Molly, my first
 

After playing around with the image to make it a more relative size to encompass the whole drawing, I am presenting to you my first post, as a request for critique. "Molly" is the first portrait I have completed since spending the summer reading this Forum. I feel I have learned a great deal, and Molly and her mom and family are very happy with the finished piece.

The reference photo is no longer in my possession. It was an excellent photograph, however, I am learning from you folks, probably not a good reference photo for a graphite portrait, as it did not have great tonal variation. The more I tried to develop the darks and highlights, the more her skin looked "false". I felt I had to keep the tonal range quite limited.

Please critique away, I am happy to be a member because I am hungry for your advice and suggestions. I begin my next piece tomorrow! Oh, how I love my Sundays in the studio!

Thanks in advance,
Pat Joyce (Meyers)

It Worked!
 

Well, I learned something new today, how to post an image, but still not how to size it correctly! Sorry, she really JUMPS out at you.

As I mentioned in my introductory post, I am relatively new to portraiture, at 48, but it has LONG been my desire to pursue an education in portrait painting. Two adult sons and a FEW years have passed since I drew anything, worth . . . anything! This past year have taken some drawing classes, studying books, and a little photography, am now in a life drawing class. I try to squeeze in as many hours drawing as I can in a week, what with working full time as an accountant.

This summer was real good because I discovered this website! Yes, I have been reading all of the threads here all summer and have learned so much that it really is beginning to show in my pieces. So thank you all, for the time you take to critique pieces and share your knowledge. Cynthia, I know I mentioned it in my introduction, but it bears repeating here. SOG is an incredible place for artists to meet, it's the perfect 21st century art salon!!

"Molly" is the daughter of my office manager. I have three commissions from this, so am eager to start the next one and post here, hoping you will critique away - looking forward to interracting with all of you in the ensuing weeks.

Thanks,
Pat Joyce (Meyers)

Pat,

As long as you are within the Forum image size limitations, this is fine. An image cannot be wider than 400 pixels and no higher than 600 pixels. It's good to get it as large as possible within these constraints because it gives more details for viewers.

Thank You, Cynthia
 

This is good information, I appreciate it!

Enjoy the day!
Pat Joyce (Meyers)

Gorgeous portrait, especially since you were working from less-than-ideal reference. The only suggestion I'd make is to soften the eyelashes and eyebrows.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the creative process more when you take your own photos. You'll control the whole thing, from concept to finish, and you'll have refrence that lets you define the form better. I'm sure you already know this from reading the photo threads though, right?

Thank you Michele
 

Softening the eyelashes and eyebrows is probably a good idea, and it is an interesting comment to read because, as I mentioned, every time I attempted to develop more form it didn't appear natural to me and I had to tone her back down, probably why the eyebrows, especially, look a bit stark.

I took a photography class last year and really struggled with it, as I have a dyslexia disability and really get confused with increasing or decreasing aperture/depth of field, etc. But my 35mm Canon has the ability to be both manual or automatic, it just seems that when I photograph on automatic there is not much tonal definition in the image. I have read the threads here about what makes a good photograph and have tried to do the same. There are some great photographers as well as portrait artists here on the forum!

Thanks for your critique and nice to meet you Michele, I admire your work. Where is Tony Ryder having a workshop in December?
Pat

Hi Patty,

Congratulations on managing your inaugural post. It gets easier, but the first time through the labyrinth is the hard part. (Drop bread (or eraser) crumbs, so you can find your way back out.)

Here are just a few observations, without too much detail.

You

Thank you Steven
 

It is so good to read your critique. It makes me want to leave my office and go right up to my studio and work on one of her sketches I have (the completed piece is already delivered, but I do have some sketches). Now that the eyebrows have been pointed out by you and Michele they really jump out to me also. I tried to make the whites of the eyes round-appearing but I was hesitant to go further than I did for fear of losing the defining shape of Molly's eyes. I'm sure with more experience I will be less reticent.

Of course, your advice on the right side of the face makes perfect sense, having read so much about edges and rendering them turning, etc. on this forum. But, it did not occur to me while I was doing the drawing (like you mentioned the reference photo does show this hard edge). Again, something I will look for and think more about next time.

About that ear -- I did tone it down quite a bit before presenting it to my client. Yes, this is the correct shape of her ear. This seems to be this girl's ONLY physical flaw, she is really beautiful with the prettiest smile and sweet dimples! Once I toned down the highlight it did lay down much better. Overmodeling? Guilty as charged! I usually hate doing ears, but this one was going particularly well so I probably got too "into it"!

Again, thanks for the input, Steven. I look forward to posting my current piece, a portrait of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is a friend of a friend. I got permission to use a wonderful reference photo from the news photographer. In his photo it is easy to be oriented "as to whence the light comes" (doesn't that read well?!) Perhaps will post my progress so far.

Later,
Patty

I should probably speak again to this, as I may have been a bit shorthand.

Overmodeling means, in the sense I'm using it, forcing too broad a range of too many values into too small a shape. It's forgetting the "big picture". I used to do it routinely in the knee (of a nude model -- how I remember the days, and those knees.) By golly, I'd articulate that patella and those tendons and the adjacent muscles until no movement was possible -- it was a sculpture in marble. It was immobile -- and lifeless. [I was very shy back then about this whole gig, but one day after about the third reference in a critique to "overmodeling", I just blurted out in front of everyone -- most of them already art majors before they'd come to the studio, and I in turn only knew one guy named "Art" and I didn't like him -- I said, "I don't know what you mean by the term 'overmodeling'". What I'm telling you here is what my instructor told me. He was right. (I don't really care much if I am, for anyone but me, but if this is helpful, use it.)]

Don't do that. In any small area, you're not likely to see a full range of values, from darkest to lightest. It's possible, but unlikely. If it happens, be aware that it will create value contrast that will attract the eye of the viewer. Did I want the viewer to notice the knee? (actually, I did, because I was new and wanted the viewer to notice everything I did), and do you want the viewer to first notice the ear? Probably not.

Again, it's the photo. The darks in the reference are too dark (and when you're working in color, they're often colorless), and the lights are too bright and colorless as well.

I also want to go back to that right side (ours) hard-edge issue. That's also a photographic effect (as you've since acknowledged). I want to add here that the "form" problem relates to not just values, but the tendency of hard edges to attract attention and therefore come forward (into our visual attention). A softer edge will recede and thus lend itself to the illusion of form.

Overmodeling, it's so easy to get caught in. I suffer from being too myopic when I get into a zone where I feel something is going well (i.e. the ear, your knee?) and I forget to sit back and look at the whole picture. Last night was the first life drawing class of the semester and Marilyn also suggested I keep looking at the whole figure and spending less time on one particular part. My gestures are great because I simply look at the model so much more and feel my way through the whole figure without much calculation. It's always fun to see the fluidity I can attain, and the oohs and aahs from fellow students. However, when it comes to the twenty minute pose and I begin to concentrate on details of the form, I fall apart. Marilyn suggested I try to keep the loose "feeling and seeing" throughout the whole 20 minutes so that I stay on the correct side of the brain (I can never remember, left? right?)

Of course working from a reference photo is so much easier because I can spend hours on correcting, making adjustments, which I do endlessly in preliminary sketches so that by the time I am drawing the final piece I feel like I know the face very well. But then, haven't you all said that drawing from two-dimensional is much easier and a step in development before refining abilities to draw from life??

Good to know, Steven, that you too, were once a self-conscious beginner. Building confidence is my greatest challenge, but I have a feeling participating in this forum will help immensely. Thanks again for your feedback and generosity. It is invaluable to me and others on the same spot on the learning curve...