Another size question.
 

What would be the smallest size would you recommend for a full length standing 5yo boy?

Ok, I hear crickets chirping, let me ask this a different way.

I am doing a portrait of a 5yo. Originally, the mother wanted to have him sitting in the house. I shot a couple of pictures of him outside as we were leaving and when she saw these she changed her mind. So, I am going back to take more pictures of him outside, in this spot.

When the original idea was to have him seated, we were going with a 24x36. She likes his bare feet, so she wants this in there. If she ends up still going with a standing pose such as this one, is a 24x36 too small? Would a 30x40 be big enough? Any suggestions before I go reshoot this and try to talk her into something bigger and ultimately more expensive?

Mary,

Take your photo and measure the head vertically. Call this measurement 7" (or whatever you feel comfortable with). Now, extrapolate that measurement over the entire vertical of the photo and you will have the size of your canvas.

If I've got the math right this calculates to roughly a 38" canvas. And it looks like you could easily add some room top and bottom.

Wait a minute, Mary, what is the price structure for your portraits? Don't you charge by body parts, not physical size of the canvas?

Remember that the expression, "that'll cost you an arm and a leg" historically refers to portrait painting.

No, I charge by size. Remember Linda, I am the weakling that has a hard time charging at all. While some people would be jumping at the opportunity to go up in size to a willing participant, I am getting the guilts.

Well, I have no math brain, so thanks for figuring this out for me. I generally do my children's heads at around 7". Based on what you have here, a 30 by 40 would be sufficient but a 24 x 36 would have him looking dinky. I think she will be fine with 30 by 40, I am just trying to make sure he looks proportionate.

I like this shot to paint from, too. Give him a bit more room top and bottom and I think you've got a winner.

Mary, what I did specifically is this ...

If you bring the photo into your photo shop software (or other software) it will indicate your photo to be so many pixels high and wide. Like the restrictions we have here for posting 400 w by 600 h.

If you set your cursor on the top of his head your program should indicate, on the (x y) axis, how many pixels down from the top your cursor pointer is (for your photo the number was 17), make note of that number. Then, move the cursor to the bottom of the chin and note the pixel position number (your photo was 117).

Now, subtract the first number (top of head 17) from the second number (bottom of the chin 117) and you will have the total vertical pixels of the head (100).

If you take that number (100) and divide it into the total number of vertical pixels (your photo was 539) you will get how many "seven inches" there are within the overall vertical length of the photo. Then, take that number (5.39) and multiply it by seven to get the vertical size of the canvas (37.73) using a seven inch head.

This is a lot harder to describe than it is to do. And, I should get extra points for doing this calculation during what looks like the last game of the World Series.

This isn't to the point of format size, but I would be a little concerned about how to avoid an "amputee" appearance in that bent leg. I think I'd lower the foot about 30% of the distance below it (it would still appear that he's resting his heel on part of the plaster critter behind him), so that you could show the shin in a foreshortened posture. If not that, then I'd open up some space between that resting foot and the leg next to it, to make it clearer that it "belongs" to the round knee.

Yes, Mike, I definitely gave you extra points for that! I'll give you even more if you look at this.

Steven, nice to see you. That isn't the photo we are going to use.
The mom likes this one.

What do you think? If you would use it, where would you crop in for a 30x40?