Preliminary Study

[campsart]

Rough sketch for painting. Her hair is unfinished. I decided to work it out in the painting as I go. Became too tedious.
<IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/lib/15-Feb-2001/k10wc.jpg" border=0>
<IMG SRC="http://www.home.earthlink.net/~campsart/_uimages/20101.gif" border=0>

------------------
"Art is a jealous mistress and if a man has a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture or philosophy, he makes a bad husband and an ill provider."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1888), American essayist, critic, and philosopher.



[This message has been edited by campsart (edited February 16, 2001).]

[jioRji]

This is really "feminine" it brings out her innocence. I like the way she fades in the paper.
Good work!!

------------------
~jioRji~
Whispering Grounds (http://jiorji.cjb.net)

[Sandi]

She's beautiful!
I'm not fond of those types of poses myself, knowing how stiff they can get. I'm sure you'll be fine with it though.
Can you do us a favor and zoom in for a closeup shot? It's difficult to tell how she aligns from this distance. (for this ol granny anyway).

[campsart]

Originally posted by Sandi:

Can you do us a favor and zoom in for a closeup shot? It's difficult to tell how she aligns from this distance. (for this ol granny anyway). [/B]

Thanks jioRji. Sandi...here's an enlargement...
<IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/lib/17-Feb-2001/K10_draw_2.jpg" border=0>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




------------------
"Art is a jealous mistress and if a man has a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture or philosophy, he makes a bad husband and an ill provider."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1888), American essayist, critic, and philosopher.

[bbbilly1326]

Beautiful lady, beautiful drawing. I wish I could do as well with a "rough" sketch!
I think I might soften or round her shoulder a little.
I'm sure the hair will work out; it's best if it remains softer, rather than more defined.
Great portrait!

------------------
Bill
Self-taught/all-ways learning

[LDianeJohnson]

campsart,

This looks really nice. You've spent a good bit of time rendering the face & hair well and it is well executed. Since I don't have the benefit of seeing what you are drawing from, just a couple of things for you to check...

The foreshortening of the forehead. It seems a bit like too much verticality on the forehead (too much showing?)

Looking forward to seeing this develop!

Diane

Also, the left side of her back. Anatomically, I think the back should cut-in and not be so very straight. If you did this from a photo, just turn the drawing and picture upside down and take another look.

[campsart]

I think I might soften or round her shoulder a little.

Thanks Bill...I'll look into that in the painting!

------------------
"Art is a jealous mistress and if a man has a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture or philosophy, he makes a bad husband and an ill provider."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1888), American essayist, critic, and philosopher.

[campsart]

Originally posted by Artistry:
campsart,

This looks really nice. You've spent a good bit of time rendering the face & hair well and it is well executed. Since I don't have the benefit of seeing what you are drawing from, just a couple of things for you to check...

The foreshortening of the forehead. It seems a bit like too much verticality on the forehead (too much showing?)

Looking forward to seeing this develop!

Diane

Also, the left side of her back. Anatomically, I think the back should cut-in and not be so very straight. If you did this from a photo, just turn the drawing and picture upside down and take another look.

Thanks Artistry...I've included the photo I'm going by for this work. The subject lives out of state in Utah. I have to work from this. I do agree I have to finish out the hair and bring down the front hairline a little. I got tired of messing with it and decided I can refine in the painting process. Compare and tell me what you think.

<IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Critiques/lib/18-Feb-2001/k-10_portrait.jpg" border=0>


------------------
"Art is a jealous mistress and if a man has a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture or philosophy, he makes a bad husband and an ill provider."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1888), American essayist, critic, and philosopher.

[bruin70]

camp...you can take virtually every photo and trace it.......and you'll end up with a bad drawing....{M}

------------------
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT

[campsart]

Originally posted by bruin70:
camp...you can take virtually every photo and trace it.......and you'll end up with a bad drawing....{M}



I'll have to say that a few of the comments posted in this critique have left me feeling slow witted. Could you please elaborate on your meaning? Thanks.

