Alaina

Denise Hall · 01-16-2003, 02:14 PM

Hi everyone,

I have been mustering up the nerve to post this portrait in progress which I have been painting on 3 sessions. It is from a photo which I will post later today due to a technical problem.

The portrait is oil on linen 30" x 24" and my main problem is probably easy to see. The shadows and I wrestle. The digital seems to be more colorful than my actual picture. Her shirt will be white and as you can see I have changed the neckline. I painted portraits of Alaina from two other photos from this shoot and just wanted to change her shirt a little. It will still be white. The shadow in the photo is extremely dark, as you will soon see so I have had to really pull the color out.

I am interested in getting feedback from you guys so please feel free to critique. The paint is still workable and I really do have technical problems with using glazes once the paint starts to get too dry. I know its inevitable but try, like I have been taught, to do as much as possible without the use of any medium. I will be using megilp when I do.

I began with a charcoal drawing using the sight size method; taking Sharon Knettell's advice to blow up the photo reference as large as possible and keeping it beside my easel. It has helped immensely with accuracy. I sprayed lightly with krylon charcoal spray to preserve the drawing. No underpainting was done.

I will post the photo reference by tonight as well as some more in process pictures if anyone is interested. I took some at the beginning, and again a little further along. This is where I am right now and stumped at my next step.

Thank you all for your feedback!

Mari DeRuntz · 01-16-2003, 03:01 PM

Wow, Denise. You

Cynthia Daniel · 01-16-2003, 03:44 PM

Denise,

You mentioned that the digital image seems more colorful than the original. Most likely, you need to adjust the saturation setting on the image.

Also, it looks like you could lessen the jpg compression some for better clarity. Once you've saved a file as a jpg, you can never regain lost quality without re-scanning or going back to a loss-less image format such as tif or psd and then resaving as a jpg with less compression.

Denise Hall · 01-17-2003, 12:30 AM

Here is the photo reference for the painting. I had to take a digital of the enlarged shot since the original was taken with my Nikon and not developed on a picture CD. I usually have all my film developed as a CD now so I can upload to the internet and my computer. At least it shows what I had to work with. This photo was taken before I really started reading a lot about "good and bad" photo references. I know use portra film with foamboard as a relector in the shadow side of my subjects' faces.

Mari,

Thank you so much for all your very valuable advice/feedback. I really needed to hear any and all advice! I appreciate greatly your taking the time in a timely manner also. Thanks to you - I painted for about 2 hours tonight after work, even though I knew I couldn't work on the background. I will post the progress on the face after the photo reference.

I hope to have it nearly finished by the weekend's end. That is if I don't completely wipe it away first! I've been known.....

Cynthia - thank you for the photo advice too but I was not able to do a thing differently.

Denise Hall · 01-17-2003, 12:40 AM

The paint is still wet, therefore I am pushing for it! Still no medium but I can tell it's coming...

Denise Hall · 01-17-2003, 12:54 AM

This is the closest photo I took and it shows all my mistakes!

Denise Hall · 01-18-2003, 11:42 PM

I'm not sure if anyone is interested in critiqueing this portrait at this stage but I still welcome help/advice on any and all parts to make this "whole". This is a jpeg from a digital and I apologize for the quality. I'm not willing to get a C print made just to post for a critique on the Forum, however. That was supposed to be funny.

Lon Haverly · 01-19-2003, 12:18 AM

Hi Denise!

Great project, painting and source. Nice job so far. My first observation is the difference of color up and down the face where the light turns. At the top and neck, it is ocher. On the cheek, it is alizarin. I realize that in the photo there is a bit of ocher on the forehead and neck where the light turns. Photos don't lie, do they? Well, yes they do. And in a painting, these differences stand out more than they do in a photo. You may consider toning down the ocher, or changing the color base you are using there to something less hot. It may need to have more consistency where the light turns.

I understand how ocher-type colors really look bad on digital. But, I have also learned that the digital camera is a cool tool to tell you when you are overstepping a color. Sometimes you can use the digital as a means to measure the temperature of your colors and their usability. This is a good time in the painting to change these colors. However, if you didn't change a thing, it would work.

All for now!

Denise Hall · 01-19-2003, 05:18 PM

Hi Lon!

First of all, I appreciate you taking the time to critique my painting. You were right on the money as well!

Quote:

I understand how ochre type colors look bad on digital cameras.

Yes, Lon, and I have also noticed that in almost every painting I photograph. Getting the saturation level/brightness level is hard to judge until you upload your pictures to the computer into your photo editing program. You are right though - too much yellow going on in her left forehead area and I have since toned that down.

You also mentioned what a cool tool (and instant almost) the digital is for seeing all the color mistakes and that is exactly why I take these pictures during my painting process. It shows me all kinds of things to work on - from anatomy problems to value problem areas. I especially love the black and white and sepia pictures I take of my paintings. That helps me so much in the early stages.

I have to let this dry now before I can fine tune it using a medium. I am so happy that I was able to get this far without the use of medium - just straight oils.

Thank you again for your time and valuable advice, Lon.

Marvin Mattelson · 01-20-2003, 01:41 AM

Denise,

Congratulations, your drawing is getting better. The first step in doing skillful painting is putting things in the right place. This we call drawing and working sight size is a good way to train your eye. Try setting up a plaster cast with a consistent and direct light source. You can also work on seeing values and subtle modeling without the distraction of color.

The palette you are using is very hard to control and I would suggest a more traditional palette for flesh painting. Yellow ochre pale, yellow ochre, terra rosa, sinopia (or indian red), raw umber and ivory black will deliver an extraordinary range of human tones that are both beautiful and quite lively. This served artists such as Van Dyke, Rembrandt, Titian and Paxton.

Using thirty colors to paint flesh is like jumping into shark infested waters to learn how to swim. It can be effective but the chances of surviving are slim.

In painting there are rules and then their are truths. Don't confuse the two.

A medium is used if the handling of the paint is not to your liking or to control drying time. It is not a bad thing to use one.

My last point concerns photography. There is a computer term GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). This refers to working from bad reference as well. Another way of putting it is, "you can't make a sow's ear into a silk purse." If you can't see something how can you paint it? Superior realists always work from an abundance and not a shortage of information.

When you attend my Greensboro workshop in June, I will be specifically addressing the issues of modeling form, color mixing and drawing. By the way, I will be leading a one day photography and lighting seminar at the end of this month, in conjunction with the Portrait Society of Atlanta on January 29th. I'll be doing a painting demo the preceding evening.