Rosie and the Goose

Linda Fox · 08-18-2009, 11:59 PM

This is a 20"x16" oil on masonite of my daughter, Rosie, with her pet goose. I am including the photo reference. Have I followed it too closely? Does the saturated green bother anyone?

Michael Georges · 08-19-2009, 02:21 PM

Hello Linda:

I have to say that for me, the saturated greenery in the background comes much more forward in the perspective than it does in the photo. This does have the effect of not as effectively separating your subject from the background.

Now, I think the overall impact is not necessarily negative, so it is up to you as to whether you choose to change it or not.

Dark objects in recession become lighter and grayer (read: less saturated). Light objects in recession become darker and grayer.

Linda Fox · 08-20-2009, 03:11 AM

Thanks Michael,

I tried to keep the greens in the foreground warmer than those in the distant background, but a little more intense than the photo. I'm glad that it doesn't seem too negative to you. I don't think I want to change it.

Now that I see the two images on top of each other, the same size - I can see that her mouth is not as wide in the painting, but yet, I think I'm still happy with it the way it is.

Richard Bingham · 08-22-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linda Fox

. . . Have I followed it too closely? . . .

Only you can answer that. Perhaps you'd care to expound on the value of copying a photograph? No question you are competent at it.

Linda Fox · 08-22-2009, 08:52 PM

There are several reasons why I would choose to work from a photo. I like the light right at sunset or just after, with the orange on one side of the face and reflected blue on the other. I don't have a large enough studio area to set up that kind of lighting, nor does my model have the patience or stamina to sit for it, not to mention the goose's desire to flee the scene.

I like to take my time at a portrait, with many layers of glazes. I would have a very hard time taking up someone's time or paying for that much live modeling time. I often manipulate the image in Photoshop, sometimes choosing one head, another body, another background, and then paint from the computer monitor or print out the photo. I didn't do that here because I liked everything in the image.

I think I have enough experience with live models to avoid some of the pitfalls of using a photo, such as the value clumping, color shifts, foreshortening, etc. At least I hope I do. I've seen some incredible photo real paintings that looks so much like a photo, that it was disappointing they didn't adjust the color or values to make it a beautiful painting.

Carol Norton · 08-23-2009, 03:33 PM

Linda, your portrait is BEAUTIFUL! I'd also like to add as one who paints a lot of animal portraits, that most of us are not The Dog Whisperer. I haven't figured out a way to command a dog, cat OR goose, to "Hold that perfect pose!" If Cesar Milan taught a workshop in animal photography, I'd sign up.

Richard Bingham · 08-23-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carol Norton

. . . Cesar Milan . . .

He's a god to me!

Linda, you pose sound reasons for photo reference. After all, it's results that tell. (I lost my copy of the Official Olympic Rules for Oil Painting somewhere . . .)

Stanka Kordic · 08-24-2009, 11:40 AM

Linda-

Its a great portrait. Love the goose!
I would agree with your assessment of the mouth not being wide enough. Double check the top of her head as well. Needs trimming.

Color is great!

Best,
Stanka

Mara Schasteen · 09-22-2009, 12:48 PM

I am a little late in posting my critique, but I would like to add that I like the lighting better in your painting than in the photograph and I think you have really painted the subtle grays in the goose well. I agree with the need for tweaking facial features, but what stands out most to me is that I don't see an exciting difference between photo and painting. When using a photo reference, I like to improve the photo with artistic expression such as bold, simple brushwork (particularly in the background) and the use of various methods of applying paint to create different textures. Also, the whole photo need not be rendered.

I don't like working from photos, but I understand the need to do so better than anyone. More often than not, my opportunities to paint portraits are limited to short moments in my studio when I am not mothering four children. Most of the time, photos are all I have.

Overall, I feel that your painting would be more successful simplified, with less rendering of the background using fewer colors and toning those colors down quite a bit. You've signed this one and perhaps it is time to move on ... maybe you could get out another canvas and set yourself a timer and paint this one again really fast, just for fun! Big brushes and broad, simple planes of color ... less rendering of the entire photo and more focus on the purpose of the photo for an artist: to provide you information from which to choose the elements important to you and those which help to convey your message. It would be so fun and exciting to see what you could do with the freedom of departing from the photo and expressing your relationship with this beautiful girl with your brush.

Thanks for posting your painting!

Linda Fox · 09-22-2009, 04:04 PM

Thank you all so much. Excellent comments and suggestions. You have all made good points, and just looking at it on the monitor, I can see some things as well. I've had to put it aside for a little while, but may take it out and work some more. I can deal with the signature - I don't think it has to be the final stroke of paint as long as it's still in my hands. I may take your advice, Mara, and have another try at it as well.