Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post

Celeste McCall · 06-15-2003, 10:19 AM

Hi again,

Also in the example above, the background looks black...completely black. Yet it would be much better to use the blue black/green black/red black combinations in that area to have the value not completely flat and also keep it interesting.

Have you ever taken a black and white photo outside in the sunshine? I suspect that one might even be able to discern a room or curtain back behind the subject in this photo. And that might add even more dimension and depth to the painting as opposed to painting it in black or solid dark colors. Although I realize that dark is sometimes interpreted as infinity.

Also, notice how her light, perhaps a pale to medium value dress, let's say it's a medium blue, will transition to shadow and matches the black backround. This blue will be painted almost navy in this background to match what you see in the picture. However, in real life you would not only see the back of the dress in some of this flat looking shadow area, you would also see some folds of material and you would see different colors perhpaps.

Now let's apply an "if" and what some painters still paint it. Let's say this dress was white. Would there be a white back of the dress showing? Well, yes and no. No, there will not be any perfectly white with it's bright color modulations on this side. And yes, there will be grays and colors indicating the white dress but they will be painted in darker values. Of course you would see some lighter ones in real life than show in the photo. Yet, many times on the internet and in shows I will see this painted the same value of "white" as on the highlighted side of the dress. Or, just as commonly they will paint it flat and colorless just as they see it in the photo.

This is fine if they are simplifying or abstracting but it muddies the message if they combine abstract shapes in their otherwise realistic painting. It's as if they are afraid that the common viewer will not understand if the "white" dress is not "white" also in the shadows, so they paint it a crisp white in the shadows also. The same goes for direct distinct lines.

Example: The lines caused by the left hand lower part of her cheek and jaw would be executed by some as complete light against complete dark and the background would be darkest all along that line. However, in real life, and even with taking the photo out into sunlight, the darkest area is under the chin and the remainder is modulated. Also, the shadow on the left cheek near the tip of her nose would almost perhaps soften that edge by it's matching of value more closely than it appears in the photo. It is also my opinion that this stark edge would be painted a smidgen darker along the chiseled edge than the highlight on the the nose or mouth chin area just so that it could "bend" that part of the face back around. However, some might indicate this to be cookie cutter edge lightest value because the photo has flattened and darkened the background and increased the contrast there.

One final statement. Notice the hair where it touches the face. All along you will find both lost and found edges. Also, many of the found "dark shadow" areas extend all the way back in skips and jumps to the back ground. The light on the hair does the same. Yet many painters make a complete blonde "hat" all the way around the outside edge of the hair. Never losing some of the lines which would make it look more real.

I sure hope that this explaination helps clarify what I am talking about. I think that we just need to keep in mind that photographs are going to appear like photographs when we paint them if we don't use our imaginations and intuition and knowledge of what the photo would really look like and then paint it that way.

As a porcelain artist I am not really "allowed" to use this knowledge as most artists that I teach do not understand this and therefore I would soon be out of a job if I didn't paint in the traditional porcelain portrait method. But I incorporate this in my other porcelain and acrylics and oils and watercolor paintings.

Well, maybe I just answered my own question. Those artists that I have observed on the internet are probably doing the same thing. Perhaps they are painting what their clients understand?

Also, thanks Cynthia for posting the thread information. I enjoyed reading it.

06-15-2003, 10:19 AM	#6
Celeste McCall Juried Member FT Professional PA Joined: Dec 2002 Location: Southlake, TX Posts: 162	Hi again, Also in the example above, the background looks black...completely black. Yet it would be much better to use the blue black/green black/red black combinations in that area to have the value not completely flat and also keep it interesting. Have you ever taken a black and white photo outside in the sunshine? I suspect that one might even be able to discern a room or curtain back behind the subject in this photo. And that might add even more dimension and depth to the painting as opposed to painting it in black or solid dark colors. Although I realize that dark is sometimes interpreted as infinity. Also, notice how her light, perhaps a pale to medium value dress, let's say it's a medium blue, will transition to shadow and matches the black backround. This blue will be painted almost navy in this background to match what you see in the picture. However, in real life you would not only see the back of the dress in some of this flat looking shadow area, you would also see some folds of material and you would see different colors perhpaps. Now let's apply an "if" and what some painters still paint it. Let's say this dress was white. Would there be a white back of the dress showing? Well, yes and no. No, there will not be any perfectly white with it's bright color modulations on this side. And yes, there will be grays and colors indicating the white dress but they will be painted in darker values. Of course you would see some lighter ones in real life than show in the photo. Yet, many times on the internet and in shows I will see this painted the same value of "white" as on the highlighted side of the dress. Or, just as commonly they will paint it flat and colorless just as they see it in the photo. This is fine if they are simplifying or abstracting but it muddies the message if they combine abstract shapes in their otherwise realistic painting. It's as if they are afraid that the common viewer will not understand if the "white" dress is not "white" also in the shadows, so they paint it a crisp white in the shadows also. The same goes for direct distinct lines. Example: The lines caused by the left hand lower part of her cheek and jaw would be executed by some as complete light against complete dark and the background would be darkest all along that line. However, in real life, and even with taking the photo out into sunlight, the darkest area is under the chin and the remainder is modulated. Also, the shadow on the left cheek near the tip of her nose would almost perhaps soften that edge by it's matching of value more closely than it appears in the photo. It is also my opinion that this stark edge would be painted a smidgen darker along the chiseled edge than the highlight on the the nose or mouth chin area just so that it could "bend" that part of the face back around. However, some might indicate this to be cookie cutter edge lightest value because the photo has flattened and darkened the background and increased the contrast there. One final statement. Notice the hair where it touches the face. All along you will find both lost and found edges. Also, many of the found "dark shadow" areas extend all the way back in skips and jumps to the back ground. The light on the hair does the same. Yet many painters make a complete blonde "hat" all the way around the outside edge of the hair. Never losing some of the lines which would make it look more real. I sure hope that this explaination helps clarify what I am talking about. I think that we just need to keep in mind that photographs are going to appear like photographs when we paint them if we don't use our imaginations and intuition and knowledge of what the photo would really look like and then paint it that way. As a porcelain artist I am not really "allowed" to use this knowledge as most artists that I teach do not understand this and therefore I would soon be out of a job if I didn't paint in the traditional porcelain portrait method. But I incorporate this in my other porcelain and acrylics and oils and watercolor paintings. Well, maybe I just answered my own question. Those artists that I have observed on the internet are probably doing the same thing. Perhaps they are painting what their clients understand? Also, thanks Cynthia for posting the thread information. I enjoyed reading it.