Daughter with a Pearl Earring - wip

[Cindy Procious]

Yep - you're right, John - that's a big "s" curve that I missed.

I thought she looked older, too - but I didn't know why. I tend to exaggerate things like that, so to compensate, I wind up going the other way, and often lose essential but subtle elements.

Thanks!

[Cindy Procious]

This is as of yesterday - seeing it online, I see it needs more warmth on the right (shadow) side of her face.

Does anything else jump out? Critiques more than welcome.

Thanks.

[Peter Jochems]

Personally, I would use an underpainting which is more brownish than this, although black and white can work. (For skin-tones grey areas in the underpainting work very nice, so in that respect it's alright to me ).

There are a few distortions in the face when compared with the reference photo. You made her forehead too high and the form of the piece of clothing in her hair is different; now her head looks a bit strange on the painting. On the original photo, there is a beautiful curve in her profile there. You widened her face, her jawline has changed in form also, and her ear is a bit too much to the right. You captured the individual forms of the mouth and the nose and the eyes quite well.

One of the biggest problems is that you seem to be afraid of using shadows, The painting shows her more ethereal instead of a solid volume defined by dark and lights.

Personally I would have preferred to see the green of the original photograph instead of the 'Vermeer-blue' you used now. It would have made the painting more your own. Now it looks too much like an attempt to copy the Vermeer itself.

In the white piece of clothing I see the same fear of using shadows. I like the form of that white thing in the original photograph, now it is a bit like a undefined white form. Because of the lack of shadow in the face, its original effect gets lost. It would have caused nice reflections in the shadowed part of the face.

Her hair is much darker than as you painted it. If you wanted a solid tonal structure for the composition than you should have painted the face in a lower key than the piece of white clothing, same goes for the green piece of cloth in her hair and her hair itself. The tonal values seem to be very light or very dark, while the original photograph shows a more varied tonal structure. Much of these effects can be achieved by using an underpainting in which these tonal values are already indicated. Which then can be used as a guideline for painting the final layers of paint.

The way you make the background light up makes the image a little bit kitschy. I would have preferred to keep it quite dark there.

Although I guess that was not what you were aiming for, the ethereal character of the painting has its own appealing qualities.

[Michele Rushworth]

Very nice, though what Peter said about shadows seems very true, especially on her face. You have a good full range of values on the jacket, but almost completely flat values on the face.

Take a look at the reference and painting side by side (always helpful in any case) and notice the color/value of the shadow areas on the side of her cheek. There is a great difference between the value of that area on the reference and how you've painted it. Get the darks right and everything else will start to fall into place.

I have recently started a new system of painting that I learned from Tony Ryder, in which I paint only the darks first. Then I slowly work that area up into the light. All the other values seem much easer to get right once I have that step done correctly.

[Cindy Procious]

Peter - I have stewed over...er, I mean, comtemplated your critique for a while, and I first want to say: thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough job. Upon reflection, I agree with almost all of your points.

I will continue working on the piece (hopefully not overly so) and will post again.

And I'll be looking for your !

Michelle - thanks to you, as well. It's a good lesson to take away - lay in the darks first.

Onward and upward!

[Cindy Procious]

Okay - I darkened the background, fixed the head profile, added warmth to the cheek & ear, darkened her hair, and darkened the shadow on the white shirt.

I guess it looks better but may be a bit overworked.

Michele, I checked out Tony Ryder's website, and watched all his slide-show demos. Very informative, but I noticed he sure does use small brushes...

Thanks for all the improvement tips.

[Michele Rushworth]

What lovely lifelike color in the skintones! However, the face still doesn't have near the value range of the reference photo, or of the Vermeer.

It may have been a specific choice on your part to go with a low contrast ratio (which means having a rather subtle difference between the light and shadowed areas, as opposed to a more dramatic difference), though I think you would have a much stronger painting if you went even farther with the shadows.

As it is, the jacket, with its strong range of value, dominates the picture.

As for Tony Ryder's technique, yes he does use small brushes. One would think this would be a very slow method, but ironically I think it saves me tons of time in rework because I get it closer to being right the first time.

[Peter Jochems]

I think it's a lot better now. The first version;her face looked like a drawing with some colour compared to the reworked version. Michele is right about the shadows. The painting can have much better likeness and more character when you work more with the shadows. I still miss some of her most typical individual features in the painting. Don't be afraid of the shadows, they bark but don't bite! ;-)

Liked the caricatures on your website, really nice drawing style. The sensitivity for lines is visible in the way you painted her mouth and eyes.

[Cindy Procious]

Thank you, Michele and Peter.

I know I was still hesitant on the shadows, but with her porcelain skin I went as dark as I could make myself go. T'was a good lesson and one I will take much away from for my next portrait.

I really appreciate both of you for your guidance - thanks a million (and the same to John and Renee, as well.)

Best,

[Peter Jochems]

oops... I forgot...