Romancing the Stone

[Michael Georges]

Administrator's Note: John Finnegan's earlier post where he refers to the "gutless advice" given by artists before him was deleted. The following posts refer to the one that was deleted as being outside proper etiquette for this Forum.

It's about what makes a good painting vs. what makes a good photograph - further, it is about stacking the deck in your favor by using only the best reference you can get.

Bad reference only makes your job that much harder. Portraiture is not about copying photographs - it is about creating good paintings that are somewhat timeless and "live" on the wall.

In this case, the reference photo is not good and I feel that I would have a pretty hard time making a good painting out of it. It is lit by a flash which has reduced the value transitions and created a lighting situation which is not appealing. The left arm of the lady is odd and subtracts significantly from the composition. The figures are not in very interesting poses - it looks like a photograph does - a captured moment, not something that is timeless like a portrait should be.

That said, if you do decide to take the commission, then you will need to do a significant amount of rework and extrapolate some forms in order to make it a better painting. You will want to move the lady's arm into a position where it makes more sense and it shows her interacting with the baby a bit more - a lot of extrapolation there. You will want to expand the field of view so we are not so close into the forms - there are too many edges cut off - at least extend it on the bottom. Again, you will have to determine the position of the lady's legs, how the rocking horse extends down, and define the baby's feet and legs.

You will hear the professionals on this forum arguing a lot for using the best reference - that is because we have experienced the tragedy first hand by fighting bad photos and trying to make a painting that is good from them. After one or two of those, you begin to realize that it is just not worth it - not for your head, not for your heart, not for your portfolio, and certainly not for your wallet. A lot of extra work and time to make something good from something not good - you end up making pennies on the commission if not losing money all together.

So it is not about guts, it is about being a professional portrait painter and what that really means - jaw droppingly good paintings every time, without fail. You don't get there from bad reference.

First of all, I object to the idea, 'I couldn't/wouldn't do it, so you couldn't/shouldn't either'. That was the attitute that prompted me to come out with 'gutless'.

Second of all, the photo reference is actually quite good. Go to the SOG main page and sift through the portrait artists there. There are no great painters there. Some are good, and a lot are average, but none are great. What I'm sure about the painters there is that they all had glowingly beautiful reference photos for their paintings. So, big deal? The quality of painting is still, on the whole, very average. The great photo reference doesn't matter, and the ability of the artist does.

The photo reference here is a perfectly simple and strong balance of lights and darks. The values are already there to make a strong painting. It rather fits Clive's way of painting even.

Clive,

Crop the photo a bit on the right, up to near that vertical fold of the shirt. You'll want to make the background a solid or near-solid dark value (like however you did it in the girl with the hat and the girl's back). Keep the picture to three or four values, the simpler the better. Bend the kid's right leg into the picture, resting it on the horse. Move the woman's right hand to the horse's mane, and point her left hand/arm towards the baby in a casual way.

If you hit the values right, the mother and child will just radiate from withing the painting, and the owners of this fine painting will spread the word about you.

Post updates on the painting please, I don't like to write here, but I stop by to look around.

John

(Message to Khaimraj Seepersad: I private messaged you, but never heard back)

[Michael Georges]

John: Let me suggest that you go and read the rules of this forum in the Posting Guidelines and Proper Conduct Section.

If you cannot abide by them, then you need to go elsewhere.

I couldn't find the posting guidelines. I wanted to be a little tough because I thought there was good info to get across about the possibilities of this painting, but it was getting muddled with ego. I get riled up sometimes and I don't mean to offend, but I will call it like it is. In that way at least you'll know I'm sincere when I say something is good (like your Chase and Peyton and Clive's Woman's back painting).

Anyway, today was kind of an day off for me, and tomorrow I'm back to work and won't have time to post. A regular one-hit wonder.

Good luck to all,
John

[Michael Georges]

John: I apologize if you could not find the section. Let me direct you to:

http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1673

and

http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1671

and

http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1629

No worries, and I hope it helps you to better understand our replies to you.

[Sharon Knettell]

Mr. Finnegan,

Since you find so many of our (SOGS) paintings average, I would like to see your paintings.

Could you please post a few for inspiration? We all like to learn from painters who have a real mastery.

Sincerely,

[Michael Fournier]

Second of all, the photo reference is actually quite good. Go to the SOG main page and sift through the portrait artists there. There are no great painters there. Some are good, and a lot are average, but none are great. What I'm sure about the painters there is that they all had glowingly beautiful reference photos for their paintings. So, big deal? The quality of painting is still, on the whole, very average. The great photo reference doesn't matter, and the ability of the artist does.

Excuse Me? If you look at the complete list of artists represented on the SOG site you will find more then a few very acclaimed artists. And there are artists among them who work from life and not from photos at all, so your statement that they all had glowingly beautiful reference photos is irrelevant.

So Mr. Finnegan, please give me a link to an artist who you do consider a great artist. And maybe let us know a little about yourself so that we can learn who this great art expert is. I would very much like to know where you learned so much about how to create a great painting from a poor photo. I could use that information the next time I am asked to paint one from inadequate reference.

[Steven Sweeney]

Kudos to the professionals here who maintained the respectful calm in the face of provocation.

Special note of thanks to Michael G., for manning the watch with conduct above and beyond the call. Your service decoration is in the mail.

Steven

[Marvin Mattelson]

John Finnegan has voiced an opinion that has obviously pushed quite a few buttons. I don

[Cynthia Daniel]

[quote]I don