Interesting light
 

I took this photo over the weekend. I think it's interesting (maybe too interesting). I wonder if it has much value beyond a photo.

Mike,

Oh, my! I think you should have given a little warning for those who might have compromised cardiovascular systems. When I scrolled down I got a direct hit in the autonomic nervous system, with the usual consequences.

Seriously, this is one of the most erotic photo-portraits I've ever seen. The effect is only heightened by the sun dappling, the backlighting and the overexposure.

I think there are lots of things you could do with this: what did you have in mind?

John,

I think that sometimes I get a little too cute with the effects. My goal is always to create material for painting, but sometimes the effects of nature are so powerful that I feel that I could never render them with the same effect. Maybe I am too timid.

Mike,

I didn't get the impression that you were trying to be too cute. I just thought you happened into a really appealing lighting situation and got the shot. It doesn't look posed at all to me and the sun-dappling doesn't look like you were striving for it.

But the girl is an absolute heartbreaker! What a look! I think you should paint this, even as a study, even if you never show it to anybody. Do you know the Waterhouse painting "Hylas and the Nymphs"? Well, I think this young lady would have had Hylas in that pond before he knew what hit him. It's a little bit high-risk to try to get that expression just right, but well worth the effort. Then if you can bottle it...

Actually, I've failed twice to capture that female seductive look in my last two paintings. Maybe I'll post the latest one for criticism, although it's definitely a failure. I think you've got a lot better shot at it working from this photo.

John,

It would, as you say, be an interesting exercise. I have a few other projects to get through before selecting another. Thanks for the interest.

I look forward to seeing your "failure." I recently posted a portrait of three girls on horseback that had to be abandoned as a failure. I learned much from that failed attempt.

You have a very interesting web site with some some very interesting projects going on.

Mike

I think it could be more than just a study or exercise. I just meant that I wouldn't let it go without doing at least that. This is the kind of thing that could transcend the commission type portrait and be of universal interest; an archetype, if you will.

I thought the horseback painting you were working on was better than you seem to, but getting to call your own shots is one of the best parts of doing art.

Thanks for the comment on my website. It's badly in need of a total overhaul. Interesting projects, yeees!

Ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times!" Yuk yuk yuk.

I smiled thoughout John's comments and kept thinking..."hormones guys!":)

But I agree, she is definitely a beautiful model and the light makes the pose quite intriguing. Did you intend to paint the leaves?

Hey Denise,

You're right about the hormones. Trouble is I've only got an average of 26 molecules of testosterone available at any given time, and Mike's post just accounted for about 15 of those! I'd better confine myself to looking at landscapes for awhile, or at least nothing more dangerous than pet portraits, huh? ;)

Denise,

I think that if I were to paint this I would surely include the leaves. I think they help explain the light and reflected colors on the ladies chest.

I think I'm going to have to put some clothes on this girl. As a painted portrait, which would you prefer?

Both photos are gorgeous, but I prefer the second one more. It seems more complete and the sun dappling on the chest is less distracting when it's in the context of the overall image. But then, I'm a female who may just prefer to see that she does indeed have some clothes on!

On second thought, how about this as a composition? The crossed arms seems to send a different message than the expression on her face, so I cropped them out. I also moved the leaves over closer to her face. Whaddya think?

I agree with Michele - when I scrolled between the first and second images, her expression seemed to change radically, even though of course it's the same expression. I like the image cropped, without the crossed arms. In fact, as I scrolled to the final image, presto, her expression changed back to what I think everyone is drawn to in the first image, and her subtle smile reads as a smile, not a smirk.

Isn't it interesting, the same photo can generate a completely different response depending on what you leave in or what you take out. I enjoy looking for different compositions within the borders.

It's not an easy call, you could do them both and have two completely different paintings. But the the first rendition sets me back in my seat, much the way it did John. Getting a response like that is kind of a rare thing.

Michele,

Your version interests me as well, I'm going to spend some time staring at it.

Just as background...I took this photo in an abandoned, burned out house. She is standing in the shell of a doorway. This residence was built in the 30's or 40's on some farmland south of town. It must have been a real showplace. All that is left is the stone walls, no roof, no second floor. The architecture is amazing, big arched windows just open to trees. One big gabled wall has, up where the second floor was, a suspended masonry fireplace with wild flowers growing out of it. I think it burned down in the early 80's and has just been left to the elements. Only a picture guy could love this place. Maybe my favorite photo of my daughter was taken at this site.

Mike, your photo postings continue to remind me to stretch the possibilities when I'm planning for a photo shoot. A classic portrait pose with traditional background is fine but when I see your photography it makes me want to challenge my imagination -- and sometimes the comfort zone of the client -- to make a real work of art!

Mike,

I prefer Michele's cropping over the uncropped version, and also over the original cropping, for exactly the reasons that Mari suggests. The crossed arms gesture imparts an air of self-consciousness that robs her of some of the sweetness of the other compositions. She seems to be more of a coquette with the crossed arms.

