Emma - Page 2

Jean Kelly · 06-14-2004, 10:05 AM

Hi Mary, in my opinion, photo references are a necessary evil. In this case you may have to reach farther and find the personality inside the girl. I would ask the parents to tell you many good stories about her, what makes her smile etc. You've already met her, what did you feel from her? I see a very fragile, sensitive and deeply introspective little person. Design your painting more from the heart than religiously following the perfect photo reference (you may never get one). Your third photo looks like a possible, it has better modeling of the shadows in her face and the light is quite nice. It also has less of the green reflections which I don't believe are flattering to her.

We talk a lot about value, drawing, composition and all the technical aspects of portraiture, but very little about the "heart" of the powerful painting. What did you find to love about this little girl, and what did you feel from the parents? If you use this knowledge and the 375 photos of her you will succeed, I'm sure of it.

Jean

Cindy Procious · 06-16-2004, 10:00 AM

Hi Mary,

I am one who understands poor photo references, having taken many myself.

I think that while this reference isn't ideal, it is very usable. As Allan suggested, removing the white bannister is important. I've done a photoshop rendering with it removed (along with the top of the bannister that peeks out over the top of her head.)

This can be a very strong portrait. The contrast between the soft blur of the little girl (with a few judiciously placed hard edges) and the variations of rough textures behind her can make for a very compelling composition.

I know you'll do a wonderful job with this one.

Good luck.

Steven Sweeney · 06-16-2004, 01:48 PM

Mary,

Hoping not to complicate things, I'm assuming that you will go forward with the photograph you and the family have selected, as the best of practical options available for now.

Because of the fairly flat light and very subtle value range within the figure, you might need to push those values a little bit toward the extremes in order to get the depiction of form. To that end, I'm attaching, first, a grayscale version of Cindy's attachment, and then the same image "overexposed," that is, with the contrast pushed way up, to more clearly show the value shapes and locations. (I'm not suggesting that you paint your value differentiation this markedly -- this is deliberately over the top for demonstration purposes only. You will of course be more subtle.)

The disappearing arms may or may not present a problem, but I think it essential that you pay very close attention to the values first, drawing second, color third. (If you can do all three at once, great.)

The grayscale also shows, for better or worse, the compositional weight of that white brick structure to our right and the white floral riser behind her. You're going to want to greatly subdue those values, as they will otherwise overpower the girl as well as the composition.

Mary Sparrow · 06-16-2004, 02:12 PM

Thanks everyone for your help. I know there are several of you that don't think I should try this at all, however, I really am going to go at this with the thought that I may be doing the whole thing over. I know that the family really doesn't want to deal with re shooting the photos, so I think this is the best approach at this point.

To add to this challenge, I have been asked to just put greenery in the background. So now I need to come up with a background that will work.

Michele Rushworth · 06-17-2004, 12:07 AM

As far as the greenery, I'd go find something you like and photograph it in EXACTLY the same lighting conditions as you had for the shot of the girl. Same soft light, same angle of light, etc.

One of my favorite artists for painting children outdoors is Hongmin Zou, on SOG at http://hongminzou.com -- check out his backgrounds, especially how the values enhance the composition and make the figure stand out.

Mary Sparrow · 07-04-2004, 08:21 AM

I have started this and am not sure how to handle her eyes. It is hard to tell from the monitor, but because of her sight issues, her eyes do not always line up. From what I remember, MOST of the time you looked at her they did not line up and had an odd look. Now that I am working on her eyes, what do I do? Do I correct them or paint as they are? Do I make this decision on my own, or somehow ask the parents what they think?

It is amazing how something so subtle as moving the pupil a tad can change the whole likeness.

How would you handle this?

Mary Sparrow · 07-04-2004, 08:30 AM

Here is a close up of her eyes. If you notice, the pupils are not going in the same direction and it appears as if her left (our right) pupil is larger than the other. Would you paint this as is, correct completely or just correct a tiny bit?

Chris Saper · 07-04-2004, 12:05 PM

HI Mary,

In most situations I would just ask the subject (or the parent) how they feel about an irregularity. In this situation , though, I think I'd just paint the eyes the way they are. You'll be able to minimize the asymmetry by making one eye (here, the eye on our left) the focal point - so its edges are a little crisper, its contrast a little higher.

I did a portrait about a year ago where the child had one eye that tended to wander a bit away from center. As I painted the eye in a "correct" location, it was immediately obvious to me that her likeness was diminished. In this case, I just made the decision to paint the eye just as it is, and the parents were thrilled.

You will do a great job.