My best friend Sara

[Janel Maples]

This is a photo I took with my Canon Digital Rebel. Sara is seated by a North-West facing window on a cloudy afternoon. Any comments + or - are greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Janel

[Garth Herrick]

I like it! A harmony in blue and gold. Dramatic composition. Distinctive shadows and yet a softly diffused light mass. What could be more paintable? I bet you love your camera.

[Mike McCarty]

Janel,

I think you've done a good job. I've taken the liberty of putting a bit more light into the shadowed side of her face. This seems to be an issue of taste, but I find that even if you choose to go darker it's nice to see what's going on in there. Good luck.

[Joan Breckwoldt]

Mike,

How in the world did you do that!!!??? I tried to paint a portrait where half of my subject's face was too dark (in my photo lit by light from a window) and I couldn't see what was in the shadows, so I'm very wary about going too dark. I needed to do what you just did.

Joan

[Mike McCarty]

How in the world did you do that!!!???

Joan,

I own a light machine. It's been in my family for generations. My great, great grandfather bore it on his back from Ireland. He had the option of either taking the light machine, a time machine, or the Budweiser franchise.

Frankly, there are times I wish he'd taken the beer, because today you can get about the same results using photo shop.

Take the photo into photo shop, or some cheap substitute, and simply lighten the photo. One of the simpler tasks to accomplish in these programs.

[Janel Maples]

Garth,

Glad you like it. " What could be more paintable?" you ask. Having her right in front me and stopping the Earth and clouds from moving while I paint.

I do love my camera. It has saved me. But I find that I am obsessed with getting the clearest shot I can. I zoom it in on my computer and if I can't see myself or part of the room in their eyes, it isn't sharp enough for me. In this particular photo I can see my dining room windows as the highlights in her eyes.

It is a great camera.

Mike,

Thank you for saying you think I did a good job. I am trying, very hard to apply what I am learning. You are the second person to bring to my attention the darkness in the shadow side. I like seeing more of what is going on too. Actually I need to see what is going on because I don't have the experience that comes from painting from life that I would like to have so that in cases like this I could paint what I know instead of what I see.

Do you think it is a poor reference if it looks better after you manipulate it?

Janel

[Mike McCarty]

Do you think it is a poor reference if it looks better after you manipulate it?

No, I wouldn't say that at all. You do what you have to do to get the job done. You obviously captured the information, you just have to tease it out sometimes.

There have been many occasion when, after pulling the photo into the computer, I was not able to find any more information in the shadows. One way to bring some more light into the "off" side is to reflect some of the natural light back on to the subject. You can use a piece of foam core as a reflectors if you have a handy observer to hold it, or hang a t-shirt on a coat hanger, whaterver it takes. You have to be careful not to get too close, these reflectors are just like turning on a light bulb.

Others like to use an artificial fill light into the shadows, some use nothing but artificial. Personally I like to travel light. Anyway this looks pretty good to me.

[Janel Maples]

[QUOTE=Mike McCarty]
Personally I like to travel light. QUOTE]

Personally I like to travel light, too. It is so much easier getting through baggage claim.

This may be a stupid question (and it won't be my last on this forum trust me) but, by saying you like to "travel light" do you mean you like the option of bouncing light off of a reflector instead of having a second, softer, light source on the shadow side?

Janel

[Mike McCarty]

This is just me talking, there are other valid methods.

I don't use artificial light set ups at all. I do, however, appreciate what they can do. Namely, produce predictable studio results. But the down side, apart from the expense and the burden of hauling them around, is that I think you can get the "lazy eye."

What I mean is you don't have to think too much, or see too much. You plug in your equipment, place your model the precalculated distance from the source(s) and then begin to shoot. This is all fine, and can produce very nice results, but take this same practitioner out of this sanitized environment and they can become timid and unsure.

I think there are too many creative circumstances which preclude the use of a "set up." Not only are you always searching for these spontaneous, quickly appearing and disappearing situations, but when they arise, your eye is nimble, unafraid.

Mine is arguably an intuitive approach, and the obvious downside is that I take a lot of bad pictures, and sometimes even have to call the whole thing off.

I suppose the best of all worlds is to have the option of both, and the eye which can move from one to the other - unafraid.

[Janel Maples]

Here I thought I was being funny by making the comment about the baggage claim because I thought I was un aware of a photographic phrase and here it is exactly what you were talking about. Joke is on me.

Thank you for your opinion. It means a lot.

Janel