Underpainting - Trying it Out
 

Well, after looking at Karin Wells' demonstration on underpainting and getting a little more information from you folks I tried it out. I again used a five-value range using raw umber and flake white (those label warnings are creepy!). I would appreciate any feedback that you can give. I will also post the source photograph. This took about four hours of work.

Underpainting
 

This is the source photo. Forgive the background doodlings. I often edit the photograph in Photoshop to get an idea of composition and to clean up any "noise" in the background.

Underpainting
 

One thing I forgot to mention is the size of the painting. It's 13" x 10".

Underpainting
 

I really would like to get some feedback on this one. This is the first 'underpainting' that I have done and I want to build this painting up from the floor. I am open to any suggestions.

Clive,

Sometimes those who are really qualified to respond to this type of post are simply busy painting at their easels and meeting deadlines. Also, sometimes they travel on short or extended trips. Please sit tight.

In the underpainting, you need to make the transitions from light to shadow very smoothly and with thick paint. This is not to say that the transitions can't be quick - just smooth. It is hard to tell exactly what I am seeing here, but the face looks "uneven" and appears to have choppy brushstrokes.

The background areas and clothing that have uneven brushstrokes don't matter at this stage if you don't ever intend them to be smooth. But when things have "texture" in the underpainting, you cannot compensate in the upper layers.

Texture belongs in the top layers...not in an underpainting.

As I see it, the major reason to underpaint is to resolve all the halftone transitions from light to shadow.

Here are the secrets to underpainting...easy to say, tough to do. When you completely understand that an underpainting is not meant to be a complete painting it is easier. If you really do the following things, you can critique yourself:

Highlights do NOT belong in an underpainting. (Add them in the top layers).

Dark accents within shadows do NOT belong in an underpainting. (Add them in the top layers).

Keep your shadows flat. This gives you the opportunity to mass your shadows together and will help with your composition. i.e., If you don't see the eye clearly because it is in shadow - don't put it in the underpainting.

Keep your light flat.

Do not add reflected light in an underpainting because it breaks up your flat shadow. Reflected light belongs in the upper layers.

Underpainting
 

Karin,

I am glad you responded to this post since your demonstration was the inspiration (and I mean that as an artistic compliment).

Your perception is accurate - I have actually scored the underpainting of the skin. Alas, I was not blessed with an unblemished complexion - my intention was to apply the skin tones in thin glazes of color and that these scores would pick up the texture of the skin. I get your point though, that this texture could be applied in the later layers of the painting.

Thank you for clarifying this. In this underpainting I used five values plus pure white (for the highlights) and raw umber (for the darkest shadows). I think that what you are saying is leave the pure tones out.

Finally, the most important message that I got from you was to "keep it flat." I think that my shortcomings here are attributable to two things; My impatience to produce a finished form, and my misunderstanding that the next step should consist of thin glazes that allow the value range to show through.

Once again, thank you for your comments.

Actually, the value range will show through the thin glazes, but it is only the halftone that counts here. As you glaze and scumble on the upper layers, the halftone will show through as cool and delicate.

When you finally add a dark accent within a shadow area, you should keep the paint very thin (transparent) and warm. By doing this in the upper layers, you will avoid "mud-like" shadows.

When you have a darker area within a lighted area, you allow the halftone (underpainting) to show through by painting light on either side. By doing this, you will avoid "black holes" or harsh shadows.

I see an underpainting as beginning with the middle {halftone} and painting in two directions...toward light and toward shadow. If you look at my example again, you will not see white, nor will you see black - even though the subject is a black dog on a white cloth. I chose this extreme on purpose in order to depict the correct narrow range of value in an underpainting.

As to the texture of "imperfect" skin, I like to handle this in the very top layer with a cool tone detail (of a similar value) on top of an area where the warm light is strong. You only need a "suggestion" and not a full rendering to give the illusion that it is reality.

Underpainting
 

O.K., Karin, bear with me - I think I am almost there.

