Lizzie

Deborah Barton · 03-30-2004, 11:25 AM

I have so appreciated your input from my other postings. I'm posting this portrait because the photo was shot outside, obviously, creating much greater contrast. (Some previous attempts have suffered from 'flatness') In spite of the poor quality of the photo (done long before the advent of digital), I chose it for the mood. Perhaps you would have to know my daughter. It just made me laugh. Anyway, the goal is to learn from this, so 'have at it'! The painting is watercolor on Fabriano Uno cold press 140lb., 20 x 16.

Kimberly Dow · 03-30-2004, 06:53 PM

It is certainly not traditional, but I like it. I have one of my son that everyone hates, but I love because it is him.

Terri Ficenec · 04-03-2004, 05:43 PM

Hi Deborah!

Don't know how I missed this when you first posted it... It's just adorable! I remember my own kids doing that same thing at the beach when they were that age!

You've obviously worked the darks to be less contrasty than the reference photo. But when I was looking at just the painting before scrolling down to the reference photo, I thought the painting 'read' nicely and seems internally consistent. I also have a tendency to collapse value ranges (especially on faces!) - So I printed out some of my favorite portraits with lots of contrast in the face and posted them in my studio to remind me to be bolder.

Back to this painting... the one thing that bothers me a bit is her right leg (on our left)... the lights on either side of the shin seem too bright compared to the shadow down the center/length of the shin. I really like how you handled the bathing suit, the fabric and the way it's puckered is very convincing.

Deborah Barton · 04-03-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terri Ficenec

... the one thing that bothers me a bit is her right leg (on our left)... the lights on either side of the shin seem too bright compared to the shadow down the center/length of the shin. I really like how you handled the bathing suit, the fabric and the way it's puckered is very convincing.

Thanks, Terri. You're exactly right about the leg. Funny, how I didn't notice it until you pointed it out.

Chris Saper · 04-03-2004, 08:43 PM

Hi Deborah,

You have conveyed a lot of energy, and very successfully, in this portrait. I think watercolor is the most difficult medium for portraiture (well, probably for any subject matter), so my comments may not be helpful in terms of what you are able to do at this point in the painting.

I think your piece would benefit from some very dark, warm (not violet) value notes, especially in the areas where skin touches skin. In a contrasy photo like the one you have used, there's a lot of value compression in the darks- meaning that the shadows tend to be darker and more uniformly so, and as a result, look inky. You have been right to lighten the very darkest areas, which still leaves you some room to place a few strategic darks.

The heel on our left disappears into the cast shadow quite abruptly. Try holding your photo right up against a nightclub in a lamp - you might be able to tease out some information in that shadow. I don't know whether the painting can still be made lighter. As a general note on the shadows: they seem a bit cold to me. The edges of the cast shadows should be nice and crisp (as you have them) right next to the object casting the shadow, but they should become progressively softer as the casting object gains distance from the surface upon which the shadow is cast. There is a cast shadow next to the place where ankle and foot meet on our right. It forms, I think, a bit too much tangent - you can soften it and move it just a little without it making the drawing look wrong.

The compression problems in the photo are likewise challenging at the light end of the value scale, so that information is pretty much obliterated on the hands and feet. Personally I would never try to guess at the hands - you could try having the negative (assuming this is from film) reprinted to be underexposed, then you might be able to get some information out of the negative. Or you could try rephotographing those little hands in a similar position (I have had to do this more times than I can count). If it's a digital image, you should be able to manipulate it to gain info in the lightest areas.

That being said, I am also thirsting for some really light areas (always in comparison) that support the impression of form and center ofinterest. I am thinking the light on the chin, the apples of the cheeks, the tops of the shoulders. At the moment, the area in your painting of strongest contrast and sharp edges is where the arms meet cast shadow. I can see well-differentiated highlights along the forearms (more so on our left) and on the top of the foot on our left. Value differentiation here will help create the illusion of form, and diminish the flatness that the arms, hands and feet now have. In terms of moving the center of interest toward the face, the "J" shaped shadow cast by the lock of hair onto the shoulder especially on our left, I think offers a great opportunity for edge and value manipulation.

Well, that might be more information than you want, and you might just have to say, "Hey! It's a watercolor!"

Deborah Barton · 04-05-2004, 09:31 PM

Hi Chris,

Thanks so much for your feedback! You have no idea how helpful it is. In fact, your book on skin tones has been my main resource the past several months. (I definitely need to re-read the section on light temperature.) Sadly, my daughter is 18 now, so a photo retake won't work. I may be able to co-opt a friend's baby or find another reference photo for the hands.

Yes, the difficulties with watercolor is one of the reasons I'm moving toward oils. I've registered for a 2-week workshop in July at Studio Incamminati in Philadelphia. Until then, I'm self taught, so your critique is extremely appreciated.

Deborah Barton

Garth Herrick · 04-05-2004, 11:43 PM

Deborah,

This is a fun and joyful image to look at, and I think it is a breath of fresh air. I love the luminence in this work. In this respect you are far more successful than the photo. After all it is a very sunny day and your daughter is in perfect sync with the wonderful weather. I think most importantly you captured the real feeling of the occasion, and I like the luminous lights in the feet, arms, etc. The slight flattening does not bother me. One could paint this a little darker to get all the "correct" highlight relationships, but one would compromise the whole aspect of fun and levity in the painting in the process. Since you are not using a flash photo reference, the super high key values work, because the forms turn just enough. Don't worry, the viewer knows how to complete the interpretation even if some of the information is only suggested or a little understated. I like it.

The one thing that bothers me is the dark line on her right leg is a lttle heavy and out of sync with the luminance. I don't know how easy it is to lighten a watercolor, but that line could be modulated to be much more diminished as it rises toward her knee.

Michele Rushworth · 04-06-2004, 12:14 AM

Deborah, let us know how it goes at Incamminati. I'd love to take a workshop there!

Kimberly Dow · 04-06-2004, 01:00 AM

I was reading these over and realized my comment above could have used some different wording! I did not mean to say that anyone would hate yours - just that they did mine. Your non-traditional is much more sucessful than the one I did.

Just didnt want to appear rude!

Deborah Barton · 04-10-2004, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimberly Dow

I was reading these over and realized my comment above could have used some different wording! I did not mean to say that anyone would hate yours - just that they did mine. Your non-traditional is much more sucessful than the one I did.

Just didnt want to appear rude!

No problem. I didn't take it badly at all. I appreciate your comments.