Back to school
 

I couldn't help myself with this time of the year, I was feeling not only elevated but a little devious.

So on our trial get up at school time, first morning, I had my middle daughter pose for this oil, 16 x 20.

I was thinking I should call it:
"Like yeah, does it need to be hemmed too?"

Please remember my digitals aren't the greatest, but Jeff this one is blue.

As you can see this is really in progress. I haven't really touched her hair or skirt.

I would like to introduce a hint of the plaid faintly into the background on her bottom left.

Here is the close-up of her face:

Lastly here is the reference photo:

Hi Beth,

I like the simple pose and I like the way you put little stories into portraits.

About the source-photograph:
I would like to know wether you have a special reason why in the source-photograph the shadow-side of the face is so dark. Personally I would prefer some more light on the shadow-side of the face.

The source-photograph shows a dark background, while the painting shows a very light background. Maybe you could make a source-photograph in which the background is as light as you would like to paint it?

Why did you make the source-photograph in black and white? Personally I prefer colour-photographs.

It's hard to judge from the photograph of the painting because of the way it is photographed (The images seem to be distorted) but, is her head a bit too small, compared to her arms/ body when you compare it to the source-photograph? It's hard to judge wether you made mistakes in this.

For some reason the detail-photograph of the face has a watercolour-appearance (that's not necessarily a bad thing).

The background is VERY blue, it can work, but it's also possible to use a less bright blue, so the background stays in the back so to speak. The blue of the background now takes away something of the attention you would like to have on the psychology of the face.

Greetings,
Peter

You're awefully prolific, Beth. What's your turnaround time on these things?

I read Holly's description of Marvin's wash-in technique. Are you using that method? I like it, but I also like many others. If I ever get around to painting, I'll try them all.

Peter might be right about the head proportions. You can be creative with proportions, of course, but you have to be careful about it. They say if you err in eye size, err on the side of too large. On women's portraits, a smaller nose will almost always be appreciated.

For a teenage girl, a smaller head doesn't seem to be a problem, but don't try it on women of a certain age, as it will not be a small head they see, but a large body.

I recently started a thread about varying from the photographic image. Marvin defended the strict proportiion school, but if I'd been quick on my feet (foot), I would have pointed out Karin's demonstration in which she changed the proportions of a woman and baby to enhance the composition of a portrait.

I'm in favor of using what works, regardless of the photographic reference.

This is just a lengthy way of saying "nice work, Beth"

Thanks guys, let me explain why and what I do. First I do work fast Jeff, mainly because I work a lot, plus the above does look "watercolor" because it is in very blocked stages"

When I am painting from life I do Marvin's wash-in, it is the best way for me to get it right. I fine the incredible thing is that when I start to add color I use Marvin's value palette with Bill's dance, the two blend so perfectly - I just can't explain how perfect they go together. (Maybe neither one of them will like me saying that.) When I work from my photo reference the wash in, I don't really feel is necessary since I have already established my value scale with my photographs, thus Peter the use of the black and white which I think gives me a more clear idea of those values.

I am going to post a couple samples of what I normally don't show you.

When I shoot black and white, following Marvin's technique but cheating because I use digital, I shoot over and under exposed images too. This format is also what I can print the largest and richest off my epson Super B. This gives me more information in the highlight and shadow areas.

My images I post here because I seem to be lacking in skill when it comes to photographing flat art, seem to be dark or flat so I tweak them in photoshop so I can give you a false impression, but for this stage, it's all I can do. I need to start sending my work out. When you look at the distortion of a figure in my post or anothers always look at the canvas edge if they have left it showing. I try to leave mine so you can see that I have "bowed" the image and distorted it. I have pointed it out, If you are looking at this piece, she is drawn well.

Since I do shoot black and white I always do these small oil color sketches, I have shown a couple samples of these too. it helps me work the backgrounds and reinstate the values. I've included the ones from "The Secret" too.

I like to add drama to my poses, they are more fun, especially if I'm bugging my daughters.

Thanks! Beth (I posted a new "painter" for you) :)

Here is an idea of how I handle the photo reference ( which I love shooting unlike the artwork):

This is a sample of the simple oil color roughs I do to work out value and color relationships.

Lastly, here is the photo reference from "The Secret", which is like all the other reference I shoot:

Hi Beth,

I like those rough sketches. The colours in those sketches are much more solid en better (in my view) than in your painting of your daughter (back to school) You seem to mix everything with a kind of blue later. Is the palette you use for them different than the one you paint the actual painting with? The background colour is much better in the sketch also, in my view. The colours look healthier in the rough sketches.

greetings,
Peter

I didn't see your post earlier Peter, but this is the progress I made today, the colors are still brighter but the opaqueness is starting to take shape.

Each time I work on the skirt, it pretty much has to dry before the next application of paint, so it is coming along the slowest.

