Interesting light

[Mike McCarty]

I took this photo over the weekend. I think it's interesting (maybe too interesting). I wonder if it has much value beyond a photo.

[John Zeissig]

Mike,

Oh, my! I think you should have given a little warning for those who might have compromised cardiovascular systems. When I scrolled down I got a direct hit in the autonomic nervous system, with the usual consequences.

Seriously, this is one of the most erotic photo-portraits I've ever seen. The effect is only heightened by the sun dappling, the backlighting and the overexposure.

I think there are lots of things you could do with this: what did you have in mind?

[Mike McCarty]

John,

I think that sometimes I get a little too cute with the effects. My goal is always to create material for painting, but sometimes the effects of nature are so powerful that I feel that I could never render them with the same effect. Maybe I am too timid.

[John Zeissig]

Mike,

I didn't get the impression that you were trying to be too cute. I just thought you happened into a really appealing lighting situation and got the shot. It doesn't look posed at all to me and the sun-dappling doesn't look like you were striving for it.

But the girl is an absolute heartbreaker! What a look! I think you should paint this, even as a study, even if you never show it to anybody. Do you know the Waterhouse painting "Hylas and the Nymphs"? Well, I think this young lady would have had Hylas in that pond before he knew what hit him. It's a little bit high-risk to try to get that expression just right, but well worth the effort. Then if you can bottle it...

Actually, I've failed twice to capture that female seductive look in my last two paintings. Maybe I'll post the latest one for criticism, although it's definitely a failure. I think you've got a lot better shot at it working from this photo.

[Mike McCarty]

John,

It would, as you say, be an interesting exercise. I have a few other projects to get through before selecting another. Thanks for the interest.

I look forward to seeing your "failure." I recently posted a portrait of three girls on horseback that had to be abandoned as a failure. I learned much from that failed attempt.

You have a very interesting web site with some some very interesting projects going on.

[John Zeissig]

Mike

I think it could be more than just a study or exercise. I just meant that I wouldn't let it go without doing at least that. This is the kind of thing that could transcend the commission type portrait and be of universal interest; an archetype, if you will.

I thought the horseback painting you were working on was better than you seem to, but getting to call your own shots is one of the best parts of doing art.

Thanks for the comment on my website. It's badly in need of a total overhaul. Interesting projects, yeees!

Ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times!" Yuk yuk yuk.

[Denise Racine]

I smiled thoughout John's comments and kept thinking..."hormones guys!"

But I agree, she is definitely a beautiful model and the light makes the pose quite intriguing. Did you intend to paint the leaves?

[John Zeissig]

Hey Denise,

You're right about the hormones. Trouble is I've only got an average of 26 molecules of testosterone available at any given time, and Mike's post just accounted for about 15 of those! I'd better confine myself to looking at landscapes for awhile, or at least nothing more dangerous than pet portraits, huh?

[Mike McCarty]

Denise,

I think that if I were to paint this I would surely include the leaves. I think they help explain the light and reflected colors on the ladies chest.

I think I'm going to have to put some clothes on this girl. As a painted portrait, which would you prefer?

[Michele Rushworth]

Both photos are gorgeous, but I prefer the second one more. It seems more complete and the sun dappling on the chest is less distracting when it's in the context of the overall image. But then, I'm a female who may just prefer to see that she does indeed have some clothes on!