Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post

Steven Sweeney · 04-20-2006, 08:26 AM

Just a quick note. I'm not at my home computer and, so, cannot "test" my observations in Photoshop, so I'll just rely on my eye (the quirky, old fashioned way).

No doubt this will be received very favorably by your client. It is quite well done.

Three things I'd consider having another look at:

1- The greatest value contrast in the piece is between the shotgun's receiver (between the stock and the barrel) and the shirt. That means that the very first place the viewer's eye is drawn when encountering the painting is the gun. The manufacturer might like that idea, but I think this would be a better portrait of the man if you took the value of that metallic area way down -- closer to but not as low in value as the shirt, as you still want enough contrast to create the illusion of depth. Not only is it creating the value-contrast problem, but it just doesn't look right -- it almost has the appearance of chrome. Even if it "really" is that bright and reflective, I'd take it down in value for the good of the overall design of the painting. The light reflection on the wooden stock might be just a little too high in value as well.

2- I think you could increase the value contrast between the head and the background trees a little to good effect. As is, we're almost losing the head into the similarly valued background. I think you could very realistically darken the area around the right side (our right) of the face, perhaps with an umber glaze. This will, I think, also help tie the foreground and background together in design, instead of looking like a photographed subject painted in front of a studio backdrop.

3- The edge of the neck on our right is a sharp one, which not only catches the viewer's eye but compromises the form a little. Softening that edge will help the neck round back in regression, as will lowering the value of the form as it turns back away from the light source. The value of the entire neck area might be just a little light, in fact -- for some reason, it appears lighter in value than the face, which reads oddly.

I'd probably also think about trying to vary the treetop "line" a bit, so it didn't read quite so horizontally. Introducing a few judiciously placed skyholes would probably do the trick.

Short and sweet.

04-20-2006, 08:26 AM	#2
Steven Sweeney Juried Member PT 5+ years Joined: Nov 2001 Location: Stillwater, MN Posts: 1,801	Just a quick note. I'm not at my home computer and, so, cannot "test" my observations in Photoshop, so I'll just rely on my eye (the quirky, old fashioned way). No doubt this will be received very favorably by your client. It is quite well done. Three things I'd consider having another look at: 1- The greatest value contrast in the piece is between the shotgun's receiver (between the stock and the barrel) and the shirt. That means that the very first place the viewer's eye is drawn when encountering the painting is the gun. The manufacturer might like that idea, but I think this would be a better portrait of the man if you took the value of that metallic area way down -- closer to but not as low in value as the shirt, as you still want enough contrast to create the illusion of depth. Not only is it creating the value-contrast problem, but it just doesn't look right -- it almost has the appearance of chrome. Even if it "really" is that bright and reflective, I'd take it down in value for the good of the overall design of the painting. The light reflection on the wooden stock might be just a little too high in value as well. 2- I think you could increase the value contrast between the head and the background trees a little to good effect. As is, we're almost losing the head into the similarly valued background. I think you could very realistically darken the area around the right side (our right) of the face, perhaps with an umber glaze. This will, I think, also help tie the foreground and background together in design, instead of looking like a photographed subject painted in front of a studio backdrop. 3- The edge of the neck on our right is a sharp one, which not only catches the viewer's eye but compromises the form a little. Softening that edge will help the neck round back in regression, as will lowering the value of the form as it turns back away from the light source. The value of the entire neck area might be just a little light, in fact -- for some reason, it appears lighter in value than the face, which reads oddly. I'd probably also think about trying to vary the treetop "line" a bit, so it didn't read quite so horizontally. Introducing a few judiciously placed skyholes would probably do the trick. Short and sweet. __________________ Steven Sweeney [email protected] "You must be present to win."