1). It seems that what I have to do is reduce the value range here. Specifically the forehead is too dark. Using the value range in your own demonstration (I've taken the liberty of posting your palette below) I should flatten the forehead to a value of 2, maybe 1 in the darkest shadows. This will help me avoid mudiness in my shadows at a later stage of the picture.

2). Get rid of the "black holes" - especially in the hat and the hair on the right side.

3). Regarding the texture in the skin - I'll try and fudge that one in a later layer.

This is going to be a wonderful portrait! I am amazed at the small size.

It is also a wonderfully informative thread. Where is Karin's demonstration that so inspired this classic approach?

All of this stems from my original underpainting demo that you can see at: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...ighlight=Sarge

Here is how I would approach the value range:

#5 Value. Use this for the light on the face. The skin is the lightest value and should be the lightest paint.

#4 Value. Use this for the shadow on the face. Don't put eyeglasses in on the underpainting as it is too tough to paint around them in the upper layers. Smoothly paint what is underneath and it will take a flick of the brush to add them later.

#3 Value for the light on top of the hat...since the hat appears to be the next darkest object.

#2 Value for the shadow side of the hat (the area under the brim). You will need to pay attention to the edge where this shadow meets the forehead and lose that edge rather quickly.

#2 Value for the light on the jacket and the shirt.

#1 Value for the shadows on the jacket.

Note: Do not get confused by the photograph! This is one of those where the shadow on the upper forehead appears to be as dark as the jacket...but it is not. The shadow on a light object cannot equal the shadow on a dark object.

You must paint from what you know to be a logical truth and not necessarily what you see.

Further Note: When you paint the hat, for example, only use the value extremes of #3 and #2. You can make any halftone range between these two values. Don't be tempted to paint outside of this range.

Underpainting
 

Karin,

Thanks for your teaching here. I think I am going to go ahead and and lighten the values as you suggest. My main concern is that, if I don't, the underpainting will dominate the later layers, especially the shadows, and prevent me from putting life into them. I take your point about adding the half-tones in the later layers.

I have been doing a little research on underpainting and there seems to be some variation in the darkness of the values and the extent of detail. Vermeer, for example, used very dark values for shadows but did not take the underpainting into any great detail. Van Eyck, on the other hand, used lighter, far more detailed underpaintings.

I am going to try and reach a compromise. I will post the results of my efforts in the next day or so.

Jeanine, thank you for your kind words. They are always appreciated.

There are MANY ways to do an underpainting and I am (hopefully) trying to teach the easiest one that I know. Although each technique has different rules I believe that the principles are the same in all of them. First of all, try to grasp the principles and then you will find what easily works for you.

Yes, this is exactly the reason an underpainting must be kept light.

Wrong. If I conveyed this, I am sorry.

The whole point of an underpainting is to establish the areas of general light and general shadow. And resolve the halftone...that area between light and shadow.

When your underpainting is complete, you will have to build areas of light and highlight within the underpainting's defined areas of general light. The underpainting's general light is darker than the light built in the upper layers when the painting is finished.

Also, when your underpainting is complete, you will have to build areas of warm thin shadow and dark hotter cast shadows within the underpainting's defined general shadow. The underpainting's general shadow will be lighter than the shadows when the painting is finished.

Between these areas of light and shadow in the underpainting lies the halftone. This halftone is what will show through into the top layers. i.e., The halftone is painted once - in the underpainting. The light has many layers of opaque paint in the upper layers on top of your underpainting . Your shadows are oftentimes only thin glazes on top of the original underpainting.

I hope that this is getting somewhat clearer. I do plan to write a book or CD showing and explaining this technique step by step - it is so darn easy when you can see it.

Underpainting
 

You already have your first buyer!

Hello !

I'm the second. :)

Really, many thanks to Karin.