------------------
"Art is a jealous mistress and if a man has a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture or philosophy, he makes a bad husband and an ill provider."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1888), American essayist, critic, and philosopher.

[bruin70]

there will ALWAYS be situations within a drawing that require a redo. foreshortening is a big culprit,,,,, bad hand poses is another,,,,,,lengthening legs of a person sitting down,,,, for the sake of creating an elegant line as opposed to what's given by the photo. the points i brought up in a crit of this prelim over at critiques forum are all based on needing to change what the photo presents.

the eye accepts what a photo gives because,,,,who's to argue with a photo. can't argue with that,,,right? the very idea of the photo, however, hides all the mistakes that your eyes accept. translate that photo to a painting, and all those glaring mistakes pop up.

take 2 dozen different views of bill clinton and compare each. you will see how some look more like him than others. and others still don't look like him at all. ....{M}

------------------
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT

[campsart]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Noble:


I can't believe you've said in a former thread that you didn't have the skills like others. I know one thing...you see more than I do. I didn't notice half of what you pointed out. I'm honored when someone studies my work so closely. Such an eye for detail. I printed out your comments to have by my side as I paint the portrait. Undertstand though...I called this study a preliminary because it's usually a quick study that I do to get a feel for the person. I usually make minor corrections in the final painting. The harder values and definition in the back will be easy to fix as I paint. I just start going crazy with roughing in for what I normally call a "rough" sketch because it's exactly that...rough! I have the deepest respect for your comments and I will indeed take heed as I work out the final picture. Your a lot like bruin70. He pulls no punches...he tells it like it is. I enjoy that kind of critique. Just like yours...I learn something. By the looks of your icon you probably have great skill. I'll post the painting when finished. I'll look forward to your feedback about it. Keep telling it like it is...my deepest respect!


------------------
"Art is a jealous mistress and if a man has a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture or philosophy, he makes a bad husband and an ill provider."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1888), American essayist, critic, and philosopher.



[This message has been edited by campsart (edited February 21, 2001).]

[campsart]

Duh...sorry...sent it twice.

[This message has been edited by campsart (edited February 21, 2001).]

[artsyfartsy]

I hope it is ok that I respond to this. You have had so many responses already you are probably overwhelmed. I agree with what has been said, I also think that you will add to the "attitude" of the painting by jetting the fore shoulder out just a bit. (not much) it seems a little too round, I think someone said to maybe round it more, but I am not sure I agree that doing so would give you the effect you are looking for. You can capture a person's face well, but you need to capture the subject's personality through their posture and body language. She has just a hint of playfulness, and that jetted shoulder would portray that. Compare her shoulder in the drawing with that of the pic and I hope you will see what I am talking about.

[artsyfartsy]

I hope it is ok that I respond to this. You have had so many responses already you are probably overwhelmed. I agree with what has been said, I also think that you will add to the "attitude" of the painting by jetting the fore shoulder out just a bit. (not much) it seems a little too round, I think someone said to maybe round it more, but I am not sure I agree that doing so would give you the effect you are looking for. You can capture a person's face well, but you need to capture the subject's personality through their posture and body language. She has just a hint of playfulness, and that jetted shoulder would portray that. Compare her shoulder in the drawing with that of the pic and I hope you will see what I am talking about.

[Noble]

Originally posted by campsart:
[B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Noble:
[snip]
Undertstand though...I called this study a preliminary because it's usually a quick study that I do to get a feel for the person. I usually make minor corrections in the final painting. The harder values and definition in the back will be easy to fix as I paint. I just start going crazy with roughing in for what I normally call a "rough" sketch because it's exactly that...rough! I have the deepest respect for your comments and I will indeed take heed as I work out the final picture. Your a lot
like bruin70. He pulls no punches...he tells it like it is. I enjoy that kind of critique. Just like yours...I learn
[snip]

I'm glad you took it in a positive light, I'm not experienced with giving critiques so I risked awkwardly stumbling around a bit. I think if one is looking for a critique it should be useful in some way, and as long as it is given as a sincere gift the more direct the better yes?

