Rose Study
 

This is a study for one of the most difficult assignments (should you choose to accept it) in all of portrait artistry:

Reference Print
 

Grayscale print reference photo.

Hi John,

I like your painting and believe that you have risen to the challenge rather nicely. Your mother-in-law looks a tad younger, which should be pleasing to her.

A few observations you might look at more closely. The eyelids are a bit off. Look at her left eye for example, the lid should take on the same roundness of the eyeball, which it covers. You will also see a bit more of the eyelid because of the profile position.

Her right cheek could use a bit more roundness. On the scan of the painting her left cheek looks a bit sloppy and needs a more even color transition. The neck area could use a better color transition as well to suggest the roundness of form.

I especially like the way you pulled off her hair, it looks wonderful.

I hope these observations help you. I am sure she will love the painting.

Greetings, Enzie,

You're right on about that left eyelid. It certainly goes flat across the top. Makes it look as though the eyeball is slightly squished! Also the left cheek/neck comments are very well taken. That area hasn't been really worked yet, and I knew there were things to be done there when I posted this. At this stage I found I was just lifting the previous paint layer when I tried to scumble over it, so I've decided to let it dry some more before getting back to that area.

We don't have very much time into this one at this point. We spent several hours on Wednesday painting in different backgrounds, and Rose thought the relatively simple, dark background looked best. The colors are way off as I look at it on this computer. Too red! I'll make corrections based on your thoughts and repost the revised version. All the highlights are really painted in very cool colors, but I don't see that here. I think I'll scan it on the machine with the scanner, but bring it over to the one with the LCD screen to proof it for the next post.

Thanks for the help, Enzie.

John

The angle of the light (coming as it does from far to the side) and the very high contrast ratio (the difference between light and shadow) of the reference photo produces quite a harsh effect overall.

Something with more frontal lighting, and with fill to reduce the contrast ratio would be much more flattering, I think. This type of lighting is best suited to men, and perhaps other subjects, when you want to communicate a feeling of drama and intensity.

This lighting (as well as the very saturated shadow colors in the painting) makes her look like someone with a rather extreme, fiery personality. If that's what you wanted to convey, then it works. Otherwise, some softer lighting might be in order.

Background Check
 

A softer, less chromatic background, or one that is different in color from the clothing might be worth considering.

I think she is lovely and very dramatic.

Thanks for the suggestions, Michele. Yes, we are going for some

Second Hand Rose
 

Here's my revision of the Rose study. I believe I've incorporated all the changes Enzie suggested. After giving sone thought to what Michele and Janine said, I've dropped the contrast range a bit also. It was too dramatic in the original sketch. I hope this shows up better than the original post.

It looked very dark on the CRT screen of the machine I'm using to post. Here's a close-up. I'll switch computers and see how things look on the LCD monitor.What a pain!;C

John, I love the cheek, it looks much more realistic. The roundness of the eye is better as well. Just make sure that her upper eyelid has a better color transition. Based on the scan the value change between light and dark seems very drastic and it gives the appearance of her wearing a light eyeliner.

Sorry to say, but the neck needs work. Before you touch the painting, do a little exercise and draw a cylinder. Duplicate the same light and shadow as you see on the neck and make it curve. This should help you with the value transition. Right now the back of her neck is coming out towards the viewer, because the value is too light. Since the neck is in shadow the value transitions are very gradual.

I hope this helps, I can't wait to see her finished.

Hi Enzie,

Well, I went and re-painted that neck/cheek area from life. It took about 5 minutes. Rose has a pretty prominent Sternocleidomastoideus muscle, which makes her neck a kind of compound cylinder in this area. I reworked the eyes per your suggestions, and a few other things also. That neck area has not shown up well in the previous scans, and it's not going to show up very well in this one. The paint is wet and there is some glare, making it look blotchy and unfinished. I'm including an extreme blowup of the area in question to (hopefully) show that that area is really thoroughly blended, with a lot of modulation that's not coming through in what you see on screen. I think we're at the limits of what can be done via these posts. The colors and values in certain parts are just too subtle for the internet process. What you and I are seeing on the monitors is a misrepresentation of the true appearance of the painting. So I think I'm going to clean it up a little and call it quits on this one. It's just a study for the main event, and I've decided to change some aspects of the pose anyway. Thanks for all the help, it really made a difference.

John

Neck Close-up
 

Actually, the previous scan looks really low-contrast, and the neck doesn't look too awful on this screen. That means it'll probably look pretty weird on the other one. Here's the big blow-up of the neck area.

John, you are absolutely right. The last scans do not reflect the items I had pointed out. It does look correct and overall has become a very nice painting.

I can not for the life of me figure out how to get consistent scans of my work either and it is difficult to pinpoint when one should make corrections, based on what people see vs. what the painting really looks like.

Enzie,

You and me both! William Whitaker has said in several posts that he takes any digital reproduction with a grain of salt, and I've come to the same conclusion myself. I think it's great up to a point, but subtle shifts in color and value tend to get misrepresented. But it works pretty well for critiqueing drawing issues and anything that is moderately out of line. I suppose also that lots of folks are better at it then me, and have better equipment and software. I hope to get a digital camera before too long. Maybe that will allow things to be proofed more quickly. The way I'm doing things now is really tedious.

What the heck, though; we're lucky to be able to do this at all! God Bless Cynthia!

John