Paint it over or what?

[Patt Legg]

Hello again,

This is Ed and unfortunately, my photo of the painting is very dark although I do paint very dark backgrounds. It is an 18x24" Oil. I am going to post the photo in the next post to show what I worked from.

I took the photo after inquiring about family photos and told they had none. So I did the best that I could and painted him as I see him. I do know him vaguely--very vaguely. He is a stearn man.

Problem: He and his wife accepted the portrait. Two to three weeks later, the Mrs. called and asked could I make him "less angry". Well, I have never been asked to re-do an expression. I am sure too that she sees him a completely a different manner as his wife. Anyway, others know immediately that is is Ed as he is very prominate in the town. I now have it in my studio and worked on it somewhat but as you know, when you change a small tad of expression in the eyes, the mouth needs changed, etc. etc.

I am getting more unhappy with it all the time. What do I do now?

The thing of it is this...I am doing 3 portraits as a "free" PR move and this is one of them. They are paying for any framing from me or otherwise. I figured that if I display them in town, it may bring more work. (I was told by an artist here on the internet that this is one way of doing it).

I do not mind that but I refuse to give a portrait that I am not feeling good about. No exposure is better than bad exposure. So I have nearly decided to do it over. Wouldn't you?

Please tell me if you have had any experience such as this. My contract states that I will do minor changes and I am ok with that but this has turned into a larger change than I expected.

Thank you in advance; any info is much appreciated.

[Patt Legg]

Sorry--I don't think Eds painting came through So I am trying again the first is my painting.

[Patt Legg]

This is the photo reference of ED for the painting. Sorry about all the confusion.

[Karin Wells]

The eye on the left seems too slanted both upper and lower lid. But, the "anger" resides in the mouth. Maybe the lower lip protrudes and looks "pouty"? Also, you could rethink the center line between the lips...

Here are some of the things that I do when I just can't "get it right":

1. Turn the photo and your original upsidedown and compare them side by side...paint this way for a bit also.

2. Place the photo beside the painting, turn your back to the easel, and look at your painting in a mirror.

3. If all else fails, turn the painting to a wall and don't look at it for a week or two. When you see it again, you'll have a "fresh eye" and may be able to quickly (and painlessly) fix all with a flick of your brush.

[Patt Legg]

Thank you Karin and I see what you are talking about. I have tried the upside-down thing often and the mirror trick many times, but must admit that I looked but never painted that position. The really crazy thing is that when you turn his photo unside down, his mouth actually looks like a perfect smile. In real life, he has a natural frown and very seldom smiles. Since this photo, I have painted on it somewhat and will try to post it later. I softened between the brows, tried to fix the eye and also softeded the throat area. The wife brought another photo to look at. I only wished she would have produced this one at the beginning.

I will get back with photo at a later date.
Thanks mucho.

[Steven Sweeney]

Patt --

If you're still working on this, I might suggest a few areas to look at, some of which could be contributing to the "angry" appearance. It's a little difficult to "see into" the dark reference photograph, so I may be misreading some areas myself. It's smorgasbord, just take what you like. I do think it's an interesting tonal treatment of the subject, and it seems fitting based on the character descriptions you've given of this fellow.

-- I agree that the slant to the eyes is a problem. In the photo, I see the inside and outside corners of the eyes as being almost level. I also think the whites of the eyes are too light, so that the contrast with the very dark iris and eyelash areas is quite severe and creates a harsher look than I see in the photo. Also, the brow area between the eyebrows should be darker as the plane of the brow turns under and proceeds to the bridge of the nose. Darkening that area will also reduce the contrast between those kind of "scowly" creases in his brow and the surrounding skin.

-- I also agree that the mouth area could be adjusted just a bit, with substantial benefit. Starting with the top edge of the top lip as it moves to our left, you've got an arc running from close to the center of the mouth all the way out to the corner and beyond, whereas in the photo, something different is happening. About two thirds of the way to the corner of the mouth, the top edge of the lip actually stops dropping and almost levels out some distance from the bottom lip, and it doesn't proceed to a sharply defined intersection at the corner. While hardly indicating mirth, that little nuance alleviates the pulled down look that suggests displeasure. I also think your highlight on the bottom lip is too light. Finally, it seems to me that the light on the upper lip (I mean the area between the mouth and the nose) is too bright and furthermore, its shape suggests a concave form that is pushing the top lip of the mouth outward, whereas it appears from the photo that the upper lip, rather than being concave, is rather full and round and flows smoothly down and around the top lip of the mouth.

