"Take Five"

[Peter Jochems]

no further comments...

[Peter Jochems]

Okay, okay, I do comment!

Karin will probably tell us that there are things happening in those vermeers which prove her point, about how the light falls. But hey, who cares about the rules !?
Steven is the painter, and he is free to do what he wants with the painting, rules or not.
And... if you really, really look close at the works of someone like Rembrandt you will find many, many inconsistencies with the so-called 'rules'.

Peter

[Chris Saper]

Dear Steven,

I really like this painting too, and am not troubled with the darkness of the face. (If you want to try to tease out some info in the shadows of your source photo, light it from the back [p.65 BTW]) If I were to suggest anyuthing in the value department, I would perhaps lighten the value of the background, without changing the hue, toward the right side of the canvas; a slight value shift would explain the silhouette, and not require any more info in the face shadow.

In the Sax department, the ony change I might make is to shift the temperature of the highlights from warm oranges to cool tones. As you know, I am rather compulsive about color temperature; not knowing your light source (it could go either way), because the other hues in the sax are very warm, I'd probably go for a little temperature relief, value and temp, but not very saturated in hue.

Best wishes, Chris

[Steven Sweeney]

Thanks everyone. I've certainly been given enough to think about, so that I can move back into the studio today and put your contributions through their paces. I'll activate Lon's "Undo" software in case my execution doesn't come up to the level of my intentions. No doubt I'll be able to post the results in due course. Wherever it is in a couple of weeks is where it'll have to stay for the summer.

For the record, my inclination is to try at least a little bit of almost every suggested direction, while maintaining the overall mood and sense of the piece as it appears now. I can do a different look when I get him back out to the studio with his guitar. It's 6:15 a.m. as I write this, and from his room next to this one is already emanating shock-rocker licks at woofer-warping decibels. I'll probably have to transport that sound out to the studio to get him to tolerate another portrait sitting. A painter/dad has to remain flexible.

Geez, my 200th post. Now I have to start paying the SOG surcharge for excessive use of bandwidth and disk space. I'd better just go paint for a while.

Cheers,
Steven

[Karin Wells]

For Peter Jochems:

Your kind and thoughtful examples proved my point and I thank you so much for posting the Vermeer details.

As you can see, only the Vermeer on the upper left has the shadow on the left eye disconnected. This is a good example that shows how Vermeer understood the principle and made the shadow lighter in that (left) eye socket.

Rules can indeed be broken. But the principle that the rule is based on cannot be broken if one is to paint well.

And yes, I agree, Steven can paint any way he wishes too.

[Peter Jochems]

Dear Karin,

That very last sentence, that's the only thing I wanted to hear.

Peter

[Steven Sweeney]

Uh . . . Short time-out, or "Take Five"

I'm familiar with most of the contributors and am able to "read" their styles and I once again thank every respondent who took the time to have a look at the piece and comment. I'm a sponge for information and I have soaked up every available drop from this critique thread, which I have now collected in a vial and am using as my medium for the revision. I obviously cannot implement every suggestion, but no contribution was without value, if only because it made me articulate for myself why I might not carry it into the piece. But again, I appreciate what everyone brought to the table.

Cheers,
Steven

[Peter Jochems]

Hi Steven,

When I put the portrait of your son next to those heads done by Vermeer, I wanted to prove that similar situations of how the light falls can be found in the work of Vermeer. Of course it would be a subject for debate, but that's not why I post this message.
Just wanted to say that I hope you don't get the wrong impression of what I wanted to say with it. It's unfair for anyone to get his or her work compared with the great masters, I didn't mean to do that. Just wanted to make that clear.

Greetings,
Peter

[Steven Sweeney]

Thanks, Peter, not a problem, I understood exactly why you posted the pieces. I understand, too, that cyber communication to all involved in the discussion is fraught with difficulty, because we can't see body language and don't have eye contact and can't possibly know everyone's background and we're all here on different premises and under different conditions.

Stick with us, we have the odd quirk and incident but as a group we're probably as civil and as informative as most groups of right-brainers.

Cheers,
Steven

[Michele Rushworth]

I tweaked the portrait in Photoshop, giving it a little more contrast and less brightness. I think this still preserves the moodiness while giving the portrait a little more energy and also bringing out the highlights on the sax without making it dominate the painting.