Underpainting: a struggle to simplify

[Clive Fullagar]

NOTE: This particular thread has beed edited for clarity and to keep it on topic. It has been copied from its original (unedited) location at http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1898 -Karin

Well, after looking at Karin Wells' demonstration on underpainting and getting a little more information from you folks I tried it out. I again used a five-value range using raw umber and flake white (those label warnings are creepy!). I would appreciate any feedback that you can give. I will also post the source photograph. This took about four hours of work.

[Clive Fullagar]

This is the source photo. Forgive the background doodlings. I often edit the photograph in Photoshop to get an idea of composition and to clean up any "noise" in the background.

[Clive Fullagar]

One thing I forgot to mention is the size of the painting. It's 13" x 10".

[Clive Fullagar]

Be really sure you want and are ready for a critique. If you've already decided the work is good or complete as-is and you're really just looking for positive feedback, then the post belongs in the appropriate Unveilings section, not critiques.

I really would like to get some feedback on this one. This is the first 'underpainting' that I have done and I want to build this painting up from the floor. I am open to any suggestions.

[Karin Wells]

In the underpainting, you need to make the transitions from light to shadow very smoothly and with thick paint. This is not to say that the transitions can't be quick - just smooth. It is hard to tell exactly what I am seeing here, but the face looks "uneven" and appears to have choppy brushstrokes.

The background areas and clothing that have uneven brushstrokes don't matter at this stage if you don't ever intend them to be smooth. But when things have "texture" in the underpainting, you cannot compensate in the upper layers.

Texture belongs in the top layers...not in an underpainting.

As I see it, the major reason to underpaint is to resolve all the halftone transitions from light to shadow.

Here are the secrets to underpainting...easy to say, tough to do. When you completely understand that an underpainting is not meant to be a complete painting it is easier. If you really do the following things, you can critique yourself:

Highlights do NOT belong in an underpainting. (Add them in the top layers).

Dark accents within shadows do NOT belong in an underpainting. (Add them in the top layers).

Keep your shadows flat. This gives you the opportunity to mass your shadows together and will help with your composition. i.e., If you don't see the eye clearly because it is in shadow - don't put it in the underpainting.

Keep your light flat.

Do not add reflected light in an underpainting because it breaks up your flat shadow. Reflected light belongs in the upper layers.

[Clive Fullagar]

Karin,

I am glad you responded to this post since your demonstration was the inspiration (and I mean that as an artistic compliment).

It is hard to tell exactly what I am seeing here, but the face looks "uneven" and appears to have choppy brushstrokes.

Your perception is accurate - I have actually scored the underpainting of the skin. Alas, I was not blessed with an unblemished complexion - my intention was to apply the skin tones in thin glazes of color and that these scores would pick up the texture of the skin. I get your point though, that this texture could be applied in the later layers of the painting.

Highlights do NOT belong in an underpainting. (Add them in the top layers).

Thank you for clarifying this. In this underpainting I used five values plus pure white (for the highlights) and raw umber (for the darkest shadows). I think that what you are saying is leave the pure tones out.

Finally, the most important message that I got from you was to "keep it flat." I think that my shortcomings here are attributable to two things; My impatience to produce a finished form, and my misunderstanding that the next step should consist of thin glazes that allow the value range to show through.

Once again, thank you for your comments.

[Karin Wells]

...my misunderstanding that the next step should consist of thin glazes that allow the value range to show through.

Actually, the value range will show through the thin glazes, but it is only the halftone that counts here. As you glaze and scumble on the upper layers, the halftone will show through as cool and delicate.

When you finally add a dark accent within a shadow area, you should keep the paint very thin (transparent) and warm. By doing this in the upper layers, you will avoid "mud-like" shadows.

When you have a darker area within a lighted area, you allow the halftone (underpainting) to show through by painting light on either side. By doing this, you will avoid "black holes" or harsh shadows.

I see an underpainting as beginning with the middle {halftone} and painting in two directions...toward light and toward shadow. If you look at my example again, you will not see white, nor will you see black - even though the subject is a black dog on a white cloth. I chose this extreme on purpose in order to depict the correct narrow range of value in an underpainting.

As to the texture of "imperfect" skin, I like to handle this in the very top layer with a cool tone detail (of a similar value) on top of an area where the warm light is strong. You only need a "suggestion" and not a full rendering to give the illusion that it is reality.

[Clive Fullagar]

O.K., Karin, bear with me - I think I am almost there.

1). It seems that what I have to do is reduce the value range here. Specifically the forehead is too dark. Using the value range in your own demonstration (I've taken the liberty of posting your palette below) I should flatten the forehead to a value of 2, maybe 1 in the darkest shadows. This will help me avoid mudiness in my shadows at a later stage of the picture.

2). Get rid of the "black holes" - especially in the hat and the hair on the right side.

3). Regarding the texture in the skin - I'll try and fudge that one in a later layer.

[Karin Wells]

All of this stems from my original underpainting demo that you can see at: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...ighlight=Sarge

Here is how I would approach the value range:

#5 Value. Use this for the light on the face. The skin is the lightest value and should be the lightest paint.

#4 Value. Use this for the shadow on the face. Don't put eyeglasses in on the underpainting as it is too tough to paint around them in the upper layers. Smoothly paint what is underneath and it will take a flick of the brush to add them later.

#3 Value for the light on top of the hat...since the hat appears to be the next darkest object.

#2 Value for the shadow side of the hat (the area under the brim). You will need to pay attention to the edge where this shadow meets the forehead and lose that edge rather quickly.

#2 Value for the light on the jacket and the shirt.

#1 Value for the shadows on the jacket.

Note: Do not get confused by the photograph! This is one of those where the shadow on the upper forehead appears to be as dark as the jacket...but it is not. The shadow on a light object cannot equal the shadow on a dark object.

You must paint from what you know to be a logical truth and not necessarily what you see.

Further Note: When you paint the hat, for example, only use the value extremes of #3 and #2. You can make any halftone range between these two values. Don't be tempted to paint outside of this range.

[Clive Fullagar]

Karin,

Thanks for your teaching here. I think I am going to go ahead and and lighten the values as you suggest. My main concern is that, if I don't, the underpainting will dominate the later layers, especially the shadows, and prevent me from putting life into them. I take your point about adding the half-tones in the later layers.

I have been doing a little research on underpainting and there seems to be some variation in the darkness of the values and the extent of detail. Vermeer, for example, used very dark values for shadows but did not take the underpainting into any great detail. Van Eyck, on the other hand, used lighter, far more detailed underpaintings.

I am going to try and reach a compromise. I will post the results of my efforts in the next day or so.