[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Mike,

I see Mari's point, maybe I can clarify what I think might be of some consideration.

I would describe what I see in your photographs, (and a lot of other photographs on this site) as having no middles. The light is too light, the middle value range quickly exhausted, and the dark too dark. The ratio of light to dark is too high, there is too high a contrast. Additionally, the way over-the-counter film is being developed in the last 12 years really pushes that contrast. It is an artifact of the developing process. (In the indoor photographs, it appears as though the value ends at 5, as Mari said, but in fact what is actually happening is what she is seeing as a 4 to 5 value is actually a washed out 7 to 9 value.)

Because I use the same camera/natural lighting as you, I would have solved the lighting problem thusly. Indoors, I would have moved the model further into the room, away from the window. The light to dark ratio would have been 2 to 3 instead of 1 to 4. Outside, I would have photographed the model on an overcast day. In a number of my photo sessions for outdoor portraits, there is even a slight sprinkle. The photographs, however, look like it is a bright sunny day. A sunny day, however, with more middle values.

I have noticed on a number of portraits on this site the tendency to want to paint the highlight as an entire plane. Instead of realizing that the skin of your African-American model in the light will be a middle value with a sprinkling of bluish highlights, if you just work from the photographs, you will be tempted to make the entire lit side of her face not just a light value, but push it all the way to white. This is not possible, her skin is a middle value. But if you trust the photograph as the truth, you will be thrown off.

Two more quick thoughts,

I would reconsider the use of 400 film. Although you can use it under low light conditions, it can become grainy and you will lose definition in the low light situations, (see your indoor photo and Mari's description of it, "...the indoor light gives everything shot in front of this window a mauve-cast". You would be better off with a lens that lets in more light and using a faster film...I use 200).

I would reconsider using a filter. It is okay if you want to clean up the image to see a simplified compositional mass, but you are knocking out some very important information, color and clarity.

I have painted a number of African-American faces, and the coloring is phenomenal! The purples, oranges, blues, reds and greens. From your photographs, I am not seeing the tremendous color range I know is there.

A closing thought. To become a great artist, you don't play to your strength, you play to your weakness. If you are bad at hands, you don't avoid hands, you paint tons of hands. If you are weak at clothing, you don't emphasize the head and play down the clothing, you commit the years, (yes, years...) to learn how to paint clothing.

Mike, you are good at composition, almost intuitively exceptional. You think about it, consider, pose your models, and your audience responds to your eye. You can slide on your magnificent compositions. But there is still work to be done on the quality of your photographs. I myself take marginal photographs, I admit it, but I work primarily from life, so my photographs are supplementary. If you are working from photographs exclusively, they had better be knockouts technically as well as artistically.

I would suggest to all here on the site that are working from photographs to consider an adult education course in photography. It is as important as taking classes in how to paint.

Peggy