Kimberly - Page 2

Chuck Yokota · 06-11-2004, 11:39 AM

Mike,
I like #2. With the hair pulled back over her near shoulder, there is clearer connection of the head with the body. I don't know if it's an optical illusion or not, but the head in the other photo looks a bit thrust forward. In all the photos, I also wish her expression were a bit happier.

Mike McCarty · 06-11-2004, 12:27 PM

Mike,

Not to discount Marvin's observations, but of the two here, number one has a posture issue as Chuck points out. The hair is also a plus in #2, and #2 suggests a longer (more flattering for women), more elegant gesture.

Good luck, Mike

Marvin Mattelson · 06-11-2004, 02:15 PM

Number two is far superior compositionally. To me anyway. If I were you I would re-shoot it now keeping #2 in mind, while moving the main light a bit to my right. Not only does the nose shadow protrude too far to the side plane, the nose also casts an unflattering shadow on her cheek which darkens her far eye. Raeburn kept the shadows apart to separate the front plane from the side for a more sculptural effect. Of course then you could also lower the shadow value.

I think the most important thing is to start out with a winning pose and lighting that has the value arrangement which best serves your intentions. If you go in saying I need to change this or adjust that, your consciousness is already compromised. One great lesson I learned from both Paxton and Sargent was that they were fastidious in their setups, even to the point in having costumes custom made for their subjects.

I recently purchased a small canon printer which makes 4 x 6 dye sub prints directly from a pict bridge capable camera (my nikon D70). I can actually print out my photo directly on the spot to show to the client and of course review myself. The printer is very compact. Slightly larger size printers that make 4 x 6 inkjet prints are also available from epson and hp. The point is that you can make instant corrections, re-shooting on the spot. Errors are hard to pick out on a tiny LCD screen.

I have said this before, but in my estimation too many people are working from bad and insufficient reference materials which reduces the chance of one's success geometrically. I also feel people should study the lighting that the masters employed. There is a reason they are masters, after all. Something that works in a photo my not necessarily translate well to a painting.

Mike Dodson · 06-11-2004, 02:51 PM

Thanks to all of you for your comments. This will turn out to be a great learning experience for myself and hopefully to others viewing. I'll take the time to try another shoot this weekend and see what I can come up with as far as lighting. I certainly want to go into this with the best resource photo/pose/lighting that I can have.

By the way, I just returned from the museum and took a few photo's of the Raeburn painting.

Marvin Mattelson · 06-11-2004, 04:43 PM

Awesome!

Linda Brandon · 06-11-2004, 10:09 PM

Mike, two quick points:

- Your photo has the perfect Raeburnesque nose highlights - long vertical sweep on the edge in the light, then a definite bridge before it goes into shadow on the other side. Notice the difference between that bone highlight and the highlight on the softer nose tip, which is cartilage. I love how Raeburn gets those deft strokes in there. He always strikes me as an artist who took joy in his work.

- Bill Whitaker told our class to try and get both inside eye corners in the light, while still getting a (narrow) nose shadow. It seems to me that on most faces this in itself ought to seperate that nose shadow from the cheek shadow.

You're making me want to stop what I'm doing and set up a pose like this, too!

Matthew Severson · 06-11-2004, 10:57 PM

Have you ever tried to shoot a model by candle light? (That sounded terribly wrong...) I would assume that many artists of the past did alot of painting by candle light.. Perhaps I'm incorrect.
Matt

Mike Dodson · 06-12-2004, 10:29 AM

An attempt last night to shoot an improved photo over what I currently have in photo #2 was unsuccessful. I would move the lighting around to the right to rid myself of the cast shadow of the nose onto the cheek only to lighten the darkeneed side of the face. Once I was able to get close to what I was looking for the pose just wasn't there, at least not as good as what I currently have. I chose to go ahead and incoporate the changes that Mike suggested by lowering the neck-line and taking away some of her body width. I also took Marvin's recommendation of doing something with the cast nose shadow, so I removed it from the cheek and left it just to the left of her nose to give it definition.I really like the look that I have going here (with the suggestions incorporated that I have received so far) but if any of you think I am completely off base please say so.

Linda: Great point comcerning the inside corners of the eyes. I made a value change on the photo but it doesn't seem to show up as much on screen as it does on my printed photo.