Composition decision

[Cecelia Cox]

In my humble opinion, I prefer the mood of the first. It looks more like a beautiful painting, not a posed portrait. I think Steven's advice on the composition is excellent. You could replace the orchids and lamp with a shorter object, a small sculpture or bowl of flowers in softer tones with less contrast, moved well back into that corner? And you'd probably want to subdue the wall color considerably. Beautiful photo!

[Amanda Grosjean]

Steven,

Thanks for replying.

Sticking to the first image, I had intended to just extend out the green to get rid of the triangle (ran out of wall space) but you had mentioned that the canvas should be "far more proportional in height-width dimensions." Would you extend the green out much further beyond what I have to give the girl a bit more "breathing room" or extend it out to the left of the mother?

Quote, "It (the lamp) is bisecting the horizontal distance of the format

[Steven Sweeney]

Compositionally, an object or division exactly midway in the format tends to stop the action or movement around the piece, resulting in a static rather than dynamic composition. The classic example of this is the tendency in landscapes to place the horizon right in the middle of the format, with equal amounts of land and sky. It's the push and pull between and among dominant and subordinate areas that provides the energy in a composition. The lamp's vertical base had the effect on me, when I first looked at the image, that it almost equally divides the horizontal distance. Whether lamp or horizon, it doesn't require much change to establish a more dynamic triangular or circular movement through the composition.

But all the parts are interrelated, so it may well be that other aspects can be altered as well to help. Yes, there is too little space between the girl and the border to the right, but there is perhaps slightly too much behind the mother. Shifting the two of them at least slightly to the left would bring the "weight" of this center of interest -- particularly the girl's face -- more into the play of the composition. She is the star of the composition, so you don't want her standing over in the wings.

I overstated when I said a format "far" more height-width proportional. A modest adjustment perhaps. The format just seems very "tall" to me, considering that the portrait subjects are seated. Admittedly, it's difficult to visualize exactly how altering the composition a little might affect even that call.

If I had this in Photoshop (instead of drafting this in my gray work cubicle on company time), I would be tempted to see what the composition looked like with the positions of the lamp and orchids reversed, and with the orchids bending to the right instead of the left. This would retain the lamp but keep it of secondary interest, and perhaps create a circular movement through the orchids and the subjects' heads. The white vase would likely be a distraction and would probably need to be muted in hue and value. In fact, even if the composition were left as it is, I'd consider those changes to the vase.

Perhaps I can illustrate some of these notions when I get back to my home computer, with image manipulation software.

I very much envy you this reference. These subjects are just beautiful, and their physical relationship is spectacular. (I suppose I should reiterate that I'm referring to the first image.)

Later thought -- I always squint a lot at a reference to assess the overall value design. I just noticed the interesting way in which the light value of the subjects' clothing forms a heart shape. You wouldn't want to make too much of that, but when it popped out at me, I liked it a lot.

[Amanda Grosjean]

Hi Steven,

That was a beautifully worded explanation, thank you.

I was already working on some adjustments through Photoshop when you posted so I will send this version along. Forgive the crudeness of the fix-ups, you get the idea. I extended the area to the right and shortened it slightly to the left, behind the mother. I diluted the vase and flowers, moved the flowers, moved the lamp, lowered the top, and changed the color of the background. I will take your other comments into consideration and play with it a bit more. Let me know what you think of these alterations.

-Amanda

[Steven Sweeney]

Yes -- a number of subtle changes have significantly improved the overall look. I'm glad to see you extended the gold cloth to the right, as it better "supports" the girl's head now.

Nicely executed.

[Amanda Grosjean]

I see how moving things around on the table, especially the flowers, could move the eyes around the canvas a little better but I think I would have to re-shoot the background in order to get the shadows right. After playing around in photoshop, I've reached it's limitations. Re-shooting, in my experience, is always dangerous. So I think I am going to go with the last version.

Thank you Steven and Cecelia. I am very grateful for you help!

