My first submission

[Michael Fournier]

I would turn down the lights on the stairs, so to speak. Paint her as if the only light is on her and then put the lesser architectural elements in the dark and paint just enough of them so a viewer can still tell what it is. The dark banister will fade back if the area of the stairs is dark. Also the area of the floor behind her could be made much darker and maybe even show her shadow across the floor and then up the wall, which will give the painting more depth. Turn down the light on most of the chair to play it down and also make the strange perspective caused by the camera lens less noticeable.

Think chiaroscuro, the technique of using light and shade in pictorial representation, the arrangement of light and dark elements in a pictorial work of art. It is Italian, "chiaro" meaningg bright-light, and "obscure" meaning dark or no light.) The word is also used to describe a method of painting in which you paint the lights and darks in a brown or greenish toned under painting. It is called this because you paint lights and darks only with that layer of paint.

Think chiaroscuro every time you think composition. The placement of your lights and darks is as important if not more important than how the objects are arranged. I feel it is more important because if you place an object in the dark, it is hidden from view and the light and dark shapes formed by the shadows and lights are what give the painting form and direct the eye to points of interest. (Color, edges and line also do this so I don't mean to say that the lights and darks are the only thing to worry about.)

I always try and take a tip from Caravaggio on composition -- put your subject in the spot light and the supporting cast in the ambient light and the unimportant in the shadow.

For Caravaggio, chiaroscuro meant that god was in the light and the absence of light was the absence of god. And he used this technique extremely well. In the painting below:

You can see more of his work here:
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=589

P.S. You do not need to go as dark as Caravaggio with the darks but you need some more darks to contrast with the lights.

[Michael Fournier]

Oops, forgot:

[Sharon Knettell]

Linda, for future reference, I would always suggest a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens for body shots and an 80mm lens for head shots to 3/4. With 35mm film and a very sharp lens (I use Nikon) you can get large, even life-size blowups to put up next to your canvas. This way you can see your reference and the painting at the same time. You can also compare them in a mirror which reveals a lot of errors.

The digital prints are too grainy to do this unless you have a $20,000 camera. I find that a lot a people use too small a print, which makes their work tighter. I like to get the head blown up to my working size, an enormous help, especially when placed directly next to the portrait. Also, you can get custom work done more cheaply. For example, if a portion of the print is too washed out, say the hands, you can have the printer darken them.

Also, I have had excellent luck with Portra NC 160, a Kodak film developed especially for portraits. The light tones are not washed out and the shadows are not black. That and a portable silver reflector and I am good to go!

Good luck for the future, you have already received some really good advice from the pros here, but I do have a few comments.

A: The gold of her hair and gown calls out for a dark dramatic background. The dark background would highlight her hair and allow you to get richer tones in the gown.

B: Always try to shoot figures at the waist, it gives a more regal look. This does not work on people with full chins as they have to look down and that accentuates it. Also some older women look better if they are seated and looking slightly up as that smoothes out the chin.

C: I'm not so sure I like the stripes as that again detracts from the figure.

D: With a young adult such as this you can use stronger, more interesting lighting on the face. Look at good fashion photos for interesting ideas.

E: Your painting size is too small for the figure. Most professional portrait artists like to work same size as the figure. I prefer an 8" head on an adult female, so in my calculations the figure mid-calf would be 7 heads high X 8", the figure alone would be 56". See the thread on figure size and my body proportions. I do my figures based on an 8 head figure.

Notwithstanding my caveats you really have a beautiful start here.

Sincerely,

[Michael Fournier]

Great advice, Sharon,

I especially like your recommendation about the camera being waist high. In my first post I hinted about that when I said I bet the camera was held at eye level to the subject but I did not mention what would be a better height. So I am glad you brought it up.

I am sure you have much more experience than I in getting great photo reference for a painting like this. I usually try to work from life and my photos are usually only a guide for latter work when the person is not there.

Although I have done plenty of illustrations of full-length figures, I have not done that many full-length portraits, for the very reason you referred to in your post. And that is, they must be large and usually the people that I get commissions from do not have the room for such a large canvas and a full-length portrait is out of the question. I sure would like to get more, since I would make a much better living if I did, but at this time I get way more head and shoulder commissions then even 3/4. To date I have only received one standing full-length portrait commission and a few full-length adults in a seated pose so the canvas did not need to be as tall. It may be that because I do not show full length portraits, I do not get more commissions for them, but it is hard to do a lot of large paintings like that when you are not getting many requests for full-length portraits. It is kind of a Catch 22. I might get more commissions for them if I painted more and I would paint more if I got more commissions for them.

Well, anyway, I will always value your advice, and on this one especially, since you have done way more paintings like this than I.

[Sharon Knettell]

Hi, Michael,

Thanks for the chiarascuro info, that is a great help. I think you are right to work from life when you can, this is just a poor substitute.

I find shooting the photo in the same light the portrait is being painted in, i.e., my studio, is the best of both worlds. I have the model pose live, and if he or she is not able to come, I have my very patient photo there to refer to.

I have done photo shoots with the clear understanding that the client is to pose, only to have them flatly refuse.

I find that if I get the client's costume, put it on a form, that color can help me key the skin tones. That and a local victim with the same skin color can be employed.

I prefer the photo and model combo in my own work, as I like to work alone, but as you have pointed out there is no substitute for life.

Sincerely,

[Linda Nelson]

Chris - As far as revising the painting, the client already has the painting and I doubt I can get it back. I have received her permission though to make another for myself (to use as an example), and I'll be making changes to that one as discussed. Hopefully I can put that second portrait up for review on this thread later.

Thanks, Linda