Kelly on Ice-my first custom panel

[Mike McCarty]

Lisa,

This is really beautiful. I like everything about it.

I have two nit picks since you're asking -- first, her posture would indicate that she may be leaning against the wall, if this is true, I would think a slightly darker value would be indicated in the vicinity of her left shoulder as it contacts the wall. It seems a bit conflicted to me as it is.

The other item would be the slightly higher value of the hands. They seem just a bit brighter than the brightest notes of her face. And you might want to look at the temperature relationship between the shadowed forearm and her left wrist. It may be a value thing instead of temperature, I'm not sure. Also, the dark crease in that underneath forearm seems a bit too pronounced.

Her face, clothing and background are very beautifully done. I only wish I could do as well.

[Lisa Ober]

Originally Posted by Mike McCarty

Lisa,

This is really beautiful. I like everything about it.

I have two nit picks since you're asking -- first, her posture would indicate that she may be leaning against the wall, if this is true, I would think a slightly darker value would be indicated in the vicinity of her left shoulder as it contacts the wall. It seems a bit conflicted to me as it is.

The other item would be the slightly higher value of the hands. They seem just a bit brighter than the brightest notes of her face. And you might want to look at the temperature relationship between the shadowed forearm and her left wrist. It may be a value thing instead of temperature, I'm not sure. Also, the dark crease in that underneath forearm seems a bit too pronounced.

Her face, clothing and background are very beautifully done. I only wish I could do as well.

Mike, thank you so much! She is leaning lightly against the wall but the only part touching would be her back shoulder blade. I would like it to look like she is more firmly placed so do you think I can still darken a tad at the shoulder? I agree with what you said. I was just too afraid to get it too dark. Once I do that it's hard to go back in pastel.

I have posted a photo of the hands in the above post and I am hoping you can tell me based on what you see whether I am off in my values on that arm. I am sure you are right. I think the shadow under her arm is too deep.

I have taken another photo of the work which is blurry but better color and posterized it in grayscale to see if my values are okay. Please look at that (posted below). I didn't use a flash when I took this one (which explains why it was blurry). I'm thinking the flash on my camera which aims straight for the middle, hit the hands and made the value lighter than it actually is. Of course I am basing this on my grayscale version which is the best way I know to check. Are there any other sure-fire ways of checking relative values? I really have to sacrifice color for clarity. I need a tripod.

I appreciate you also looking carefully at this. Thank you again for your help. You are a sweet and smart person.

[Terri Ficenec]

Hi again Lisa.

I see the resemblance in those eyes... and being able to compare with the reference still think that the eye on our left is 'stretched'. It also appears to be angled slightly flatter than in the reference. I'm attaching a direct (scaled to the width of the eyebrows) vertical comparison with overlying guidelines... both eyes actually seem slightly on the wide side relative to the eyebrows... but it is that the eye on our right doesn't seem to curve away from us on the outside corner that troubles me. If you look at the guideline that spans across both her eyes from outside corner to outside corner... you'll notice a deep shadow at the left most hash mark on the reference where the white of the eye appears to continue on the painting... the brow bone between the brow and top eyelid (both eyes?) is also more in shadow (both eyes?)... Don't know if pushing that down a tiny bit would help?

On the hands... you're right, that's an unfortunate, kind of problematic reference. Sometimes you've got to take things as far as you can with the reference, then step away from the reference and look only at the painting and address how it reads. I agree with Mike that reducing the values of the lights on those hands seems called for.... reducing the contrast this way (both hands) might help to reduce that appearance of flatness/boxiness. Perhaps unifying the shadows under the far wrist might help things on that side. In any case, reducing the brightness of those hands will allow our eyes to be directed more towards her face. . .

[Lisa Ober]

Terri,

Ah, now I do see it. I have to admit, I had to look REALLY hard to see it but I finally did. Thanks for doing that. It really helps.

As far as the hands go, did you see the grayscale version? I think it more accurately depicts what I see in person...that there is quite a value difference between the face and the hands which for some reason isn't evident in my photo (with flash). Boy, that hand reference was odd. I'm not so sure I am good enough to make adjustments on my own so next time a better reference is in order.

All in all, your insight is great and so helpful. Thankfully this is just practice on the new board. I'm feeling like I made lots of little mistakes. I'm going to have to pay closer attention!

LOL! I just saw that you saw the response to Mike. We must be posting at the same time! Yes, the flash threw off the values. The grayscale one shows it more accurately because it is based on a photo taken with no flash. Too funny.

[Terri Ficenec]

If you haven't had a chance, you might want to check out the threads on photographing your artwork... there are lots of ideas for getting best results. . .

[Terri Ficenec]

Lisa-- just reread your response to Mike... had missed the note re: your painting being photographed with a flash... if that's what's making the hands jump out.. then disregard my comments on their value. . .