I also wanted to mention I took extra time to set these shots up with my little level. It is still not perfectly square if you look closely at the canvas edges, maybe somebody can post a trick to this in the photographing your paintings section. I think just zooming in, is just hiding the problem.

Here is the close up of the face:

Beth,

I think you have one of the same problems I do with my Sony DSC P72.

I'm no camera maven, but I've noticed that the lens warps badly at the edges of the frame. Centering the picture on the frame but not taking it to the edges helps considerably, and then I crop in Photoshop. When I crop, I can prove to myself that the picture is indeed now back to square. I can see along the bottom edge that you have a curvature similar to the one I get.

I'll do a few shots and post to the camera area showing all the hoops I'm jumping through with this puppy. Not today, but soonish.

If the lens warps badly at the outside edges you need to be shooting with a longer lens. Zoom in a few steps if your camera will do that.

Hi Beth,

I have the feeling that the mouth is too much placed too the left, but I'm not sure, since the source-photographs are so small on my monitor.

Does painting the piece not become too much of a juggling-act between the different source-photographs? - The procedure of making an underexposed and an overexposed photograph may create too much of an excuse to 'not get it right' in the actual photograph. (the others then have the same problem, only under- and overexposed)

Personally, I like to have just one good source-photograph in colour, which I feel is absolutely right in the pose, lighting etcetera.

In this case (back to school) I have the feeling that the shadows are too dark in the actual source-photograph, and that it may have been better if more direct light had reached the right side of ther face.

Peter

Hi Peter,

My concept with this piece was all about the attitude of a 15 year old girl - which is basically scary! So I wanted a few dark shadows, sloppy dress (belly hanging out) and mascara under her eyes. Usually I get too much light in the shadow area.

My thoughts on my reference is it works for me. I feel like I can never have enough. My optimal is to have the person sitting in front of me, but if I can't, I'll want everything else. Even if I had color photos which I'll have, too, I will want them over/under exposed, it's the only way you can see the extra detail in the shadow and highlights. I'll have the clothes, shoes and accessories in my studio, too, plus the backdrops. I blow my reference up to size and put it 2 feet away from my easel so I can look at it like I would a model. This is just what works for me. Show me with some examples what you've been doing, I think it's always interesting to see.

Michele and Lisa, we need to take the camera lens discussion to another area, because this always confuses me. I have never understood how just zooming in, isn't just hiding the problem - how about a demo Michele? Please oh please, it would be great to learn to do this properly so I could send out for slides. My shots are not only warped they are flat and really do my art a disadvantage, those who have seen it in person can really attest to this.

I think I can answer your "zooming-in" question briefly without it needing to go to a whole new thread.

You don't cut off part of the image, you stand further back when you use the zoom on your lens, so you still get the whole painting (along with part of the easel, wall, etc.)

Ever seen a "fish-eye-lens" photo in a magazine, or a shot taken with a really wide angle lens? That is an extreme version of what most point-and-shoot camera lenses do when the zoom setting is not used. The un-zoomed setting is a wide angle setting. It bulges out everything around the edges of the shot.

To eliminate that effect zoom in a few notches on your camera. (You may want to read the camera manual. Zoom in until it is between a 50mm to 100mm setting on your lens.) Stand far enough back that you can still see the whole painting in your viewfinder and click away!

Hi Elizabeth
 

I take it that your painting is to reflect the 15 year old attitude (bringing back horrid memories), not a portrait per se of your daughter. I have gone a little spell without commisioned work lately, so to keep handy at the craft, I've been working with a model who is willing to dress and pose for any conceptual painting I conjure up. She, at first, was worried about facing certain ways as to project the best likeness. However, after a few "test sketches" I convinced her that it is not her likeness that I'm after, but a concept of character that she is mimicking.

I like conceptual paintings and yours is coming along great.

Michele,

I'm going to be a bit of a gadfly and the one who asks questions for the benefit of others. The term "zoom in" is a bit ambiguous, perhaps. I assume you mean zoom in on the painting (making it look bigger in the viewfinder), and not zoom back into the camera (that is, retract the lens). You and I know "zoom in" and "zoom out" from our Photoshop menus, but I wanted to make sure others were clear on that.

By the way, for those shooting with digital cameras that have a macro feature, be sure to check your manuals for the proper zoom adjustment. You might think you should "zoom in" (make the subject bigger in the viewfinder). With my Sony, at least, that's the opposite of what you do on macro.

There's a whole swarm of gadflys around here.

A camera that cannot zoom in or out has a "fixed focal length" lens. Most inexpensive cameras come with a fixed focal length and it will tend to go toward the wide angle. The typical point and shoot camera may have a 35mm or 45mm focal length lens. If you shoot your art work with this type of focal length, whether it's a $50 lens or a $1000 lens, film or digital camera, I think it will warp the edges. The bigger the canvas the more evident this will be.

