Reference for identical twin 3 yr old boys

April Phillips · 11-28-2005, 08:17 PM

Since I live with my two sons, you'd think I could easily get some good reference shots for portraits. Bribes for candy get me at least a couple of minutes. Here's my latest attempts, shot in my kitchen. Light is also a challenge here in overcast Seattle.

I will be doing a head and shoulders portrait of each one separately, but they will be hung side by side. That brings up issues of consistency between the two. Background and clothing will be abstracted to that is not an issue for me.

The shot of Mikey (blue shirt), is a little overexposed but I think I can compensate (?) The shot of Tommy (red shirt) is exposed better, but I don't like the expression or the angle of his shoulder as well. I really love the shot of him and his puppet, but all those teeth, not sure if I could pull it off.

Any constructive criticism is welcome. I have more candy if need be.

Chris Saper · 11-28-2005, 10:15 PM

My opinion, go for one and three. These are wonderful photo references, brava!

The teeth and puppet have to go.

I think your wonderful challenge is how to integrate the two, but you have all you need at your disposal. Good job.

Chris Saper · 11-28-2005, 10:17 PM

PS Explain to their dad that the boys need to shower you with Godiva chocolates. It 's part of the creative process

Marcus Lim · 11-28-2005, 10:22 PM

Hi,
These are nice photos, whether it's of Tommy or Mikey. Personally i can think of putting the second photo of Tommy on the left, and Mikey on the right with the main light source coming from the right in a painting, if i'd to do it. The slight overexposure becomes the advantage for you to differentiate the light values between the two boys.
And, not to mention you get to keep the puppet on his hands.

Kimberly Dow · 11-28-2005, 10:24 PM

I agree with Chris. Number 2 looks like a snap-shot to me, not a portrait.

Garth Herrick · 11-28-2005, 10:59 PM

Hi April,

I too agree with Chris; use #1, and #3. The are great shots for reference, and pleasing together. The blue shirt photo does not come accross as over exposed, but you are a better judge than us. Since they are your own kids I am sure you will have no trouble knowing if the tonality or anything else in the portraits are right or not. The only thought I have at this point is to suggest getting the scale of your kids more or less identical, so that one is not significantly larger than the other. On the other hand that could be interesting to have them different, if they actually are. Best wishes and have fun!

Garth

April Phillips · 11-29-2005, 12:59 AM

It's great to get thoughtful feedback so quickly. I will make the heads the same size.

Comparing #1 and 3 again, I noticed that Tommy's shot was from a lower angle, to where you can see the nostrils. Will this be distracting when the paintings are side by side? On the other hand I don't want to be too identical, since they are identical already.

Garth Herrick · 11-29-2005, 01:33 AM

April, you worry too much. These two images should have good compatibility and the variety in expression adds to their interest. I did take the liberty to adjust color, etc., in this image to make them closer to each other. What size are you envisioning?

Garth

Michele Rushworth · 11-29-2005, 10:36 AM

The arrangement Garth suggested would make a wonderful pair of portraits. Lucky you to have such models around the house!

Linda Brandon · 11-29-2005, 10:52 AM

April, lucky you to have these models around the house!

I like what Garth has done and I also think you should research vignetting on this Forum before diving in on the paintings. I personally like a lot of space around a portrait head (as opposed to a tight photographic crop) and I am throwing in my vote for this kind of treatment.