Portrait Critique

[Virginia Branch]

Here goes, my first critique. I have been visiting Cynthia's wonderful site for years now and am just now venturing into this Forum for a critique.

The photo reference was taken without a strong light source so the lighting is soft. Do I need more highlights in his hair? Is the background interesting enough or too dark? I appreciate any suggestions and thank you for you taking time to do so.

[Steven Sweeney]

I wish I'd painted this portrait, Virginia, so that I could have the pleasure of feeling as good about it as you should. So much about it is so attractive and appealing. The pose is very "telling", with the straight-on gaze, the confident tilt of the head, the casually open jacket. I have the feeling that the subject is wiser than his years, engaged in studying the viewer, rather than the reverse.

I very much like the way the fabrics in the jacket, shirt and tie are handled, in hues, drawing and painting, including the slightly rumpled collar and the soft edge on the far shoulder, a perfect contrast to the other shoulder which is "coming toward" us with its slightly crisper edge.

Yes, I do think the background is "interesting enough" and is in pleasing and effective hues. I'm not sure "what" the background is -- and it doesn't matter -- though it suggests to me shrubbery or trees painted slightly out of focus. The fact that it isn't more detailed (perhaps that's what you meant by "interesting enough") is not only not a problem, but seems to me to be exactly the way to handle it, because the subject himself is executed in somewhat "soft detail" and a crisper, noisier background would likely compete with, rather than complement, him. I think the background's lighter tones on the shadow side of the boy, and generally darker tones on the lighted side, provides the sort of effective contrast that in turn pushes the subject out in front of the background. (Just musing: you might have introduced some reddish tones here and there (in the same values as the greens in which you place them), or even -- if you go along with the "out of focus greenery" notion, faintly suggested a skyhole or two with a smear of blue slightly darker in tone than the shirt.)

And yes, there is not the strong, single source of lighting that might have been set up in a studio to enhance shadow, but there are nonetheless quite obvious lighted and shadow areas on the figure, in the hair, the face and the clothing, enough to suggest form, which is the whole point of manipulating (or making the most of) the available light. As for more highlights in the hair, I guess I would say not, because the overall lighting seems to me to be more diffuse than directional, not the sort that would create strong highlights. I could be talked into reconsidering that; I'd have to see the photo.

Though there's nothing in the portrait that says to me, "This must be changed," you posted for a critique, so I'll suggest a few things that I would want to at least double check before I signed off on the piece:

1-- Even accounting for the tilt of the head, the eye on the viewer's left seems higher than the other one.

2-- It may indeed be accurate, but parts of the chin and jaw area seem larger (longer, wider) than I would expect. Comparing the distance between eyebrows and the base of the nose, and base of the nose to bottom of the chin, which "typically" would be close to the same, I note that the lower distance is significantly longer. The cheek on the viewer's right seems to puff out a sliver too far, right at and immediately above the area where it meets the collar. One of the things that contributes to this is the reflected light on the edge of the cheek, which has a kind of ambiguous optical effect, making the shadow in the dimple look a bit dark and kind of tugging that outside edge of the face toward us rather than letting it roll back. You might experiment with letting that edge go slightly darker rather than slightly lighter. Consider, too, slightly raising the value of the green patch in the background right next to that cheek, to reduce the form-advancing contrast at that edge. (Also, when I squint, that dark green patch shows up as the same value as the shadow side of the hair and kind of looks like an extension of the hair. Not necessarily a problem, just something my eye keeps coming back to.)

3-- On that same side, in the area of the eye, you might let the right side of that triangle of light on top of the cheekbone become darker as it approaches the hair, to round out the turn of the skull. Minimize the reflected light on that edge, where it meets the hair.

4-- The tip of the nose looks a little busier than the rounded "bulb" I'd expect to see. The vertical shadow line on the (viewer's) left side of the "bulb" and the lighted triangle on the right side, extending down almost to the face, suggest a cleft in the tip of the nose. If that is not in fact accurate, it could be eased by minimizing that shadow line (which probably wouldn't be there anyway, on the lighted side of the nose) and darkening the part of the triangular shape that turns and lies on the base of the nose, in shadow (albeit not particularly dark).

5-- It's a little hard to explain the relatively bright highlight on the upper right edge of the hair, both because we're already "accepting" that the light is most strongly coming from the other side and because it's placed right in the middle of a dark shadow area. You might consider at least toning it down a little, so that it appears more in the nature of halation from the ambient light.

