|
Mark,
I have to admit that I'm increasingly reluctant to comment on finished, signed and framed work, because there's no working surface left upon which to consider and try out the suggestions.
I guess I'd say here, in any event, that I would have gone for a darker (dark chocolate, perhaps, or even a deep violet, complement of the "yellow" color of brown) background, so that there could have been more values and hue activity in the face, which is now essentially monochromatic, with a couple of scallops of extreme highlight. I'll bet there are lots of darks and a range of halftones, blues and oranges visible in the subject's skin that aren't shown here, because you're fighting to keep the face dark and brown against the almost white background. The absent color ranges affect not only the face, but the possible shadow areas in the neck. (Why, after all, would a portrait subject's neck appear brighter than her face?) The reticence at range is also leaving the blouse looking flat. There is little form, few folds, not much of the variation in color and value that we'd expect to see.
I've seen enough of your work to understand that you have a definite style, and I do not mean to fault it in any way, but in this case, I think the bright background is visually and thematically a count against your subject. I also believe that some further attention to the mechanics of form would greatly enhance your final work.
Last notes, in the close-up, the upper teeth at the sides of the mouth appear to be chomping down on the lower lip, from which they ought to be far removed. The teeth, as a structural whole, are a form, and will have highlighted and shadow areas. Back teeth just aren't going to be convincingly bright in a portrait.
There's also perhaps a compositional issue with the dead-center placement of your subject.
I'm trying to be critical in the best sense of the practice, simply to have you look at things anew in light of the comments.
With all best wishes and intentions,
Steven
|