Johnnie

Mike McCarty · 11-02-2002, 12:02 PM

I will show a few pic's from a photo shoot a few days ago. It's hard to believe, but Johnnie is not a model, as far as I know she has never modeled. She looks to me like Audrey Hepburn. She is, in fact, part Cherokee part Creek Indian.

I like this first one, but for this outdoor setting, I couldn't find much shadow.

Mike McCarty · 11-02-2002, 12:06 PM

So I went looking for shadow, and not usually prone to moderation, I arrived at this composition.

Mike McCarty · 11-02-2002, 12:08 PM

We then moved indoors...

Mike McCarty · 11-02-2002, 12:10 PM

This one is a little edgy...

John Zeissig · 11-02-2002, 09:38 PM

Hi Mike.

Number one is a nice shot, but it looks too much like a page from "Vogue". O.K. for selling clothes maybe, but not the best portrait. Number two is my favorite. I know you just finished "Morgan", but the sun dappling on this one is equally compelling, especially spread over that facial structure and the perfect upper lip profile. My second choice would be the edgy one. It would be tempting to keep the decolletage, but I like it better cropped to just the head and shoulders. There's something a bit unbalanced about the way she's leaning in from the right.

She certainly does look like a fashion model, but the Cherokee/Creek component must be mighty dilute. The complexion, cheekbones and eye color all show a stronger influence of the Baltic Tribe. I hear they're trying to get official recognition so they can build a casino in Rhode Island someplace.

Alicia Kornick · 11-02-2002, 10:26 PM

Here you go again with another stunning model! I agree with John on the first photo, looks like a good shot for a fashion magazine. She has wonderful bone structure and great lips, long elegant neck, an overall beauty. I would get some more shots of her in the black dress, try to tone down the collar bones and lose the chair back. She has such striking beauty in her face, and bone structure, that I would not have anything structual in the background.

I keep seeing her sitting on a low sofa, with a curved back sitting slightly askew with one arm resting casually on the top of the sofa with her hand hanging down, back erect. Black dress, higher neckline (maybe a boat neck dress) to cover the collar bones, pearls. I think her cool and classic beauty necessitates a classic and elegant pose. As always, great pictures and wonderful subject.

Chris Saper · 11-02-2002, 10:34 PM

Mike,

I love #1, but the light is too flat on the face.

I love #2, but the mottling, although easily accepted in a photo, is hard to pull off in a painting.

I love #3 & #4.

So what if the photo(s) looks "Vogue-ish?" It's elegant and compelling. Go with what you feel you want to paint.

Jim Riley · 11-03-2002, 12:07 AM

Mike,

I strongly favor #1 and moved it higher and into the frame a bit more than the photo.(Hope you don't mind) #2 Is very problematic and it would be a shame to pursue something novel when you have such an outanding subject. #3 suggest lots of very classy poses in the same atmosphere but different furniture/props. In this pic the chair becomes the shoulders or the shoulders become the chair. The eyes in #4 would not only be very difficult to paint they start to become surreal.

Wonderful possibilities. Good Luck!

Mike McCarty · 11-03-2002, 01:44 AM

Everyone, thanks for replying.

I was under no pressure to put Johnnie into the "correct pose", I was free to experiment. She was a very willing subject and I will probably have another opportunity to photograph her.

I usually develop some kind of a mental "hook" into a subject and for Johnnie it was her long elegant neck. I heard somewhere, NPR I think, that a woman's neck is on the front line of the battle between the sexes. Mysterious, like a border town. But enough of that mush.

I don't mind #1, but it would take some skill to bring out the features of her face (the coat was mine). #2, I think I will leave the dappled light alone for a while, I'm kinda dappled out. #3, I was trying to develop our left side arm of the chair into the composition and I let the opposite side get away from me. #4, You should have seen the position the rest of her body was in.

I am going to work toward another shoot. I will try and do a couch type shot, I already have something in mind. I'm shure Johnnie would stretch out nicely, she's about 5'10"-11". I feel that there is something better than these waiting just around the neck, I mean bend.

John, I had to look decolletage, I am always tempted by them.

Alicia, you must have been dropped on your collar bone as a child. I kinda like those things, they kinda break up that expansive territory.

Chris, I always appreciate your sound straightforward advice.

Jim, I sure don't mind you fiddling with the pic's. I am curious about why you moved her well into the frame.

Steven Sweeney · 11-03-2002, 02:36 AM

It sounds like you're setting up for another shoot, but in this array I'd have picked #3. The coincidence of the top of the chair back and the shoulder line is a trap for the unwary but not unmanageable. (For example, keeping a cherry wood hue in the chair would be enough to distinguish it.)

#4 seems too severely pushed out of shape. Any of several areas -- eyes, hair, to mention two -- could really give you fits getting them to not look awkward.

I didn't know if you'd pull off the leaf patterns in "Morgan", and you did, but I think #2 here is pushed a little far on that continuum. The dappled light on Morgan played into the kind of secret-between-us canopied setting through which just enough light play was permitted. Similarly, I've seen paintings in which the broken light came through pattern holes in the wide brim of a straw hat, and the light play helped describe both the form of the hat and the person wearing it. In the picture here, there's a hazard of pushing the shadow play into the range of gimmick. These shadows tell us little about the portrait subject. For some reason I'm put in mind of the face-paint motif of Darth Maul.

May the Force be with you.