A Hopeful

[Mark Branscum]

Hello,

I have been looking at the pastels here for a week or so now and I am getting more interested in doing some pastels.

I don't yet have any pastels, but will go and get me some tomorrow, but am not to sure what is the best for me to get.

At any rate, being anxious to do a pastel portrait and not having any, I descided to try one with Painter 7, a digital art program.

Yes, I know it's not traditional, but if you will indulge me this once, I will try hard to make the next one with actual pastels on paper.

This is a work in progress. Any pointers are welcomed.

Mark

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/i...002/study5.JPG

[Elizabeth Schott]

Hello Mark,

I think it looks...digital! It is hard to comment on a "pastel" that has been generated with this software - I do like the hair! Are you using reference?

[Steven Sweeney]

Yes, I know it's not traditional,

Right, Mark, and though its nontraditional nature isn't problematic per se (indeed for many of us it's quite interesting), it is nonetheless very difficult for most of us here to provide any sort of meaningful critique of a digital image under the usual standards for traditional portraiture, which is the focus of this site, as opposed to, say, illustration, caricature, or graphic design. There are a few technology wizards on site (and by comparison I'm Fantasia's mousy apprentice with mop and bucket), but by and large you're likely to get far more responses and much more useful feedback on your efforts once you've begun applying traditional media by hand, because there are folks here who know what that feels like, what the challenges are, and how to manipulate those media to achieve the unique results produced by individual, non-computer assisted effort. For that reason, I'm looking forward to seeing the first products of your obvious enthusiasm for pastels and for portraiture in general.

[Michele Rushworth]

Having been thoroughly immersed in digital technology in my formative years as an artist, I think it's absolutely a legitimate medium and worthy of a critique. I also think that the issues of drawing, lighting and color are the same whether you're using a broom and a bucket or a megabucks computer program to do it.

That said, you've made a nice start. It would be helpful if you could post your reference photos.

I don't know if you plan to complete the right side of the image, but I like it in its "unfinished" state. I always enjoy seeing the mind of the artist at work when parts of a painting or drawing are left undone.

As for the next steps, you should check your reference and look very closely for warm and cool variation in the skintone. That will give it much more life.

The mouth and nose are very nice but the eye looks a bit flat. The thickly drawn eyelashes contribute to that feeling but also having the whites this bright makes the eye seem artificial, too.

The hair is nicely done but doesn't fit the lighting on the rest of the form. In order to have those two shiny areas above and below the ear there would have had to be a light on that side of the face. Since the face itself doesn't show any influence from light coming from over there, there's a conflict.

Good start, and don't worry about your choice of medium!

[Rebecca Hemstad]

Hi Mark.

I don't personally use pastels (limited experience). But I am proficient on the computer side and can only comment from that end. (I use oil outside of the computer).

My first recommendation is to stop the digital version for the time being. Go get the pastels and play with them on paper. Get a handle on how they feel, respond, etc. When you return to the computer version in Painter, your entire perspective on how you are doing this digitally will change. Sometimes the computer is too convenient and you can do things in Painter that truly can't be duplicated in real pastels. Plus you have the "undo button". The undo function is a curse and a blessing at the same time. Understanding the limits and possibilities of the actual medium is critical when working in the computer world and programs like painter.

Hope this helps.

p. s. I will add that your rendering of the hair is excellent, but could you have done it the same way you did it here in actual pastel? That is, instead of holding a mouse or wacom pen, holding an actual pastel? That's the difference, Mark. That is what you need to be thinking about most of all when working digitally. And when you can think like that your computer pictures will never look digital.

Rebecca

[Steven Sweeney]

Having written elsewhere that I fuss around in PhotoShop almost daily to help get readings on the various ways I might proceed with a work in progress, I didn't mean to discourage development of the often skillfully executed drawings and paintings done with computer assistance. I'm not giving up my PhotoShop and CorelDRAW programs and I'm not suggesting that anyone else should.

To be sure, there are things that can be said about lighting, shadows, shapes, line and edges in a digital image, but my guess is that the way to discover how pastels "behave" in the course of attempting to capture those effects is to get some in your hands and begin pushing them around, with this paper and that, on one backing sheet or eight. It would seem, too, instructive in matters of lighting and edges and composition to learn by studying how the Daniel Greenes and Chris Sapers and Wendy Caporales handled those elements, while actually working in that medium. Going to the Stroke of Genius homepage and clicking on "Pastel" will produce dozens of masterly examples of all elements that go into the "construction" of such a piece. And then, to learn how to manipulate the medium, one has to pick up a real pastel stick and start painting. (I originally typed "paining", which perhaps more accurately describes my first efforts with this medium.)

Incidentally, the reference to "Chris Sapers" was merely literary. There is only one Chris Saper.