I found this slideshow helpful, you can try it like this.
http://www.tonyryder.com/demo/index.htm

With respect, an apprentice,
Leslie

Underpainting
 

Well, here is the second attempt. Let me just reiterate what I was trying to achieve here. Primarily, I wanted to lighten and simplify the value range, taking out the pure raw umbers and whites at the ends of the range. The initial attempt would have led to problems with shadows further down the process. I have also tried to smooth out texture as (as I understand it) this is something that should be reserved for later stages. Alas, I have not erased all detail (e.g., the glasses and the eyes). I somehow found this difficult to let go of.

You're close but no cigar.

Bite the bullet, lose the reflected light and the glasses and eyes.

Hat brim: top right and wherever you can on the left - lose the edges. Don't outline at this stage.

Hat band: Lose the highlight.

Where the light meets the shadow on the left side of the face (as I view it) is way off. You need a LOT more work on the transition between light and shadow. i.e., the chin structure and the shadow from the eyeglasses is not correct. Even though the object is to lose the "details" the goal is to achieve a "dead on" likeness at this stage.

Jacket. Think form. Define true shadow from halftone. i.e., take another look at the collar. Make your light flat - even though you do not see it this way. Make your shadow flat. Make the transistion between the two extrememly accurate.

Successfull underpainting is in the accurate depiction of the transition between light and shadow.

Light can transition quickly into shadow.

And light can transition slowly into shadow.

And the quality with which you depict this transition is the foundation of your entire painting. Mastering a halftone can elevate you into the "pro" category and is worth the effort.

Great opportunity to learn here
 

Clive, I see Karin spending her time giving you very specific lessons here; you are very lucky. I would recommend you embrace her lessons, empty your mind of what you "know" and follow her instructions exactly. You are learning bigger lessons here than you will by caving in to a temporary emotional attachment to painted features that in fact are not structurally correct.

Be the pupil. ;)

Underpainting
 

Karin,

I really appreciate your input on this one, and I hope that I am not your only pupil here. From my perspective, what is happening on this thread is addressing many of the originating reasons for this forum. So I am going to ask you to bear with me for a little longer on this one. I see myself as your typical pupil rather than a gifted one, and as such I am going to make mistakes. So with that said, rather than rehashing this image I am going to start from scratch and see if the third attempt gets me that cigar. Again many thanks for your time and effort.

For starters, you would not believe how many times I repainted the same darn painting -- over and over -- until I finally got it right. Then typically I would goof up and fail to apply what I learned to the next one.

However, as you learn this, you can look forward to not having to repaint the next one as many times. I think that you can only learn from mistakes, so don't be afraid to make lots of them. I can hang in here as long as you can and I really appreciate your willingness to not give up just because it is getting tough.

I hope that "starting over" means beginning on a fresh canvas. I think it will really help you in the long run to document your progress in order to see how you resolved each problem.

As far as talent goes, I think you have a sufficient amount of it to become a really good painter. What you and most of the others lack (to varying degrees) is knowledge.

In dealing with tonal range as a means of modeling the form, we must keep in mind that in the actual painting, transitions are often more powerful when accomplished via hue variations.

In this case, the contrast seems appropriate as the cast shadows DO play a big part in the composition.

My concern is that reaching for a limited tonal range can become harder if one locks the tonal composition early in the game.

Deladier,

There are many ways to do an underpainting and you have described one that I am unfamiliar with. And all that you say may be true for some methods including the alla prima approach to painting.

Shadows are indeed a compositional element. And with the particular approach that I am trying to explain, the cast shadows within those shadows are subcompositional elements to be added into the upper layers.

Also, a narrow range of tones clearly defined in an underpainting will unify a composition. A broad range of value will oftentimes fragment a composition.

Underpainting is the most basic foundation for a painting, and as a foundation, it will not have all of the value range of a finished piece.

Underpainting is not supposed to deal with hue, chroma, or color, but is meant to be a solid foundation that forms the bed for it to lie on.

Oil paint is translucent -- not opaque as most imagine. The underpainting shows through the upper layers and will make a painting sing.

Have you been using an underpainting method in your work, Deladier? If so, I would love to see some of it in a new thread.

Karin,

I can't say I've arrived at a method yet. I have not used underpainting in the paintings I have done so far. Merely because I am (maybe mistakenly) afraid that if I start learning with the aid of underpainting the work will be constrained by decisions made before I even knew what I was doing.

