Hair-do
 

22 x 17-1/2" ABS panel. Comments welcome.

Richard,

Let me first say, you have done a lovely job on the skin-tones, the face is quite lovely.

That said, I do have a few comments. There is a fold of skin behind her arm, even though it may be there, could be edited out. If it is her wing bone It does seem somewhat misplaced. The right eye is much stronger than the left, even though it is in shadow, it should recede somewhat. The hand clutching the drape need some more grace, a more pleasing position if you will.

Finally, though I applaud it's originality, I am not sure what is in her hair. The shapes are interesting for sure, but to further the concept you wish to communicate, they should read as well. For example; shells or starfish would suggest a sea-nymph, stars, a goddess or leaves a forest sprite. There is a topic under the Cafe Geurbois, called, "So you think you can paint?" that shows a bride in a dress all made out of paper. It is unusual but it does make sense, while being original.
These are obvious examples for illustration purposes only.

Are you working from a photograph or life?

Ha, ha, ha! I'm not either! I see what you're "wanting" from that - actually, they're some kind of newfangled version of rag curlers . . . of course they're non-descript unless you know exactly what they are. It appealed to me, reminiscent (to me) somehow, of a laurel wreath, or something.

I began from the life, two one-hour sittings on the same day, and finished from photo references. Thank you for looking.

Richard,

I do applaud you for trying something original. It does make an interesting design.

Scott Burdick alsways says "Squint and compare". We have all been taught to squint, but comparing is also critical. Look at the picture in this link...

http://www.scottburdick.com/2005scott48.htm

The whites of the eyes are quite dark. As Scott says, if you look at the model's eyes, you'll see white, but compare them to the lights of the forehead, and you see they're much darker. That's how he nailed that value.

As he said, if you have a piece of white paper sitting in the sun, just outside your window, and another indoors, out of the bright light, they both look very white when you look at them individually. It's when you compare that you see one is very dark compared to the other.

This has been mentioned to me here on SOG for some time. Look for the lightest light, and make other values darker than that, asking yourself "how much lighter is it than that light that I am referencing?"

Regarding values in the eyes, I'm tempted to whine that being photographed and run through the meat-grinder of translation to a monitor is the culprit, not my sensitive and correct handling . . . ;) In truth, it appears more contrasty here than "in person". . . but I hate whiners, so perhaps better question are:

Do more successful paintings transcend these vagaries of reproduction? Would a more compressed value range in the painting itself "present" better online?

The more I look at this, Richard, the more I like it. Can you post a closeup of her face? I work on ABS too, I would love to put my nose up to this.

Thank you for the kind comment, Linda! - I have erred. Exceedingly! (and I promise never to do it again!!) The long story . . . I had a snap chance to display a one-man show early this month, which put me rather short of pieces to show. I was also previously committed to show three pieces in a local "annual spring show", and stupidly committed this one . . . before I had it finished. I won't be able to take a close-up photo until I get her back, about the middle of next month. If you'd still like to see a closeup, it would be my pleasure!