) in the original - letting that marvellous purplish grey carry a lot of the form of the curls. But I think - all in all - your color is on the right track. .

Where I think you have a problem is with the values. I've taken the images you posted (the original and your copy) and made grayscale copies. You can see, I think, more clearly this way where your values are off. The eyes, for instance - particularly her right eye: the "white" of the eye, the eyelids, the highlight in particular, are all too light in your copy - In the original, that eye is in shadow, and though not such a strong shadow that any of those details are obscured, the range of values is more limited, in a narrower range than what you show - less contrast. I think we all, or at least most of us, have a tendency to exaggerate differences in value, making passages more contrasty than they need to be. Bouguereau's transitions are often so subtle, it takes a great degree of care and restraint to duplicate. In the original there are very, very soft transitions between the hair and the skin of her face - those are also areas that I think could be revisited.

In looking at the grayscale versions, I'm also noticing all the areas where your values are spot on. So I think this is a good excercise when copying a master painting - to compare grayscale versions. There will always be little surprises waiting for us. We sometimes don't pick up on value differences in the color versions.

Now, having said all that, I must say that if this is your first old master copy - I am very impressed. You should feel very proud. Hope some of this helps!

-David

[Janet Kimantas]

Hey David,

Thanks for your thoughtful post, and I hope you have as much fun when it comes time to paint your copy.

I gridded the high rez image in photoshop and drew a grid on my canvas to transfer the drawing. I also took a photo at the end of every session and superimposed it over the "original" to recheck the drawing at every stage.

Thanks for the kudos on the greys, I really worked on those. I have to confess, though, that I heard someone say that she (the original) looked like she needed a shave. I think the bluey greys need to be used carefully, at least by me in the future. That being said, I learned a lot about cool flesh colours that I hope sticks.

I will pay attention to the greyscale comparison when I get back to her. Thanks. Ain't Photoshop wonderful? Yeah, my very very first Old Master copy - 3 years of studying studio art at the university level and not one copy done. Disgraceful. I will do more, I think. What a great way to learn. Enjoy yours!

Janet

[Joan Breckwoldt]

Hi Janet,

This is beautiful and masterfully done. I was admiring the blueish greys because I have so much trouble with getting a nice shadow color.

Originally Posted by Janet Kimantas

Thanks for the kudos on the greys, I really worked on those. I have to confess, though, that I heard someone say that she (the original) looked like she needed a shave. I think the bluey greys need to be used carefully, at least by me in the future. That being said, I learned a lot about cool flesh colours that I hope sticks.

I think your cool shadow colors are wonderful. Can you tell me how you got them? By that I mean which colors did you use? Mine are always too brown, or too red, so I keep working at it and then my portraits (of women ) look like they need a shave! Hmmph, what an elusive area this is to paint.

thanks,

Joan

[Janet Kimantas]

Hi Joan. Thanks for noticing my "cool greys"! I've been really working lately on even just seeing the cool colours in people's skin. I tend to squint oddly at the people around me.

The palette I used for this was based on the palette of Gilbert Stuart and the only two reasons for this were that I had read an article on his palette in one of my art magazines and I had most of the colours already. See, I really am making this up as I go along. I must have that magazine at work, because I can't find it here. What I'll do is scan the page when I find it and see if it translates into an emailable image that is still legible. If not, I'll type out the important bits for you. As I recall, the palette involved white, yellow ochre pale, vermillion, alizarin, cobalt blue, ivory black and raw umber. I obviously have sienna in there, but I can't remember if I snuck it in. It's a very simple palette and I thought it might not be all that different from the one Bouguereau used.

It seems to me that this was really a lesson in colour relationships, in that it only works as a whole. Those pearly blue greys, without the wonderful golds and pinks in all the right places, would produce "Death By Drowning". I also wonder if Bouguereau's flesh colours would work all that well in a contemporary context; few women these days have the leisure or desire to lead a lifestyle that produces that type of hot-house flower complexion. Blame it on better nutrition if you like, we seem to be more robust these days.

Enough, I'm on my second cup of tea and running off at the mouth! I'll get that information to you sometime next week.

Janet

[Joan Breckwoldt]

Hi Janet,

Originally Posted by Janet Kimantas

It seems to me that this was really a lesson in colour relationships, in that it only works as a whole. Those pearly blue greys, without the wonderful golds and pinks in all the right places, would produce "Death By Drowning". I also wonder if Bouguereau's flesh colours would work all that well in a contemporary context; few women these days have the leisure or desire to lead a lifestyle that produces that type of hot-house flower complexion. Blame it on better nutrition if you like, we seem to be more robust these days.

I think you are so right, you make two excellent points. First is that it's all about the relationship between the colors. That is SO hard to remember when I'm actually painting. I can only remember so much at once! But when I read that it all makes better sense. Thank you for verbalizing that!

And I never thought about how different complexions are today than 100 + years ago. Good point!

I will look forward to any info you can send me. Thank you!

Joan