What I've been doing lately is to create a small scale study of the composition before I start the full size painting. I kept blowing it because I couldn't visualize the composition but would valiantly (foolishly) forge ahead hoping for the best. I will post in a new thread a 2-hour study I have just finished. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Underpainting does indeed require one to think ahead and it resolves your composition early on. I feel that this is an advantage, but there are those who may find the method limits them. All points of view are certainly OK, as long as the result is a good painting.

I look forward to seeing your work, Deladier. Please send me a note when it is up, in case I miss it.

Thanks.

Underpainting
 

O.K., jettisoned the last effort and started from scratch. I felt that in the last attempt I was trying to rectify mistakes after the paint had dried and this did not work. Lesson learnt - it is difficult to overpaint an underpainting. My suggestion is that if it doesn't work the first time, start again. This is a little smaller than the last (10" x 8"). My apologies for the quality of the picture - the paint is still wet otherwise I would have scanned it. Oh, I've got that old 'Mike McCarty Feeling'as I submit this one.

Didn't Perry Como do that? Not to worry, you are in the very finest of hands.

Building the painting's foundation
 

OK, it's time to get radical. I took the liberty of altering your painting to show you the following:

Flatten your lights.

Flatten your shadows and lose some edges.

Ignore reflected light at this stage.

Massing areas of dark and light will help to establish a strong composition and help to unify your finished painting. This first stage can look very "poster-like." All the "painterly" stuff should be saved for the upper layers of color.

At this first stage, pay the utmost attention only to where and exactly how the light meets the shadow (halftone).

Each and every object in a painting has a light and shadow -- only these two extremes of value -- and the range in between where the two meet.

This is the stage where you make or break your composition because it is so easy to see mistakes in an "abstract" form. This abstraction is the solid base upon which you will build "reality."

Once the halftone (light meets shadow) is correct, let it dry and then you can begin to model the form and finish the underpainting with more detail.

Your mistake thus far has been to jump into detail too soon (i.e., eyes, highlights, accents and so on). The really hard work is the halftone.

Because I am not particularly good in Photoshop, I have been unable to show you here how exact this halftone needs to be. You must force yourself to eliminate the superficial details within light and shadow and concentrate on establishing this halftone first.

Underpainting
 

Karin,

The light-bulb has just come on. To relate to another thread on this Forum, I think I have been using underpainting as though it was "sauce!" You are teaching me to get rid of the ketchup. I can exactly see where you are going with this now. Actually, I had a hint that I was going down the wrong path when I looked at some of your paintings (which are wonderful). I really want to thank you for all the effort that you have put into this thread. I am working on another portrait at the moment (not using underpainting) but I will try and get to this sometime this week (also to give you a break!). Once again, I will start with a new canvas, but, believe me, I am having fun with this. I am learning more from this Forum than I have in the last ten years. Have a great Thanksgiving.

I am so glad to see that you got it - whew! It has taken me a couple of days to figure out how to explain this and be as clear as possible. You have made it worth my efforts and now I have something else to celebrate this Thanksgiving.

Thanks, :) and a happy Thanksgiving to you too Clive.

Clive and Karin,

I have followed this thread with great interest and have been merrily printing away.

Clive, thank you for hanging in there and pushing your limits. From your quest of knowledge, we finally have a wonderfully detailed visual account of what makes Karin

Clive,

I wish I could properly attribute this recently-read comment, but the paraphrase would be "You can understand everything you need to know about painting in one day. Unfortunately, you don't know when that day will come along, so until then you just have to keep working at it."

Karin, ditto to Enzie. I've also started a underpainting because of your responses to Clive. From this last post of yours, I realize what you've been saying also. Now I'm doing the underpainting without detail.

Thanks to both Clive and you for all your efforts. Hope you are still considering that video, Karin, but if you keep explaining this well we might be able to save some money!

