Danielle In Progress
 

I have been working on this double portrait for awhile. The client is satisfied with the boy but not the girl. The client writes:

<<Everything is lovely, the background, the clothes, the arms, it just misses Daniellel's look somehow.

And here is the portrait thus far. Suggestions would be welcome!

I've posted the images side by side, reversed them and made them monochrome. I find that doing this helps me see in a new way and problems I was unaware of suddenly pop out.

The two major issues I see are, first, that the face in the painting is much wider. When I shrink that image horizontally, even a bit, it makes the likeness a lot closer, as you can see in the second pair of images. This distortion may have been been caused when you photographed the painting at something less than straight on, or it may be a problem in the likeness of the painting itself.

The second issue I see is one of serious over modeling. The areas in the light contain too many darks that are not present in the reference. The areas in shadow contain too many spots of light that are too bright.

Other than that I see some exaggerated waviness in the shapes of the upper and lower lips that is much more subtle in the photo. I also see that the jaw is too angular and the lower right edge (in these reversed images) should be more steeply slanted up to soften that shape. The asymmetry in the eyes is also exaggerated too much. Overly strong shadow forms on and around the nose also make it seem very harsh.

Hope that helps.

Ooops... here is the image:

Michele, that's extremely helpful! I tried turning the photo and the painting upside down, which sometimes gives you a fresh perspective, but the monochromatic reversed that you posted is much better. I see what you mean about the exaggerated lines on the mouth (which I must have painted over and over about fifty times to try to capture correctly - you can't even see on this that her lower teeth are just visible above that lower lip, and getting that to work was a nightmare - if I've got it yet!). You're also right about the lower jaw on our right in the painting. I'm not sure I can see the width issue, though; the two faces top and bottom look very similar to me. And when I projected the face in the reference, enlarged it and traced it on clear plastic, the contours were very close to what I have in the painting. Actually I thought the face needed to be a little wider across the upper plane of the cheek bones!

There is a lot more modeling in the original photo - I bleached it out trying to show the features better here and also tried to tone down the contrast in the painting so the eyes weren't so very shadowy. But the main thing that's off, I think, are the shapes, which you've addressed. I'll work on them and see how it goes. I really appreciate your taking the time to manipulate that image to show me where I went awry. I have no idea why I'm having so much trouble with this one!

Thanks!

Hi Leslie!

I agree with the concerns Michele pointed out.

Some add'l details you may want to consider:
If you rotate the axis of her face in the painting to match the axis in the reference and scale them to the same size (the image below is scaled based on the eyes), it seems to me that her face seems skewed so that the chin and jaw is relatively too large -(assuming it was photographed squarely?)

Within the face itself, I think her eyes bow downward just a smidge more along the bottom lash and that her eyes open wider closer to the inner corner. You may also want to check the shape and value of the shadows around her eyes - the reference reads more deepset near the nose? And check the slant at the outer corner of the eye on our right. Her eyebrows seem a little long and dark (esp. our left) and maybe could be softer as they approach the outside corners.

Somehow her face in the reference seems softer/fleshier. On the reference, much of her upper cheek on our left reads to me as almost white... I think brightening the values here and maybe unifying the lights and unifying the shadows a little more in the painting would soften the flesh on her/help her appear more youthful.

Her mouth seems plenty wide, compared to the relative width of her eyes and nose -maybe a little low? Maybe her 2 front teeth could be a tiny bit narrower?.

The client's comments relating to the mouth and jaw don't seem to mesh at all with what you're showing us. Perhaps narrowing the face and deepening the shadow beneath her chin will make the mouth seem relatively wider, and adjusting the shading might make the jaw look more right to her?

Good Luck with this Leslie

Terri, thanks for looking and commenting. I need to know how you guys manage to manipulate those images like that; it's so helpful! I take it that the green lines are the same in both pictures, which seems to suggest that that mouth may be a little low, as well as the other aspects you mentioned. I think you're right about the eyebrows and that ear is definitely off. But at least I know that I'm not seeing things as far as the client's reaction goes; it didn't make sense to me. The client is in her late 80's and lives over an hour away, while the parents live in San Francisco, so I couldn't invite either to my studio to make a few adjustments in their presence and see whether that helped, which is what I've done once or twice before with other portraits. I've also wondered whether my digital images are showing what they need to, but where shapes are off it's not the camera.

I wish you could see the actual reference photo where there are a lot more half-tones and delicate modeling, which may in turn look exaggerated on screen in the painting, but your green marks go to the heart of the matter regardless. Thanks again!

Leslie

Hi Leslie!

Looks like you responded to Michele while I was typing up my comments! If you're sure that the proportions of the face are right on the painting, then I'd guess the photo of the painting wasn't square. So... take my comments on the likeness would be, uhm, ...skewed too! Sorry!

Terri, no, I'm not sure those proportions are exact. Tracing over an image in the dark with marker pen doesn't result in rocket science; the plastic may well have moved slightly. I think the photo of the painting was as square as it needed to be. I'm going to print all this out in the morning, when it won't wake my husband up (Epsons are noisy!) and take it out to the studio and see where I can get with it. Your remarks seemed to be right on point, as were Michele's. Thanks again for taking the time to do this!

Crossed messages again!
 

Boy, again!... I wish there was a way to tell if someone posts while you're typing a response!

Seems like many people on here are using Photoshop to manipulate images, a version of Photo Shop came with my Canon Digital camera... but I'm used to using Paint Shop Pro from my former job and it does what I need, so that's what I'm still using. Haven't tried the Photoshop so not sure what it can do.