That's probably more than you wanted to hear. The suggestions for a second look are just that. As I've said, I think the piece is very well done.

Steven

[Virginia Branch]

Steven,

Thank you for taking the time to critique the portrait! You made several excellent suggestions that I will try. The photo reference was taken outside and I think I will try and bring in some blue in the background for sky and lighten the green around his cheek. As for the distance from his nose to his chin...that is accurate but it does catch your eye as being long. Maybe I should make the shadow under his chin have more contrast so it doesn't seem quite as long.

Some of your suggestions I agree with (tilt of eyes for example) but am afraid to tackle. I can see myself really messing it up. His nose does look like the one in the painting and I really don't want to mess with it as they seem to be my weak point. Even as I type that, my brush will probably find its way there. I'll send another jpg once I've made some changes. Thanks again.

[Steven Sweeney]

Yes, I think you're on to something with the shadow underneath the chin -- as I look at it more closely I see that I was taking the bottom of the chin to be the bottom of the lighted area, where it meets the darker triangle of shadow on the neck. I'd suggest raising the tone of that dark triangle just a bit, and lowering the tone of the reflected light underneath the chin, also just a very little. I'm talking about very subtle changes, but ones that in combination would, I suspect, be effective.

I do understand your reticence to start fiddling with the facial features. I did a life-size self-portrait last winter which I considered virtually finished before I finally gave in to my nagging doubts about whether the eye on one side was too high. Through many critiques no one had ever commented on it. And owing to the influences of age and gravity, my eyes actually aren't mirror images of each other, and the one that's usually a little more open was the one that was too high, so the optical illusion was such that I was probably going to get away with it. One day I took extremely careful measurements in the mirror and discovered that, whatever the fleshy parts of the eyes were doing, the irises and pupils were in fact equidistant from other facial reference points. I checked the painting as carefully, and discovered that the "suspect" eye was indeed about 1/8" higher than the other.

No one had noticed it, and probably no one ever would have. Except me, every time I looked at that portrait. And the real heartbreaker was that the eye was Bouguereau-esque. (You know, Floyd Bouguereau, over on the East Side.) But one day I went into the studio and repainted that eye in the correct position, and I'm so happy I did. Did I paint it as well? Probably not, but having it in the right place was worth it.

More than a couple of instructors have related their own experiences in which their teachers had come by for a critique and had said something like, "That's a great eye [or ear or whatever]", and then had taken a turpsy rag and wiped it out and said something like "You found it once, let's see you find it again, just to make sure it wasn't an accident the first time."

You can think some more about the eyes, but try not to make a decision based on whether you'll be able to get the likeness back. You will. (You have to!!) As for the nose, it's probably easier than you think. Imagine the nose as a solid form with a triangular base; with top or high side lighting, that base is going to be darker than the lighted areas above it. Make it so, and don't interrupt that dark shape with little areas of highlight or reflected light. Retain the unity in that value shape and you'll create form.

An anecdote to finish: This isn't quite the same thing we're talking about here, but Daniel Greene relates an amusing story about a portrait subject whose eyes ACTUALLY WERE different heights, no question about it. His dilemma was whether to paint them that way and always have everyone who ever looked at the portrait assume he'd gotten it wrong, or whether to use artistic license to "fix" the problem. He finally painted it as he saw it, and everyone was happy. Some considerable time later he met the man's son, and saw that the son had the exact same physical features, including the uneven eyes. It was obviously a family trait, and Greene says he was so glad he'd decided to paint it the way he saw it.

Steven

[Virginia Branch]

Steven,

Thanks again for your insightful comments. I did work on the portrait yesterday. I examined the eyes closely and think that maybe the eyebrow was too high. The eyes seemed to line up enough to satisfy my not "messing" with them. I did lower the eyebrow (which did seem slightly higher and out of line from the other). The change is subtle but helps.

I worked on his right side in shadow and the edges. Might have to go back to that again. He is a rather chubby boy so he does have a lot of cheek to work with but I want it to be flattering yet capture his look. The mom loves his dimples and wanted that incorporated even though he isn't showing much of a smile. The client is another story for another topic, I think.

I did just what you suggested with the chin and it works. Thanks for the "nose tip".

Would love to see some of your work. Are your paintings anywhere out there in cyberspace?

Thanks again!!!

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Is Steven generous and knowledgeable or what? I like the hair and the work I lot. I'd only fiddle with the background. I would oil up the the dry portrait and really reduce the intensity of the background then you can blend back into the head etc w/o risking being damaged. Beware the thalo!