Am I the only one who cannot see the images posted above? There are only two little red x's. They are rather perfectly painted, if they indeed are painted.

Lon,

You may want to check with Billing -- it sounds like your SOG membership dues might be in arrears.

No, actually, the red and white "X"s belong there. They're a lot harder to paint than you'd think -- you'd should have seen what they went through with the underpaintings alone.

No, actually, if you refresh your web page, that usually takes care of it.

Karin's X
 

I can see all images except Karin's last. I would love to see what she did to the excellent second attempt.

Jeanine, try this if "refresh" at the top of your browser doesn't work: right click on the photo that won't show, and then click on "show photo". Mine only acts up in this manner when visits to the internet clog my memory. A program like Norton Systemworks includes great tuneup tools, including "Cleansweep".

Hi!

This is a really fantastic topic -- a "hyper" thread. Like a blue sky without clouds (though there are a few, still.)

I, too, understand it, at last. I make almost everything wrong. I misunderstood the whole material, better said in my books, what I have haven't explained correctly.

Quotation from the book:
I think, it is not soooo wrong, but tells nothing about halftones, lost edges, flat shadows, no highlights. etc., all of which seem to be very important, so that one can continue in both directions (lights and darks).

Thank you, Clive, for posing the questions here. Thank you very much for your free online lessons, Karin Wells! A book or online demo is a very good idea (processing from start to end).

I still think I have more courage than talent.

P.S. I'm so angry, I lost $XXX spent on other books.

A Clarification?
 

Leslie,

The primary use of glazing in the past was to be able to create more intense (chromatic) colors due to the unavailability of a wide range of pigments, such as those available today. As more pigments were introduced over time glazing took on the role of being used to modify smaller areas with subtle hue and chroma enhancements after the bulk of the painting was completed.

I recently read somewhere that by the 19th century glazing was considered pass

Underpainting approach
 

I just wanted to make an additional point about under painting and the relative thickness of the paint. Karin

Good morning,

A lot of thanks for your declarations, Marvin. I think I understood it. A single point where I am not sure is this comment about "glowing". Sure, I understand about the translucency of oil. More layers, more color. But, if I see two pictures (in museum, no photos), first done alla prima (e.g., a landscape), second done with glazing, they have an obvious difference. The glazed color see somehow deeper, more lustrous and more reflective, and this remains for up to 400 years. My explanation (only for me, of course) is that the thin films of glazing have an additional quality, which leads to strengthening its translucency effect or ability. It's maybe a "side-effect". I'm afraid one can't photograph it. Like diamonds, it looks better on the finger, than in the photograph (isn't it so, ladies?).

Please, forgive me, Karin, I manipulated (a little bit) your living picture of Whitney Niels, by 3D software, to show what I had in mind.

She has made it like this (in cross-section). On the left side is a scumbled chin with highlight, more opaque color in the mixture (and thicker), like a mirror for the light. On the right side, at the jaw and neck shadow field, the rays of light reach the underpainting (therefore you can see the underpainting) broken and streaked by thin films of glaze. Maybe this little trip of light INTO the picture makes this field warm and lustrous, satin-like and gives the whole picture more 3D plasticity.

I hope the picture is legible enough (in its compressed and limited size). Again, all that is here, is as I imagine it in me.

By the way, I found an other way of underpainting on Net. It is from A. Antonov at www.artpapa.com. (I can't remember whether he wrote here anything). He makes more still lifes than portraits, but I think his way is more complex (7 layer) and time consuming than the one from Karin Wells.

Honestly, not completely understood, but one must see her brass, copper and ivory (piano keys). Without glazing, it is very difficult to reach this realistic level.

(Never say never. For example, I didn't like pastel particularly, until I saw what a disciplined artist like Hanna Larsson (a beautiful lady from Sweden) can do with this medium. Or Paul W. McCormack with watercolor.)

Sorry for my funny ideas and comments, but I find it interesting. More sense, more ability.

Respectfully,
Leslie

P.S. Thank you Chris, again. At the end, either my English becomes better or my paintings (or both ... or neither. :))