At the same time the inclusion of the blouse line finishes the bottom of the composition and settles the issue of her state of dress. Since we all saw the first version first, we'll never know what effect Michele's version would have had. Nevertheless, I respond strongly to Michele's version as well.

By all means the leaves have to stay!

Astonishing - isn't it? - how powerfully these compositional changes affect our perceptions.

I really like the second one best. I think the blouse gives a softness to the pose and the arms make it a more interesting composition.

I'll be looking out for this one, it really has potential!

Michele,

Your comments are very flattering. Frankly this type of image excites me and intimidates me all at once. I am reminded of what our buddy Marvin Mattelson said: "a successful portrait is a person's likeness trapped inside a work of art." Or something close to that.

Denise,

Thanks for looking and offering your opinion.

To anyone,

There is a question inside me and I am having a hard time articulating it, even to myself. It has to do with photos like this. It is mostly why I posted this photo, in hopes that someone could shake the question from me. And then of course answer it. Not bad huh? Tell me what my question is, then answer it!

A photo can show light or shadow or objects in ways which, for a photo, are routinely believable. We tend to accept a photo (generally speaking) as an accurate recording of the scene. We look at the girl's chest, we do a quick mental evaluation, and we say... that's light coming through the leaves. The colors of green and mauve and gold are reflections of those things around her. We place the burden on ourselves to figure it out because we first believe that the photo recorded it correctly.

Then we get to our painting. I believe that there is a completly different mental dynamic that we employ when we view a painting. A painting, by definition, is a contrivance. The artist chose to include or to exclude. The burden is switched from the viewer and placed onto the artist. Instead of the viewer "figuring it out" we now have the artist "explaining it." When we attempt a painting of this type we really have to be "dead on" with these effects. A much greater burden, a much greater reward if we get it right. There is a question somewhere in the above.

I think sometimes that my photo images drag me way ahead of my painting abilities. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't know.

Well...
 

Sorry Mike, I think I am too inarticulate to answer your question, and maybe too short to get it.

But I did want to respond to your reference. First, I do like the cropping that Michele made, especially the movement of the top leaves closer to her head, but I think the first picture with the inclusion of the leaves closer to her face would also be nice and keep the viewer's eyes moving towards the face.

I actually think I prefer the first one. But maybe it is because I like to look at faces so much, and like how her face doesn't have to compete with her blouse, or the background. To me it doesn't come across in a sexual manner at all (but maybe it's because I'm female?). I really love the look on her face and that she looks so confident when maybe not clothed. The light play on her chest is beautiful, and the softness allows her look of confidence to seem subtle and just as a natural moment when she's free and feeling good.

I really like that!

Mike,

As a new member and rather inexperienced portrait artist, I don't take myself or my opinions too seriously. I suggest you don't either, but sift through my comments for anything that rings true.

In the first pose, I found myself thinking that the girl's raised right eyebrow suggests a certain 'come hither if you dare' attitude, in view of the lack of visible clothing. The nudity is only suggested, but the expression conveys a worldliness we rarely see depicted by such classic painters as Bouguereau. I think you would be hard-pressed to portray the girl as being innocent in her nudity (which turns out to be false anyway) in this composition.

I find Michele's comnposition the most satisfying because, while there is still an impish suggestiveness about her expression, it's not blatantly sexual because now we see some clothing. Sensitive people will still find it too suggestive, but I personally don't.

She is a lovely girl, and you are a fine photographer. I would love to see you develop the shadows in a painting, since the photo does hide the detail in there.

Carolyn and Will,

I have an aggravating way of posing a question and having it sound like an answer. I'm sorry about that. These exchanges do help me sort things out in my mind.

A couple of things about this photo, I took it with my 35mm film camera with Fuji 160 asa pro portrait film. I used the camera's spot meter to expose for her face, thus the over exposure of the background. After blowing both the cropped and the full image to 8x10 they both remained fairly dense. No doubt the low speed film contributed much to this. I was pleased with what I could see in the shadows of her left eye.

I think these photos may go into the file for a while. I need to do something other than a pretty young girl. I will be photographing an 8 year old boy tomorrow. I'm excited about that.

Mike,

I'm kind of late jumping into this one, but I really agree with Will, I like the come hither look on her face. Who says good portraits have to convey sweetness? Are we painting Snow White? I'm going to say I wish the white blouse was a long white dress, or nightgown, and could be painted in the style of William Whitaker's ladies in Victorian nightgowns. In fact, I'm almost itching to paint it myself like that, crossed arms and all. That is a tribute to your excellent photography. I always look forward to viewing your paintings and photos.

Marta,

Thanks for your kind thoughts. I too wish it had been a nightgown.

By now I guess you've heard that we are all getting on a bus and going to Las Vegas for the Forum convention. And we appreciate being able to stay with you and saving all that hotel expense. Mari will be doing the cooking and of course some of us will chip in for food.

Las Vegas is the one place where you can stay in Paris, NYC, or Egypt all within a block. Mari would be too busy to do much cooking!

If anyone is every serious about visiting LV, I would love to have a get together.

Happy Painting!

Mike, beautiful shot! I like the second version. Dappled light on skin is a toughy! Good luck!