Portrait from old high school photo

ReNae Stueve · 01-14-2003, 07:09 PM

This is 24" x 18" oil on linen, done from an old high school photo from 1947. I'm afraid I've not been able to get the color of this digital picture correct, but the image is OK. Please critique.

ReNae Stueve · 01-15-2003, 08:35 PM

Here is the scanned original. If only I could scan the painting. This doesn't look too bad. I may try Kinkos. Their sign and banner department quoted $15.00 to scan original art work while I wait.

ReNae Stueve · 01-19-2003, 11:31 AM

Although I haven't gotten any input here (believe me I know it's not easy to review and post all of the entries that are posted.) I was shown a great technique at another site. Someone took my original and layed it over the painting as a transparency. It showed how the lower lip is not full enough, the nose is not broad enough and the face, from the cheek down is too thin.

My resolve -- before the sun sets TODAY -- I will own a digital camera. I've decided on the Sony Mavica.

Please don't let these comments stop you. I'm still looking for critique on this one.

UPDATE: Proud owner of a Kodax CX4230. Simple, affordable, already taking good pictures!

Enzie Shahmiri · 01-19-2003, 11:41 AM

Hi ReNae,

Besides following the drawing corrections, you also need to study the direction of the light as it occurs on the original. You will notice that the painting looks flat in comparison (provided that the scan of your image is true).

Compare the shadow area under the chin as well. In the original it extends the entire length of the chin.

How exciting to be getting a new digital camera! Happy shopping!

John Zeissig · 01-19-2003, 02:30 PM

Hello ReNae,

Just one thing that struck me right away; the right eye ( on our left) seems to be displaced. In the photo her eyes appear to be the classical one eye width apart, whereas in the painting the interocular distance seems to be greater than this. It makes her look a bit like Jackie Kennedy in the painting compared to the photo. Since the eye location on the other side is pretty much locked in between the nose and the edge of the head, maybe you should try moving the right eye inboard so the inner corners of the eyes are about one eye width apart. Maybe you've already spotted this in the overlay process.

Another thing about that eye is that in the photo the upper lid makes a sharp descent as it approaches the inner corner; it's a slight departure that gives character to her face, and is something you might want to catch.

Finally, the heights of the eyes relative to the widths could be expanded slightly for a more youthful appearance.

I'm a little hesitant to offer these suggestions since I'm pretty inexperienced, but at least they're fairly specific so you can see if they make sense without too much effort.

Looking forward to seeing your progress on this one!

ReNae Stueve · 01-19-2003, 06:26 PM

Same painting different camera. I haven't started the revisions on this painting yet. I can't believe the difference. The Sony I had been using retails for 499.00. The Kodak I used here was 199.00. Thanks to a really good camera store clerk. I think I'm in business here.

Didn't mean to take up space here, but I wanted to see the comparison on line.

Moderator? Can you replace the image above with this one and delete this post?

Steven Sweeney · 01-19-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Moderator? Can you replace the image above with this one and delete this post?

ReNae, Given the intervening posts and critiques, it would probably be confusing to switch the images around.

You'll find that your digital camera will "see" things and record them, even if your own eye kind of unconsciously ignores them, and it might take a little while to become sensitive to that. It looks like there's a little glare on the left side, and this is going be particularly problematic when it comes to assessing the values and hues of your shadows on that side. The glare may be from a light that is too directly behind you, or it may be reflected light up off the white chair (toss a dark piece of fabric over the chair).

Even with digital, it pays to "bracket" your shots, altering slightly the camera settings, distance from the painting, light configuration, a few shots indoors, maybe some more outside, and so on, so that somewhere in there you'll have just the perfect exposure and composition. One nice thing about digital, of course, is that you just delete the other images, instead of throwing away bad prints that you've already paid for.

Lon Haverly · 01-20-2003, 05:39 PM

ReNae,

This reference photo really is a dead end in my book. The colors in the photo are ruddy, the highlights are yellow, and therefore will lead you down a bad direction for a painting. The light source is front and top, not my choice. Good effort, but who could work any better from this reference photo? Call it a day on this one.

ReNae Stueve · 01-20-2003, 08:09 PM

Lon,

You know, I'm not a quiter, but I don't see myself starting this piece over again, and this has many layers already put into it, I don't see being able to move her right eye a 1/4 " without it being a total bust.

I'm going to call it a good first effort and put it in the closet. Nothing lost. I learned a lot about color mixing, under painting, and about what "my style" might look like in flesh. I've been doing fantasy and still life up till this piece. It's my first oil portrait attempt. The most important thing, I learned how much I enjoy the human face and I have a determination to get better, much better. The hard part is finding new faces (guinea pigs) to sit for me.

The idea behind this series of women ancestry was intended to be my training so as I said, nothing lost.

Thanks for the input guys.