Hi Richard,
I'm a beginner but have some thoughts about it.
First, J.Sheppard's book is good, but not for starter as me. But you can build your opinion: if you see the cover (a nude) at amazon.com, this made in Titian manner. He wrote following, for example, about Titian:
"He painted his portraits and figures from life and composed directly on the canvas. The ground was usually a warm gray or pinkish color. His first sittings were often painted in red (red ochre or vermilion), black and white. He probably attacked the canvas with bold strokes, modeling the light forms in gray and the shadows with warm browns and reds. In the second sitting he would cover the entire flesh area with a velatura of gray and start to refine and blend the forms. In additional sittings he would cover the flesh area with velaturas of flesh tones and finally work up to full color range. He disregarded contours and constructed his composition in large areas of flat color, letting the edges overlap and blend together. This allowed him to alter his composition and make other changes very easily. He obviously never painted alla prima."
Notice: Velaturas = translucent coat of paint, that allows the dry undercoat to appear as through fog; sometimes called a "halfpaste". (Velata= veil, haze) Nowadays I think: a kind of scumbling.
Sheppard paints with that halfpaste - a thick, solid underpainting.
The best review found in Bill Creevy's: Materials and Techniques for Today's Artist. With many demos and detailed accomplishments.
You can see a few fine, delicate demos from A. Antonov at
http://www.1art.com/tips.htm and an incredible rose at
http://www.artpapa.com/oil-painting-lesson-1/index.html
As M.Georges wrote, there are many kind of so called "underpainting". One serves only as a map to orient, like in the books of Wendon Blake (G.Passantino)or at
www.tonyryder.com (the slideshows): it would be entirely covered at the end.
After reading your thread "Underpainting with RU" I think you paint so, with slowly approaching your final version. The other kind is the famous "Old Master" underpainting. To see it in Scott's demo. It has still a "viewable" function/role in the final version of the picture. (it gives the form!) It helps in a versatile manner. "All the fight with composition, lighting, forms, ("mind-jobs") located in the under layer. The colors, mood, fineness and details ("feeling-jobs") lays in the overpainting." (Kurt Wehlte)
An other advantage of that way for starter is the homogenous color harmony of the whole painting. The colors of underpainting, mostly a color with enough "bandwidth" in combination with white, like R.U. or B.S. If Black then is called "Grisaille" (french for gray) what you asked for flesh. (Never tried, so I don't know) But for flesh, there is the Verdaccio (btw, hmm.. where is M.Georges?) used by Italians. This greenish tone makes easier to match living fleshtones, by prevents "orange" skin (green<->orange) and as Michael said, under the skin is always some really green or blue. To get this effect I think you can go with a Terra Verte (weak tinting power) layer over flesh as first, over the completed underpainting. Btw, I "discovered"
underpainting must be fully smooth, without any "impasto" strokes, they are deadly. (#600 grit sandpaper!)
I think the underpainting color plays a role, but not so big as it seems first, in any case, a side with mass of tips: (not only for copal!)
http://www.garrettcopal.com/newpage4.htm
So I don't understand fully your complementary color scheme idea. It is always a mix, in case of glazing even an optical mix (dried layer over layer and so on). So usually if one mix the complementary colors together, one get a dark version of one color or a dark gray. (theoretically: black). I don't know, perhaps you can make very fine nuances with complementary underpainting/glazing colors.
About speed: Sargent painted very rapidly (started with the halftones, highly interesting), P.P. Rubens output was enormous, reading in the Unveiling Section: Bill Whitaker can paint in three hours a portrait almost final. But I read too, he mixes colors (the final goal version!) at light-speed. I don't know, how important is speed. One said : If you mix a tone in a half hour and do one brushstroke with it, that is very good. Or: Only if you fully satisfied with this/that part, even it means 20 hrs. job for that one feature, then go on.
I think all the Masters who worked in this underpainting manner, worked simultaneously with many pictures. Nowadays we have mediums, balsams they produce a very rapid drying time. And one can paint the underpainting in tempera (even the mische-technique), gouche, acryl, alkyd. I, personally an impatient guy, can work on one motif only 4-5 hrs. so having always 2-3 pictures in progress/practice.
I think so, a high quality picture in alla prima needs minimum 30 upto 100 hrs. (with complex cloths and things like Marvin's: Sylvia) I think it is manageable in underpainting manner the same time too (even less?)
Please correct me if I'm writing too much foolishness!!
I have two little pictures, to explain what I see in the underpainting as advantage (one of):
this folds, a little part of a big robe, in the monochrome underpainting: I don't know how much time it took, but not many.
Here is the final version after 2-3 layers. Only Al.Crimson, Scarlet, and some U.Blue in shadows. I remember, it was only ca.1 hour for the whole robe, each days. And done without mixing the explicit tone for folds' highlight or shadows or for other wave of folds, they falling in right place automatically. Even if I would changed my mind and wanted blue cloths after the underpainting phase.
For me, it is not important always to paint in this manner, only to have the knowledge of the wide possibilities of that is the important.(e.g. I know no better way to paint underwater scenes)
Sorry for poor english and poor photos.(and poor painting...
)
I hope it helps some, Richard.
Cheers!
Linear Mode
