Back to school

[Elizabeth Schott]

I couldn't help myself with this time of the year, I was feeling not only elevated but a little devious.

So on our trial get up at school time, first morning, I had my middle daughter pose for this oil, 16 x 20.

I was thinking I should call it:
"Like yeah, does it need to be hemmed too?"

Please remember my digitals aren't the greatest, but Jeff this one is blue.

[Elizabeth Schott]

As you can see this is really in progress. I haven't really touched her hair or skirt.

I would like to introduce a hint of the plaid faintly into the background on her bottom left.

Here is the close-up of her face:

[Elizabeth Schott]

Lastly here is the reference photo:

[Peter Jochems]

Hi Beth,

I like the simple pose and I like the way you put little stories into portraits.

About the source-photograph:
I would like to know wether you have a special reason why in the source-photograph the shadow-side of the face is so dark. Personally I would prefer some more light on the shadow-side of the face.

The source-photograph shows a dark background, while the painting shows a very light background. Maybe you could make a source-photograph in which the background is as light as you would like to paint it?

Why did you make the source-photograph in black and white? Personally I prefer colour-photographs.

It's hard to judge from the photograph of the painting because of the way it is photographed (The images seem to be distorted) but, is her head a bit too small, compared to her arms/ body when you compare it to the source-photograph? It's hard to judge wether you made mistakes in this.

For some reason the detail-photograph of the face has a watercolour-appearance (that's not necessarily a bad thing).

The background is VERY blue, it can work, but it's also possible to use a less bright blue, so the background stays in the back so to speak. The blue of the background now takes away something of the attention you would like to have on the psychology of the face.

Greetings,
Peter

[Jeff Fuchs]

You're awefully prolific, Beth. What's your turnaround time on these things?

I read Holly's description of Marvin's wash-in technique. Are you using that method? I like it, but I also like many others. If I ever get around to painting, I'll try them all.

Peter might be right about the head proportions. You can be creative with proportions, of course, but you have to be careful about it. They say if you err in eye size, err on the side of too large. On women's portraits, a smaller nose will almost always be appreciated.

For a teenage girl, a smaller head doesn't seem to be a problem, but don't try it on women of a certain age, as it will not be a small head they see, but a large body.

I recently started a thread about varying from the photographic image. Marvin defended the strict proportiion school, but if I'd been quick on my feet (foot), I would have pointed out Karin's demonstration in which she changed the proportions of a woman and baby to enhance the composition of a portrait.

I'm in favor of using what works, regardless of the photographic reference.

This is just a lengthy way of saying "nice work, Beth"

[Elizabeth Schott]

Thanks guys, let me explain why and what I do. First I do work fast Jeff, mainly because I work a lot, plus the above does look "watercolor" because it is in very blocked stages"

When I am painting from life I do Marvin's wash-in, it is the best way for me to get it right. I fine the incredible thing is that when I start to add color I use Marvin's value palette with Bill's dance, the two blend so perfectly - I just can't explain how perfect they go together. (Maybe neither one of them will like me saying that.) When I work from my photo reference the wash in, I don't really feel is necessary since I have already established my value scale with my photographs, thus Peter the use of the black and white which I think gives me a more clear idea of those values.

I am going to post a couple samples of what I normally don't show you.

When I shoot black and white, following Marvin's technique but cheating because I use digital, I shoot over and under exposed images too. This format is also what I can print the largest and richest off my epson Super B. This gives me more information in the highlight and shadow areas.

My images I post here because I seem to be lacking in skill when it comes to photographing flat art, seem to be dark or flat so I tweak them in photoshop so I can give you a false impression, but for this stage, it's all I can do. I need to start sending my work out. When you look at the distortion of a figure in my post or anothers always look at the canvas edge if they have left it showing. I try to leave mine so you can see that I have "bowed" the image and distorted it. I have pointed it out, If you are looking at this piece, she is drawn well.

Since I do shoot black and white I always do these small oil color sketches, I have shown a couple samples of these too. it helps me work the backgrounds and reinstate the values. I've included the ones from "The Secret" too.

I like to add drama to my poses, they are more fun, especially if I'm bugging my daughters.

Thanks! Beth (I posted a new "painter" for you)

[Elizabeth Schott]

Here is an idea of how I handle the photo reference ( which I love shooting unlike the artwork):

[Elizabeth Schott]

This is a sample of the simple oil color roughs I do to work out value and color relationships.

[Elizabeth Schott]

Lastly, here is the photo reference from "The Secret", which is like all the other reference I shoot:

[Peter Jochems]

Hi Beth,

I like those rough sketches. The colours in those sketches are much more solid en better (in my view) than in your painting of your daughter (back to school) You seem to mix everything with a kind of blue later. Is the palette you use for them different than the one you paint the actual painting with? The background colour is much better in the sketch also, in my view. The colours look healthier in the rough sketches.

greetings,
Peter