For Critique

[Michael Georges]

This is Nancy. It is a portrait commission that I am almost finished with. I will be putting the final touches here and there this next week and would welcome any input. Thanks!

and some detail:
http://www.fineportraitsinoil.com/Nancy-Done2.jpg

[Cynthia Daniel]

First of all, I see a lot of talent in your portrait and a tremendous ability for detail! So, my points are more refinements than anything else.

To communicate the concepts, I captured your portrait and did some adjusting with my graphics program. I assume the photographing and scanning process rendered the image more blue than in the actual painting. But, because of the slant towards blue, the first thing that hit me was it felt rather cold.

But, the thing that bothers me more is the background which I feel competes with the subject because (a) too much detail and (b) it could be darker to help the subject be more the focus. I managed an Austrian portrait painter for 6 years and he always painted more detailed in the face, less detail as he moved away from the face since that is the most important part of the portrait.

I've inserted here the image I adjusted. Obviously my blurring and darkening of the background is just with a graphics program and meant to communicate a concept and mood. I especially feel that the light area above her head and to the lower right of her cheek and jaw tends to fight with her face.

I sized the image down to 400 pixels high which we ask to be the maximum either height or width...but it's easy to miss!

[David Dowbyhuz]

Michael,

Without any intended slight to you and your work, but isn't Cynthia's edit miraculous?

What a transformation! The change is just too dramatic to ignore. Again ... wow.

[Michael Georges]

Cynthia:

Thanks for your message and your critique. My problem is rendering - I do too much of it - Bev Doolittle syndrome.

I looked at your modifications and I agree that the background does compete some with the form. I did try to darken it, blur it, and push it back as much as possible - perhaps I need to do a little more.

The flesh tones in the painting are indeed a bit warmer than the photo captured.

Thanks again for your input!

[Cynthia Daniel]

Thanks for the compliment David! I overdid it, but I also softened her back edge where it meets the background. It seemed stark compared to the other edges.

[Karin Wells]

When I get on a roll and my backgrounds begin to compete with the figure in the foreground, I "glaze it down" with something like raw umber and it is instantly subdued.

Also, painting someone with an open mouth (and especially with teeth showing) is very tricky and seldom works. Unless you have the skill of Frans Hals (I certainly don't). I suggest that an artist avoid it all costs.

[Michael Georges]

Karin:

Thanks for your reply and comments. I have done some glazes over the background and it is receeding nicely.

I certainly don't like painting teeth either, but have made the decision that when the subject is best captured with teeth showing, I won't shy away.

The whole teeth in portraiture thing, IMO, evolved from antiquity. Even Leonardo in his treatise on painting advises against painting teeth - why - because everyone in his time had very bad teeth. This continued to be true to about 1920. The other reason is that they can be hard to paint.

[Tom Martinez]

Michael,

You have done a great job!!! I would like to comment that I agree with Cynthia to a point. When I look at what Cynthia has done, right away I think photograph. In a photograph, all that is not in the field of focus, is blurred. In the field of vision, all is sharp for quite a distance. As artists to achieve a three dimensional effect, we soften edges as they recede into the distance. Therefore, to soften all edges outside of the subject bespeaks of a photograph. Softening all of the edges along the clients back and not the front, is not correct also. Some of those edges are in the same visual plane as corresponding edges in the front.

Some of the background surrounding the clients face and hair needs to be unified with the rest of the background. As it stands, it appears to be part of the hair and part of the face, especially near the chin. Some of the trickling water neads to recede, not all of it.

As a matter of opinion, I believe that when a client comes to us to paint a portrait, it should look like a painted portrait. Realistic, yes, but not photorealistic. After all, the client could get the same from a photographer and possibly at a lesser price. When we use photos as reference, we tend to copy what we see and don't use our artistic licence to achieve realism. Caution must be exercised. Otherwise, we are in the same catagory as the photographer.

[Michael Georges]

Tom: Thanks for your input. I agree that it does not need to be blurred as much as Cynthia had it - but her example got the idea across and she is right that the detail does compete with the form just a little.

I also agree that our eyes have a greater depth of field than a camera and that you can often tell paintings done from photos because of that out of focus background. What I am doing is trying to simulate atmospheric perspective, while keeping the form front and center in the viewer's attention. So, I have glazed over the backgound to darken, but not remove all the detail. Also, I have softened the line of her neck and made a few tiny revisions here and there. Am waiting for it to dry and will post a revised pic in the next day or so.

[Cynthia Daniel]

I think that Michael understood that I was just doing a quick "concept" thing to communicate an idea. There was no intention to create with my graphics program a exact representation of how the portrait should look. The point was to show how creating less detail in the background makes the figure more the focal point.