-Amanda

[Steven Sweeney]

Yes, go with this, I think. I think the pose ideal -- you're not going to be able to duplicate that. And it's astute of you to realize the hazards of moving things around a lot and messing with the flow of light over the forms.

Final, parting thought is to keep the value of the orchids in check, so as not to approach and compete with the value of the white clothing. That will also slightly reduce the contrast between the value of the orchids and the background, which in turn will make them "less important" to the eye and reduce the pull of attention away from the mother and child and up into the corner. Shouldn't need a lot of detail, either, for the same reason. These will clearly be orchids, even without every dangly bit.

Good luck!

[Allan Rahbek]

Amanda,
I like this latest version but I feel that the lamp is out of sync with the rest of the elements. If you let the lamp go you will have a nice diagonal flow with the flower and the figures.

[Steven Sweeney]

I was prepared to lodge (and indeed drafted) a defense of the lamp, as I thought its compositional weight important. But I Photoshopped it out to "prove" my point, and when I uploaded the thumbnail, I found that I rather liked it, and that suddenly the lamp -- not the lamp so much, but the weight and edge of its shadow -- was some busyness that my eye didn't favor, as being in visual competition with the portrait subjects. Without the lamp (or even with it), I still think the value of the orchids has to be ever so slightly subdued. That the orchids and the mother's head are bowed in different directions has a cancelling effect that tends to make peace with them being in the same diagonal with the girl's head. I have to admit that, without the lamp, the table corner above the girl's head, which is to say, the fact that 2/3 of the table is empty and the flowers are pushed over to the opposite edge, bothers me a little. It's rather making the table "look" like a prop. (Daniel Greene gave me a bit of a hard critique about that on a portfolio review once, and I'm still somewhat sensitive to it. Which is not to say he wasn't right.) But that effect might still be addressed by minimizing chroma and softening lines.

The strong vertical of the mother's white blouse seems important in this composition and I think it's why I'm willing to give up the lamp, as long as the focus remains on the child.

But this is now all for the artist to decide. Once a number of possible compositional options present themselves, the artist's aesthetic prerogatives rule. I'll paste in here a side-by-side of what I was looking at, if it happens to be of any assistance.

What continues to strike me as THE focal point of this painting in the child's head and face. Keep the value of the facial tones higher than those of the mother's, and I think this will turn out well.

[Later: Every time I return to these images, I miss the lamp less. Allan made a bold call here, and it's worth serious consideration.]

[Amanda Grosjean]

Well, you've both given me something to think about. And might I add, I am really enjoying this discussion.

I have been examining the version of my image where the lamp was photo-shopped out all morning. I agree that having it removed leaves the vase and flowers too close to the edge, leaving it feeling a little too staged. The space just feels a little too vast in comparison to what is going on in the lower left diagonal. I do think that the lamp offers some counter balance and after playing with it in photoshop I feel that fading it a bit (the shadow of the lamp even more so) will make it less distracting.

I am going to site a Mary Cassatt painting (The Bath) in my defense of this position.
http://www.artic.edu/aic/aboutus/wip...cassatt_lg.jpg
Obviously she was a master of making the child the star no matter who, or what, was in the painting. In this example the child sitting on the mom's lap is the most dominant element. Your eyes sweep back and forth between the eyes, slide down the body, and travel back up via the arm. Now the only thing that is more intense than the little girl's flesh (that isn't part of this circle) is the pitcher in the right hand corner. Like my lamp, it was used for counterbalance. Yes, your eyes are drawn to it but your eyes only drift there temporarily then it is back to the figure. It is the human element that will always be the trump. Psychologically the viewer cares about the little girl more and that pitcher is just an extra element of the story. When you start to eliminate too many objects in the background you sometimes take away from the intimacy of "the moment" and it becomes a little too posed. But, I certainly have noticed how even though there are patterns and bold colors, she certainly subdued them beautifully in value and detail. I will certainly strive to mimic the glow of her figures. But if we could all so easily just paint like the artist of our choosing we wouldn't have need for this forum, right?

Thanks again for taking the time to contemplate this issue.

-Amanda