I understand it was a rough sketch/study for the painting and seeing your previous work I *know* you will get it as right as you desire. I admire your abilities. When looking at your "rough sketch" it looked so *not* rough to me I forgot about the study thing until the end when I re-read my post! So please take that as a nod to your talents! (I think you did but I just wanted to reiterate)

My rough looks *so* rough I'm even ashamed to show my mom, and she likes everything I do! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif (mom's are like that of course)

Thanks for your nice comments, I know your painting will be great, look forward to seeing it. One of these days I'll give oil's a try, but for now I'm still a dust maker. (pastels etc) http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Cheers,
Noble
http://artofnoble.com

[Noble]

Originally posted by campsart:
Thanks Artistry...I've included the photo I'm going by for this work. The subject lives out of state in Utah. I have to work from this. I do agree I have to finish out the hair and bring down the front hairline a little. I got tired of messing with it and decided I can refine in the painting process. Compare and tell me what you think.

You have an incredible talent in your renderings, your skill is enviable so I'm going to see if I can muster some detailed comments, I hope I'm not going to be too nitpicky. My assumption is the goal is to get as close to the photo as possible...

I agree some photos even copied exactly will result in drawings that are not good. One must make adjustments to get the life in the picture. This is what makes art better than photos many times.

Btw, I hope jumping in here is not inappropriate, if it is I sincerely apologize. Now that I see the pic I can make some tangeble comments. This is difficult via text, if I could just point here and there and say see that etc, it would take only a couple of seconds.

The challenge of this rendering vs the photo has to do with the angle of her head as described by the face vs her head. In the current drawing, there is a subtle form of "double aspect" going on I think. The drawing implies her head is rotated a little more than in the picture, but not all elements of her face/head were rotated appropriately to make a fully convincing illusion, I'll try to address that below a tad.

If you leave her eyes, nose and mouth alone, you would have to adjust the shape of her cheek/chin area to show more of the hidden side of her face to support the angle her head is rotated vs the picture. As well, the near side of her face would show slightly less too. Very subtle diffrences can make amazing differences in the perception of a harmonious 3d-ness.

This assumes you want to make the drawing look more correct assuming the new rotated aspect. The other way would be to change the eyes and mouth to assume the aspect in the pic, but I think that would be harder to execute at this point given how much detail exists in the eyes. Namely, the far side of her head would need to recede more (look at the angle her eyes make... they are more flat (horizontal) and straight than in the pic, mouth too check the corners vs the pic, nose not so much, but a slight difference in the shadow shape size)

The angle of her head as it is drawn is close to an uncomfortable pose, because she is reaching the limits of the range of motion for her neck/head so just a little further and the viewer will start to feel the strain. This makes subtle rotations more problematic.

The likeness is great, the relative proportions are correct, but, the double aspect thing makes the viewer look at it and feel that there is a little something "off" somehow...

Addressing the rest of the dwg, the general shapes are carried over from the pic, but the values are not supporting the depth they way the photo does and thus detracting from the "she is sitting there" illusion slightly.

If you examine the far shoulder and back, you will see the values are too even with the front shoulder and so they don't recede as they do in the photo either, which creates a little more flatness as well. A graded darkening of values and some softer edges will fix that fairly easily. Also, the far shoulder blade sticks out a tad more than hers. Easy to fix by bringing the dress angle there up more to suggest the turning of her back.

There are some other anotomical differences relating to the near side scapula and where it hooks into the clavical, sorry I'm not up on all my "names". The way its drawn the shoulder doesn't come forward quite enough and looks a little large. Some of the value changes are a little too hard creating "deeper" indentations than exist.

I hope all my long windedness is not overdone, please understand I'm getting "anal" in this because your style is so incredible and exacting, I figured you might be interested in something along these lines. I don't think I can do what you do, but I would like to be able to.

I think this pose is challenging because of the prespective "traps" that loom everywhere, it is far easier to analyze than to do! As a study I wouldn't even try to change anything, I would just go on with the painting as you indicated, takeing what you learned from the study into the painting. That's why their called studies right?

I really look forward to the finished painting!

------------------
Cheers,
Noble
http://artofnoble.com