-- One other thing that I think is contributing to the "severity" of the expression is the chin. It seems a bit lopsided, for one thing, almost suggesting a clenched jaw, and it may be just a bit large, so lopping off a bit from the bottom to level it would help in both regards. Then there's the reflected light, which doesn't seem to me to belong there at all and which is giving the chin a sharp-edged look that doesn't appear to be supported by the photo. Rather than getting lighter at the bottom edge, it should be getting darker as the plane of the face turns away from the light. (I realize the reflected light has to do with the shirt, but that tiny bit of exposed collar wouldn't, I don't think, generate perceptible reflected light at all, much less one nearly as bright in tone as the shirt itself.)

Working on those three areas just a little may take care of your client's concerns about the portrait "expression".

A comment about the matter of light and shadow. You've got some very form-descriptive shadow areas in both the face (and neck) and the hands in the photograph, but you've largely omitted them from your painting. Indeed, what is the shadow side of the face in the photo is in fact about the lightest flesh tone in your painting. I think I would have taken greater advantage of those shadow shapes, both for that form-creating purpose, and also so that you did not find yourself having to "imagine" contours and light effects that couldn't actually be seen in the photo.

One final item -- you've done quite well with a very difficult drawing challenge, the interlaced fingers. One thing you might consider revising is the ring finger on his right hand, which in your painting is straight in the last two sections, reaching almost to the edge of the canvas, whereas in the photo it appears that that finger lies down alongside the back of the left hand, as do the other fingers. Also, without shadows in amongst the finger shapes, they're a little more difficult to "read" than would otherwise be the case.

Best wishes,
Steven

[Lon Haverly]

Let me say that you have a difficult choice to make. I have regreted portraits that I was unhappy with, especially looking at them a year later, and seeing the gross mistake they were complaining about jump out and bite me.

I think you took chances on this subject; first, by changing the light and shadow. There is much more dark shadow in the photo, which may have been easier to nail the likeness by sticking to. Second, by using a different color base than in the photo. There is more alizarin in the photo, giving him color in the face. Third, by changing the position of the head to vertical, rather than the slight tilt to his left, which is a more relaxed, less "stern" pose. Also, the eyelashes in the photo soften the line above his eye, giving less glare than you depict in the painting with a hard line used for the eyelashes. These things would stand out vividly to a close relative, although they could not probably tell you just why.

I think you might want to redo this one. Chalk it up to experience. You will not regret it.

[Patt Legg]

Steven,

I thank you for all your input and suggestions and I agree with most of them. It sure takes a different eye to critique anothers work especially after that person has overworked and stressed for a period of time. I will have to admit that I showed the group only one photo to see if there was agreement about at least a likeness but I did actually use several photos (at least 5-6) which I attempted to pick and choose. Maybe that was part of my problem.

All is deeply appreciated and I will certainly remember then as I work on other portraits.

But Lon, I am afraid that I agree with you too because I had basically decided within my own mind to re-do it. I thought I would run it by the group first. Needed that confirmation I suppose. I studied under a portrait artist years ago as we worked live with our models and occasionally he (the artist) would wipe the canvas clean and say "don't merely look at the subject, learn to see where the line is going and now paint what you see not what you think is there." Difficult lessons but I do know if it is all wrong in my minds eye now I certainly would not want it out there in the public's eye.

Tell me though, Lon, do you ever have work from earlier years that you look at and say to yourself that you could have changed this and that? I assume some of it is natural and a sign of growing. But, with this one, I indeed chalk it up to experience.

Thanks so much for all you input.

[Lon Haverly]

Ohhhh, sheeeeeeesh!!! Yes!!!I hate most of my earlier work, even of recent times. Most of the work I am doing now in oil is practice. I ran across a portrait much like this one, of a man and wife who were older, and the photo was high contrast. They were both scowling and overweight. I tried to paint it from a photo by sight, with no aids of transfer or trace. I photographed it and sent it off, and the customer graciously paid for it. Now I can't understand why they accepted it. It was truly awful. I had alot of subtle mistakes that really stood out to me in retrospect. I will never make the mistake again of painting an oil portrait and trusting only my eye. There is too much at stake, both in terms of their long term appreciation of my work, their investment, and my reputation. Why chance it? I know I can draw, I have nothing to prove. But I will never make an oil painting again without transfering it from a photo to guarantee to myself that it is accurate in the layout. And, in a photo like yours, there are very subtle dangers that can be avoided by sticking strictly to the photo in terms of pose, lighting and color.

[Patt Legg]

A really big Thank you again, for all that you have shared. This makes me feel much bette, believe it or not. So, look for the 2nd "Mister Ed" sometime in the future because I am more inspired now than ever due to your most gracious understanding.

God Bless