Portrait for review
 

As a new member, and a relatively new artist, I am much impressed with the work to be found in these forums. They show me that I have yet a long way to go, but also show the way I must follow.

At the same time, I hope to find honest and concise feedback here to help lift my work to a higher standard.

I would like to offer my most recent portrait for review. This is Jaquie, my youngest daughter, in her prom dress.

The reference photos I took have her sitting on a piano bench. The props - stone bench, flowers, fountain, background sky - were added from reference found on the web.

The painting is 22" x30 ", watercolor on Arches #140 HP.

Closeup following.

Please be free to use your critical eye. I am here to learn if someone is willing to teach.

Thanks in advance for your time and feedback,

Follow-up notes, 10/10/02:
As a result of the excellent suggestions, I have made substantial improvements to the images below. They have been updated with the current painting.

Thanks again to everyone who contributed their help, especially Steven, who took the time to point out flaws that never should have gotten past me. Thanks to those suggestions, the portrait overall, and the likeness in particular, is much improved.

Attachment

Closeup

Fantastic watercolor!
 

Hi, Will.

I love it, the detail on the face and dress. I don't work a lot in watercolor and am new to SOG, so teaching isn't my bag. Great work, can't wait to read what the pros think.

Tammy

Hi, Will.

Just a couple of quick notes (I

Oh, thank you for this, Steven! This is the kind of commentary I have been trying everywhere to get. In other artist forums, no one has picked up these details, and as I considered your suggestions, it felt like you had the reference photo in your hands. I am delighted to draw on your experience.

I took the reference photos by bouncing flash from the ceiling. I now see that a better flash setup, perhaps with an umbrella, is a worthwhile investment to get those shape-defining shadows.

The backdrop - it doesn't look dark and stormy on the painting. The stormy look is the result of stitching 8 scans and trying to fix the edges of them. It is a smooth gradation of color starting with (I thought) warm yellow > red > purple > blue-black. It is meant to be the tail-end of a sunset with warm colors meant to offset the cooler shades of the forground. Judging from your comments about it, the attempt is less than successful. That too is something I needed to know.

I can see where the use of warmer red or pink would have been better. But I think that is beyond fixing in this painting. I did try, with limited success, to pick up some of those colors on the edges on our left of the girl and her clothing.

Your suggestions about the eye sockets are also right on, and give me the clues I need to make notable improvements, even at this late stage. Hopefully my skills are up to the task.

Thank you again for taking the time to write such a helpful critique.

You're quite welcome, Will.

I thought you were probably using a flash photo reference and I'd written a paragraph about that but deleted it because I felt I was assuming facts not in evidence. Since you've mentioned it I'll reiterate.

Do whatever is necessary to avoid using a flash-lit photograph as a reference. Flash is anathema to the kinds of halftone and shadow influences that are going to bring drama to your painting. Light your subject with accessory and peripheral lighting, so that what you see with your eye is what you want, and only then shoot that. Use a slow-speed film if necessary (yes, some color loss, but you shouldn't be using reference photos for color cues anyway), use a tripod and a cable shutter-release if necessary, but save yourself much grief by eliminating flash in any photos that you intend to use as a reference for paintings. And use photos as a back-up. Begin to practice life poses, at least for a couple of hours at the beginning and as often during the work as is necessary to discover all those significant visual facts and clues and surprises and gifts that a photo just can't reveal.

One area that I might have mentioned earlier in this vein is the parts of the lower skirt that should be falling away from the support of the upper legs. Because the light is bouncing down off the ceiling, there's no indication available that the fabric is draped over the young woman's legs. It looks stiff. It all seems to be on a continental shelf, metaphorically, and then plunge all along its entire width into the deeper sea. The opportunity is there to produce dramatic waves in that fabric. Grab the tiller and sail through it a bit.

Best wishes.

Will,

You will probably enjoy spending some time in the "Lighting & Photographing Your Subject" topic at http://forum.portraitartist.com/foru...s=&forumid=47.

Best wishes,

Steven,

Again, your comments are accurate and do much to steer me on the right track.

You are at a disadvantage though - you don't have the reference photo as I do. Your comment that the dress does not apper to drape over the girls legs is right, but that is not the fault of the photography - it is the fault of the (dare I say?) artist. Now I hesitate to post the reference lest someone point out another multitude of obvious flaws in my work.

I have spent these days studying the painting in light of your comments, which have made it possible for me to see flaws that were invisible to me before.

Also, I have inferred from many other threads that it is not advisable to introduce secondary influences that do not exist in the reference - in this case, the sunset. It is difficult to paint what I cannot see.

Still, I will spend the time I must to salvage this painting, and apply what I have learned to the next. Perhaps by the time I have painted for a full year, I will be able to place the chin closer to the nose than the ear, and make a dress look like it is made of cloth, rather than slabs of plywood. I shall grab the tiller, as you suggest.

I would love to paint from life as suggested, but no one could sit as slowly as I paint.

When I next post for critique, I hope someone will again be as kind and thoughful as you have been.


Chris,

Thank you for the link. I have read the posts and learned much. It is a considerable relief to find techniques that eliminate flash in the hands of a non-expert like myself.

I think my next love affair will be with Rembrandt lighting, about which I have just now learned. And I will reacquaint myself with the window.


Tammy, thank you for your encouraging words.

Try not to think too much in terms of "flaws". Sometimes our execution works well, and sometimes not as well, as we develop and shape a piece toward our "idea" of the painting. To be sure, it's not an "anything goes" endeavor (if we care about our art), and there are skills to master. Over time our analytical abilities get better and better, and our experience grows in breadth and depth, and what we put down on paper or canvas gets closer to what we know we want. Be patient with yourself. I had a lot of training in life drawing and painting, and by all accounts (including a depleted bank account) I should usually get that right, but I still discover areas all the time where my drawing is not as accurate as it should be. That's the game, comparing what you've drawn or painted to what you "see" in nature and work to lessen or eliminate the difference, insofar as that suits your artistic purpose.

You'll see a lot of reference photos posted here, but it's fine that you haven't posted yours and indeed it may not have changed anything that's been said here, because you're not trying to make a copy of a photograph, you're using a photograph for reference and inspiration. If you'd posted a photo that was a visual duplicate of your painted result, I'd have still made all the same observations and recommendations about the painting as I have. It wouldn't have mattered to me whether the photographic image was accurately depicted, if I nonetheless saw in the painting a need for further attention to drawing accuracy, color temperature, dramatic play of light, and composition.

I know that some artists are able to go back into a watercolor and manipulate it a bit, but I'd hate to see you spoil your painting. It's already a very nice effort in many respects and doesn't need to be "salvaged." Get another sheet of paper mounted on your easel and start the next one.

Best wishes,
Steven

Just to resolve the thread, I though I would post the close-up again with a few notes of what I've done. Some of it is not very obvious. A higher resolution scan (800x1000) of the whole painting can be seen here: http://www.members.shaw.ca/willenns/...ortrait800.jpg. I didn't try to fix the stitch lines this time, so the sky appears more like a sunset.

1) Straightened chin. Thanks, Steven, for this suggestion, and how to fix it. This was the most obvious problem, and I'm sure glad you caught it. I find it astonishing that I could have missed it.

2) Installed some light flares on the tiara.

3) Added more roundness to the arms, to define the light sources more.

4) Emphasized the cheekbones a little more.

5) Worked to define eyelids better.

6) Picked up some of the sunset color in the dress where such reflections could conceivably fall.

The piece is still not all it could be, but I will now be satisfied with it.

Thanks again to all who responded to my request for advice.