Keep the face of the canvas as close to perpendicular to the direction of the lens as possible. Set the focal length (zooming the lens in or out) to 80mm to 100mm, then position the camera as close as you can to the canvas still seeing border to border, and shoot.

I think that's the way it works.

Mike and Steven,

My understanding of how this works is the same as yours. I think we're all in agreement: don't use a lens length shorter than 50mm and you should be fine.

Closure
 

Here is the nearly completed portrait, I still have some fine tuning to do.

The close-up.

And Morris, thank you!

I think Beth has spent some time as a pro shooter. Hummmmm?????????

Well?

Hi Beth,

The photographs look very grainy.

The skin tones that border on the hair on the left side of her forehead has a very sharp edge.

I think the upper lip of her mouth needs special attention.

I don't really like the blue-ish background to be honest. Maybe, in future paintings you could try a cool grey instead of blue? - Just a suggestion. The background also seems a bit illogical to me. While the light comes from the left she should cast a shadow on the right of her. Instead of that, I see that it becomes lighter in your painting. (don't change it too much, but for future paintings, maybe it's something to look after.)

Greetings,
Peter

First Place
 

Beth,

All your other paintings have been knocked down a notch. This is your best painting yet. It's a really fun painting and reminds me of the teens in my house. You captured the mood of that age. I say :thumbsup: all the way. Keep up the good work.

Tim, I don't speak "Tyler", I hope it was a compliment. Lynn thanks for yours.

Peter, Peter... I know you don't like my blues, I don't think Jeff does either. But let me explain; this wasn't meant to be a formal portrait, more of a satirical look at the first day of school. (I am thinking you do not have teenagers). This time of year can mean dread to the teenager, but the mother is dancing in the streets.

I chose the blue (which I adjusted to be closer to the sketch you mentioned) because it, one pulled out the color of her eyes, which says it all here, (with the exception of her upper lip, which - trust me - is perfect) and the colors in her skirt, basically with the addition of her skin tones this makes up the whole color scheme.

I think the background lighting is just fine, see the reference above. The way she was lit the shadow would be to our far right.

Thanks for catching that hard edge, it was softer at last post, but I think when I was rounding her face with value changes I forgot to adjust the hair near the lighter area. I'll fix that, plus some spots on her shirt.


:) Beth

I forgot to thank the mod's for the photography lesson.

It speaks to me!
 

Two cents from an aspiring portraitist, inexperienced with painting, but VERY experienced with studying paintings AND teenagers. Oh Beth, this is Wonderful! I immediately am at the first days of school, and though I have two sons, your daughter, the look, the stance, the attitude (pained, dull, slight anger....YOUTH!) reminds me of my youngest son. I peer into her eyes and am transported to our condo, September mornings when Kevin hated going to school, struck that attitude each morning, until he readjusted to the routine - then they become human again. I hope your daughter is into the swing of things now!

Your handling of flesh tones is beautiful. Rendering the white blouse is really great. Overall, I think it is a painting that makes quite an emotional impact on the viewer!

From a mom who remembers and GETS IT!
Pat Joyce (Meyers)

The only thing more irritating than the first day of school is having your mom pick up the camera to "capture the moment". You guaranteed the perfect expression when you did that.

[SARCASM] I'll bet she was delighted [/SARCASM]

Beth,

Here are a few of observations:

I think you could bring her right nostril out more to our left. And the shape of this nostril could be more rounded up and not come back so quickly to the tip of the nose, giving a more pointed nose effect.

Our right corner of her mouth should be extended out a bit.

Her teeth seem a bit brighter than the photo and are showing an edge which is not flattering.

The bridge of her nose, because of the shading appears to be bowing out to our right.

The dark shading between her lips on our right side, as it peaks up, is giving her a bit more of a snarl than the photo would indicate.

I think if I would suggest this project to my teenage daughter some morning before school I would get a couple of fried eggs up beside my head.

A shooter is a professional camera person - a pro photographer, well well?

You are too good. This is not the first one to make me think so.

Okay, it's back to school for me to make some changes! Thank you all so much for your valued input and encouragement

Plus, I thought I best tell you so you don't think I am a horrible mother - I didn't shoot this the morning of her first day, but the day before while we were checking her uniform (this shirt was added for attitude, she would have been sent home, pronto).

Beth, I love her mouth. I have hired models for less awesome lips than this. You captured that Lisa Presley touch very nicely. TT

What about your knowledge of cameras? Come on....

Beth,

This is great, I love the background color - all of it actually.

Here is the changes on "Back to School" (I finally had a chance to shoot a bunch of things today.)

Thanks again for your input.

image reshot 10-31-03

Here is a close-up of her face.