Submitting for a critique
 

This is my last kick at this particular can for the time being. I know that I have to make the arms a little heftier and the hands have some issues with size, also. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any further thoughts on this. Thanks a lot, Janet

Janet hi, Your sitter is lovely. The proportions are looking good. Now, I would strongly suggest that you consider stepping back to the value and dead color stage. You are jumping ahead to the small forms to soon.

First establish your big darks and your big lights. Define these planes at their correct values than work in the half tones to make the big form turn. After that work the smaller planes in the lights paying particular attention to the values within the lights. Next tackle the forms in the shadows. I suggest that you consider keeping the warmth of the color a tad on the cool side. It will not be to difficult to warm it up later. Try not to think about eyes and noses rather tons and shapes

Wish you all the best.

Hi Janet,

You're not going to like this. . .but I think the best thing to do is put this one aside and start over! Yeah, I know, I know, you want to throttle me. But what Mischa is saying is true. If you squint at the photo and painting you will see. You need to pay VERY CLOSE attention to the large areas of light and shadow, and the exact value differences between them. Keep in mind that you can't break the light areas up with dark values. Everything within the light stays within a narrow value range. Same with the darks--you can't break them up with brushtrokes of too light a value. See in the photo how smooth the planes of her skin are? You are working too hard chopping it all up!

Oh, what I would give to get you in my studio for a day or two, Janet! You've got it in you, you know you do :exclamati :exclamati

P.S. I only suggest starting over because a) you can keep your present painting intact, b) you won't be distracted by the forms underneath, and c) you will avoid paint buildup. I did not mean to imply your painting is hopeless. On the contrary, you are so close, but the problem is all over.

Alex, this is the kind of critique I want to hear. And Mischa, thanks for yours, too. And you be darn careful with those threats to teach me something useful, Alex. Although, if I turned up on your doorstep, you wouldn't recognize me because I haven't gotten around to posting an avatar! I will start again, and no hurt feelings at all. I just don't seem to paint people very instinctively...

Thanks again, Janet

Oh, but Janet, I do know what you look like. Remember the Grumpy Old Lady?

Speaking of your self-portrait, that's how I know you have it in you.

I really should say that that was a terribly unflattering self-portrait!

Janet,
I have to agree with the above comments and add the following:
1) This is a beautiful young woman with soft and smooth skin. The transitions in values must be subtle to maintain that soft smooth look.
2) Large value transitions are aging. Consider the models upper left cheek/upper lip crease, the transition should be in a narrower value range. The same holds true for the models right hand.
3) Careful use of color temperature shifts can accomplish your modeling goals without a value change. I notice you are using more temperature changes in your portraits. Good! You are making nice progress.

While I believe the portrait is salvageable, I agree with Alexandra that a redo is recommended. A future side by side comparison would be very instructive.

Keep up the good work. An accomplished painter is beginning to emerge.

Hi Janet, please can you post your palette?

I agree with anyone else . If you decide to do it all over again, I suggest you make some palette changes, to avoid going immediately in the same direction of this painting.
If you "know" already wich colours to use, you might end up with a very similar result.
From this photo I would definetely keep on my palette some Alizarine and Viridian. I think you should really try and mantain the high key, I mean not to darken the shadows too much, but working on the temperature shifts to model the head. If you find some pinks, purples and greens in the lights, you will then be able to state your shadows with warm colours, like Yellow ochre+ alizarine mixtures.
Also your picture will look more mature if you don't paint blue eyes blue with a black dot in, try greyish blue with a warm dark irregular brushstroke in the middle, blurred irises edges and understated catchlight.

How do you transfer the image to the canvas? It looks you are doing well, as all of the features are correctly positioned, but then I think you are scared of loosing it!
If you tend to fill in you won't be able to blur your edges. My other suggestion thus is not to draw everything in detail, rather having a few landmarks for the eyes, nose, mouth, oval etc., but not too detailed. Personally I keep some tracing paper with the drawing that I can superimpose to the dry painting for checking on mistakes.
Good luck, if you repaint it, why not posting a WIP for us ?
Ilaria :sunnysmil

Thank you so much, everybody, for your time. To be honest, I have been wondering if I even have "it" for portraits. The touch, the knack, the feeling. It seems like everything I learn about painting portraits makes my paintings of other things better! It's almost like I can't properly see what I'm trying to do - no, I'm not explaining myself very well. Anyway, the encouragement has been very timely and I suppose I won't throw in the towel just yet. BUT it's really close...

Ilaria, very good call on the palette question. I've been using the "earth colour" option so far, and been questioning it the last couple months. In my hands it is tending to have a heavy, deadening effect and I can't get the transparency I think I want. So, excellent, excellent timing on that advice.

Richard, special thank you for your quiet encouragement during this journey. Although I rather suspect that you only love me for my model...

Is it okay to keep basically doing the same painting over and over again like I have been? I don't have the prestige to allow for an endless flow of willing models (everyone is so busy these days). I have taken some nice shots of my daughter, but she so obviously doesn't enjoy it and the impatience shows (she is surely mini-me).

Anyway, thanks again to all. Janet

Hi Janet, I think we are piling up on you. ;)

Try this: in Photoshop, make a greyscale of your photo, then as you paint, shoot a greyscale of your painting. You'll be able to see values of colors much better as they relate to the grays of a value scale. I think that confusing color with value is the main problem with this painting, along with hard edges.

