 |
|
01-29-2003, 11:49 AM
|
#11
|
SENIOR MODERATOR SOG Member FT Professional, Author '03 Finalist, PSofATL '02 Finalist, PSofATL '02 1st Place, WCSPA '01 Honors, WCSPA Featured in Artists Mag.
Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,481
|
Hi Hanna,
You've got some great images here. I happen to really like #2, as the foreshortening would be fun (challenging!) and it is an original viewpoint.
I also agree with Jeff, the pose in #3 is lovely but you'd need to reshoot with the directional lighting.
|
|
|
01-29-2003, 04:46 PM
|
#12
|
Associate Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Skellefte
Posts: 122
|
I did the backgrounds in Photoshop using a brush shaped like a slightly tilted imprint from a rectangularshaped real brush. I then just covered disturbing objects, gave the photos a more painterly feel and tried out the background somewhat.
Too bad I will not get that result with my pastels later. I guess maybe I could if I removed the paper from the pastelsticks but that would hurt. I admit; I
|
|
|
01-29-2003, 06:20 PM
|
#13
|
Approved Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,730
|
Scrunched
Hanna,
Though your photos are lovely, I would not use any of them as a painting reference. There is too much forshortening, knees crunched to the chest. You have one that is shot from above. Unless you are a master I would not use any one of them. Most masters wouldn't use them either.
I always say, "think like an Egyptian". Consider the silhouette of the figure first. Shoot at the waist or slightly above so the figure won't look dumpy. Use a more graceful elongated standing figure or sitting picture. Look at the star's pictures of the 30's, like Jean Harlow. See how they posed with the lovely bias silk draped over their bodies. Look at Sargent's pictures of silk dresses.
Unfortunately, lovely as your picture are they have no body definition and are not designed well for painting. They are liable to look like puddles of silk.
Sincerely,
|
|
|
02-20-2003, 12:03 PM
|
#14
|
Juried Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 247
|
I think that the scrunched up poses will make lovely figure paintings. I like all of them. I see no problem with the second one. I would have her look downward a little so her eyes are not looking up so high.
I always ask people to scrunch up a bit. I think it makes the painting lyrical and interesting. Where's the gracefulness in someone standing upright, or sitting at attention? And besides, if they scrunch up, you get to paint feet and hands, which are beautiful. I like the way you have had her remove her shoes. These are so good that I would like to paint them myself.
In fact, I was planning on going to the second hand store to stock up on some long gowns for my neice to wear during some photo shoots. If you arrange the background properly you can produce a painting of your sister that strangers will be pleased to buy.
There's absolutely no reason to expect your painting to become a "puddle of silk".
|
|
|
02-20-2003, 12:38 PM
|
#15
|
Approved Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,730
|
For starters
Sargent's Madame X, Mrs. Hugh Hamersley, Mrs. Robert Harrison, Mrs. Fiske Warren and her Daughter Rachel, Winifred, Duchess of Portland, Mrs. George Swinton, Miss Elsie Palmer.
The poses as well as the drapery as a whole are considered. The figures are readable and graceful, adequately showing off the fabrics, not swamped by them. They are hardly stiff or ridgedly posed, nes't pas?
Sincerely,
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing this Topic: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:11 PM.
|