Steven

Leslie Bohoss · 10-20-2003, 06:46 AM

Hello,

Here is my temporarily last excursion into miniatures. Dimension: 4" x 3", but will cut 0.5" from the top, for framing.

Steven has a bit sharper avatar picture, but 60*60 too. If you don't like it use your ruby-red Delete button.

Any comments are welcome.

P. S. I freed you from your burden, the bag.

Edited: picture color corrected, really close to reality. Adobe against weather.

Steven Sweeney · 10-20-2003, 07:27 AM

You missed the earring and the metal studs in the bottom lip, but otherwise let me just say, Leslie, that we've got to find you some hobbies, as you've got way too much free time on your hands.

Jeff Fuchs · 10-20-2003, 01:03 PM

Well, that answers my question: "Who would paint your portrait?"

Leslie Bohoss · 10-20-2003, 02:02 PM

Of course nobody.

Well, I'm a bit confused. Clearly was a funny idea with this minis, but from your responses, cannot decide how you consider it. Perhaps was a wrong idea, but I did it as a practice with loveliness.

Steven, I try to install your extra accessories, but tell more about it.

Sorry for the artifical light, this week is very cloudy here.I try to make a "vibrant" shot.

Ciao!
Leslie

Mike Dodson · 10-20-2003, 05:26 PM

Leslie,

I have enjoyed viewing your "miniature" paintings. It's nice to see "unique" work posted here so I hope you continue to do so. I know I can't speak for everyone else here, but I think we are dealing with the ole' language barrier issue here. I think others are enjoying these also.

I would also like to comment on what an improvement I see in your most recent work. I recall having commented on one of your earlier critiques that you should spend more time developing your drawing skills. Looks like the hard work is paying off.

Keep up the hard work and continue to post these miniatures.

Leslie Bohoss · 10-21-2003, 06:35 AM

Mike,

Thanks for your kind words. I thought myself, what a perfect practice it is to attempt miniatures.
One is really forced (and more concentrated) to see the tiniest nuances, values etc.. I think it was a wonderful way for me. Perhaps too greenhorn.

In any case, I learned much. I'll try it with a "normal-size" reference picture. (My wife: Please, please just one from me...)

You are right anout the lanquage problem, although learned in the school, but 20 years ago, now I read so much in English (SOG, Cennini, Wetcanvas), hope it becomes better.

Sincerely,Leslie.

PS: Picture is now edited. Still not the best, but closer to being right.

Steven Sweeney · 10-21-2003, 10:11 AM

I picked up some miniature landscapes (about 2" x 4") in Australia years ago, partly I suppose because I was mesmerized by the ability of the artist to work so small. (My eyesight and steadiness of hand would no longer permit me to manage it.) However, not long after, he began to paint in larger formats because, he said, it took him just as long to paint a miniature as it did a 12" x 18", but he could charge about 10 times as much for the larger painting.

Steven Sweeney · 10-22-2003, 09:30 AM

A matter related to miniatures and drawing skills . . .

For a few years, a few years ago, I was expected to do three hours of life drawing every day, from 9 to noon. Two of those days were charcoal in large format (usually about 36 x 18 or 24 inches), and three were in pencil, in much smaller format (usually with the entire figure no more than 12 inches in any extension.)

The express training purpose of working smaller, with very fine lines, was to force us to be accurate. In large format, you might get away with a 10% error, depending on the motif (or you can pass the error off as being artistically gestural or originally interpretive, or regard accuracy as an art school trick, whatever excuse is in vogue), but in a 12-inch figure drawing with fine lines, you just have to get it right, or it

Leslie Bohoss · 10-22-2003, 11:48 AM

Hello Steven,

Quote:

The express training purpose of working smaller, with very fine lines, was to force us to be accurate.

Interesting, I very agree with you. Just before I took a plunge with this miniatures, painted a picture in format 9" x 12". And voila: I feel and meet the forms much better as with 18 or 20". I noticed what you said (to be accurate etc..) but following too: paintings just in this dimensions have much more "room" to make only the illusion of something what not really detailed painted, e.g. the earring or the 2 rings on finger are only illusions. Of course,I know with more time and effort get the whole thing more realistic effect.Btw,the face is no more then 1". I know this kind of pictures is not desired on Forum, maybe a link? (to copy in address-field) If not, please delete it promptly!

http://renderman35.tripod.com/Blonde_transp.jpg
Maybe I'll go no more over 12".

Many thanks,
Leslie

Erika Nelson · 10-22-2003, 12:22 PM

Leslie,
That is an excellent portrait with excellent likeness even sans earring

I'm new in the community so when I saw your painting, I was wondering why it looked so familiar, not realizing I just had to read the first response!

Tell me you didn't paint from the actual icon! I have been working with 6"x8" canvas which some people call small haha! Did you have to work with a magnifying glass to render this small? Looking forward to more of your miniatures and perhaps exchanging thoughts with you when I post one of my small pieces.