Also, try to take photos where the lights are not blown out so much as you have here. It will make finding form a lot easier. I personally wouldn't try to work from this photo. Be picky, picky, picky.

You have really nice painterly qualities, don't stop posting.

Janet,
I think that you will find that doing the portrait over again while applying the counsel given in this thread will be very encouraging to you as it will show the big leap in progress you are making.

With respect to love, the Greeks have four terms for love. One of them is agape which is principled love. So to keep out of trouble here, let me state I have agape your lovely model and agape for you as a dedicated artist trying to improve her craft. Whew...hope I am home safe on that score.

Don't get discouraged. You have the makings of a very fine artist and you are already 70% maybe 80% ahead of most individuals who try portrait art. Keep the brushes moving.

Janet,
I have seen your other paintings so I know that you are capable of finishing this one off in a good way too and therefore I will try an additional input on all the other helpful suggestions.

I also believe that the main problem is related to the value range and suggest that you look at your painting from a long distance.

You will probably not be able to get far enough away from your oil painting into your studio to see what I mean. But to test what I mean I suggest that you have a look at the photo reference on the monitor and step about 10 steps (meters) back. At that distance you will hardly be able to see the features in the head, such as pupils, eyebrows and nostrils, but you will still know the person.

Now you place the WIP on the screen and walk back again to look and think of what you actually sees.

I felt that the face fell apart when I looked at it from that distance and I believe that it is because you have over emphasized the features, that characterize her face, so that they over powers the bigger shape of the head.
The problem in doing so is that it looks right, up close to the painting, and in strong light, but not at a distance. And it can only be judged at a distance.

Good luck, Allan

Oh eeeek, Allan. You may have really nailed it. You see, I have serious problems with my arms and shoulders and am not physically able to paint "at arm's length". I actually have to prop my arm up on my knee to paint. So I don't get back far enough to really see it. I had actually thought that I needed a smooth surface to roll back my chair often enough to get a good look, but hadn't done so. This may explain a lot. Thanks so much. Janet

Janet,
I am sorry to read about your problem, but I came to think that you could place a mirror on the wall behind you so that you can swing around and watch the painting from that distance. This will be reversed though , but you will have a certain distance without having to move allot.
Just a thought, Allan

I don't have much to add, Janet, but can emphasize with the distance thing. I'm learning how important it is.

Here's something you might want to try - a reducing lens. I just got one to help myself. Looks like a magnifying lens, but does the opposite. Helps to see the whole thing shrunk down, as if you had stepped away from it.

A reducing lens? Where would you pick up something like that? Does it distort much? I sounds interesting. I can think of many uses: excuse me, annoying person, while I get my lens out to reduce you; there, that's better!

Janet, you had a big response on this thread, not only because you are a very nice lady, but I think many of us saw themselves.
Personally I can see paintings similar to this one in my recent past, and I especially understand the discouragement and the doubts.
Don't give up!

.

Ilaria, thanks again. The thought that you have gone from where I am to where you are now in recent history - that's encouraging.

Mark: ouch. :o

.

No, I don't think I took you the wrong way. I meant ouch for those others! Don't worry, I knew you were saying something nice. I shoulda used a smilie.

Janet -

I believe I ordered the reducing lens online, either from Jerry's Artarama or www.aswexpress.com.

In just one or two years you will look back at your painting, look at your current ones and see how far you've come. The feedback here shows that the members of this forum believe in you.

We all have to put in our time and paint our miles of canvases.

Wow, Julie, what a sweet thing to say. Thank you. And I will look up that reducing lens and see if I can find something a little more local. Janet

The problem lies in having too great a value range in any given area, as other artists have mentioned. You can really see it with this posterized Photoshop greyscale comparison. The photo, on the left, shows larger simpler areas of dark, medium and light values. The painting, on the right, shows those same areas broken up into too many value changes where they don't exist.

Moving back as you work, using a mirror, or perhaps that reducing gadget may help.

Thanks Michele. I've actually got this painting going again in the WIP. Sort of boring, I suppose, but it's to give people a chance to prevent me making mistakes, rather than giving post-mortems! I'd love your input, and by the way I'm attempting to be very strict with my value this time. Janet

Janet,

I know this is just adding to the pile.

I find this happens to my work when I have been working too exclusively from photographs. There is a tendency to get TOO CLOSE and see each feature individually.

Another problem is that we see each photograph as an opportunity to make a finished product instead of a work of art.

There are times we have to step back to square one and relearn the stuff they all too infrequently did not teach us even in the finest of art schools; mainly how to make form.

I would get the book, "The Practice and Science of Drawing", by Harold Speed, available on this web-site. It goes back to the basics, especially working in black and white before attempting form.

There is another thread on the Bargue method on this site. That is working again sight-size in monochrome from classcal forms.

These are invaluable tools in the foundation of really fine figurative work.

If you are serious about becoming a portrait artist, endlessly reproducing photographs is not the way to go. The competition is stiff and numerous. The best gift you can give yourself is a good foundation.

Sharon,

Everything you said is true, and I've only just gotten to the point where I can really appreciate it's meaning for me right now. I've had a sneaking feeling since the New Year that in order to go forward, I will have to go back first. Thank you, Janet

Janet,

I am trying to save you the time I wasted following the very same path. It is not a step backward, but a step forward.

That's a much better way of putting it!