Four Pics in One

[Rebecca Willoughby]

This image is actually five pictures in one. The bodies are one. I took each face from an extreme close-up. The doll is from a fourth picture. I would love to be able to get a perfect shot in originally, but then again that is why I am not a portrait photographer. The final image is going to be 20" x 24" colored pencil on cream Stonehenge. The mother wants it to look "old". Feel free to manipulate the image if you need to make a suggestion. I have to shoot at this same location tomorrow, but with only a little boy. I will post in the business section the advertising that produced both commissions as well as two others in about a month.

Thanks,
Rebecca

[Rebecca Willoughby]

Ok here it is.

[Steven Sweeney]

I disagree -- I think you are a portrait photographer. I'd like so much to paint this that I think I will, for a portfolio piece. Great triangular shape to the overall subject, nicely grounded. Such fantastic opportunities with the play of light on all features -- faces, arms, hands, clothing. Beautiful kids.

All the white is the big challenge, but I'm already not seeing very much of it as pure white, but as blues and violets and reflected greens. The few areas that are washed out from the brilliance of the sunlight will benefit from some special attention. I'm thinking that you'll need to orchestrate quite a bit of "not white" around them in order to capture the brilliance of those highest values. Judging from your other work, I'm sure you can pull it off.

I wanted to say something about the "horizon" -- the far edge of the grass -- being too close to the vertical center of the piece, and going right through the boy's head, but the more I look at it, the less that concerns me. Just keep it soft and subdued. It's kind of nice to have that bit of light grass against the dark side of the boy's neck and face, for the effect of depth.

Of course, too, the very bright light is causing the kids to squint, so you're not going to get any information about their eye color and such, but again as I look at the overall piece, I find that to be an acceptable compromise in a setting in which the squint is normal and expected.

I don't see many photo references here that make me feel like getting started immediately. I would take this on in a second. If you have a falling out with your clients, please give them my email address.

[Chris Saper]

Hi, Rebecca.

I have come back now three times to this photo, and have the same immediate response. I would recommend you check your sizing, as the boy's head looks very slightly too large, and the girl's head very slightly too small. When you Photoshop (don't you love how "Photoshop " has become a verb?) the images as you have done, even the tiniest (and I really mean SMALL) size change makes an enormous difference.

The only other comment I would have is to be careful about how you render the boy's leg on our right, as it touches the dress in a rather awkward way.

I agree with Steven about wanting to be careful about placing horizon lines halfway, but I think it is placed exctly right with respect to the little boy's head (a la Norman Rockwell!).

[Elizabeth Schott]

Rebecca, I love your "feel" to this photo, but think all have said valid things above me!

I think the point Chris made about the kids heads...hopefully Linda will jump in here...is a concern, but I am questioning whether this is a cause of your imaging technique (but it is extemely hard to merge photos in Photoshop unless you have used crop lines or a level reference for match up) or, honestly, I think it is the little girl's dress. It is a beautiful dress, one we all dream of portraying in a portrait - like page 58 in Chris' book - but I don't think it fits her at all. I think she looks like a "square" figure because it is boxy on her petite body and could be causing an optical illusion here. Can you trim it down and show a little more of her leg? This might help with the concern about rendering the little boy's leg too.

Lovely Kids!

[Mike McCarty]

Rebecca,

I hope you don't mind my meddling. There seems to be a little too much white and I think the doll would be hard to pull off and keep distinguished from the dress. See what you think of this.

[Rebecca Willoughby]

Thank you all for your input.

Steven,

I have extreme close-ups for the facial features, so rendering the eyes is a concern, but not a great big one. Thanks to some great examples in a couple of great books by Ann Kullberg and, of course, Chris Saper, I have a few ideas on handling the whites. By all means paint away. I will even email you a higher res image if you want. Just do me a favor and don't post it. Yours would probably look better than mine and my poor self-image would be permanently crushed!

Chris,

I will recheck the head sizes, but looking at the unretouched photo it has the same "feel." I created a new layer and drew nose line, eye line, and mouth line and then made the "new" head 50% transparent and matched them in size. The boy is relatively small for a seven year old. He is only an inch or two taller than his three year old sister! That Norman Rockwell horizontal line shows up frequently in my reference photos. The wind had blown her dress onto his leg. I have a photo where that is not the case. Of course I could fix it without a photo. At least with 12 years of art school I should be able to!

Elizabeth,

The dress is a concern of mine as well. I have a name for this now. I call it the Strassburg syndrome. I could create their catalog with all of the reference pictures with their dresses. When I do my preliminary work I will try trimming it down and seeing if that makes a difference. I think her mother wanted that porcelain doll effect.

Mike,

As always, meddle away whenever you please. Unfortunately the doll has to stay. I do have pictures with its face turned more towards the camera. It helps. I (along with their dad) did nix the son's old stuffed bunny.

Rebecca

[Rebecca Willoughby]

Here is the "as is" photo.