I'm Lost!

Patricia Joyce · 03-08-2005, 10:23 AM

Thank you for all your advice!
I am miserable about the eyes after working on it again yesterday. I am happier with the skin tone, but the eyes are embarrassing to see in the pic. but I wanted to show an update. I am losing the drawing of the eyelids and the brows are hard and need to be defined. The lower lid on our left looks too yellow and is "drawn" wrong.

This is soo frustrating. I drew some more sketches and when this dries I will go in again to work on the eyes and eyebrows, the profile and then begin to really work on the habit. I can see in this image the the iris on our right is now too small. The highlights bother me. The top of her cheek on our left is too bright (wow!) and the lower lids are bad on both eyes. UGH!!

I have to say though, that it was so much fun to work on skin color, scumbling to my hearts content. With Marvin's palette it is so easy and logical for a beginner like me. Before Marvin's workshop, the few times I worked in oils I always ended up with mud on the canvas. Now, as long as I stay in the correct value, and use the correct brush, my colors stay clean. I just have to think about chroma and hue in that value. It will take a long time to get that down, but I think the value thing is coming along. At least I am encouraged and just can't wait until the next painting where I do not have to use a poorly lit old black and white photograph!!!

Thanks for looking.

Terri Ficenec · 03-08-2005, 10:30 AM

Pat, is it me --or does she bear a resemblance to your daughter-in-law? (She's coming along nicely.)

Patricia Joyce · 03-08-2005, 10:34 AM

I'm laughing. I am using my daughter-in-law as my sit in and I hope not losing the image of Sr too much! My bosses here love it so far, though, and they recognize it as Mother Theresa Fitzmaurice. There is a similarity in their features which is why I used my daughter-in-law!!

Terri Ficenec · 03-08-2005, 10:37 AM

Ah-ha!.... Here I was going to suggest that your daughter-in-law might be good to pose for those eyes! Too funny.

John Reidy · 03-08-2005, 11:50 AM

Pat, my two centss worth. Overall, the highlight on (our) left cheek doesn't look too bright for me due to the light source. That seems to be the logical spot for a high light. One thing, though, I'd like to add is the values of the white of the habit compared to her flesh tones.

The lightest lights can not be brighter than the lightest darks.

Therefore the white habit in its highlights and shadows needs to be lighter than the highlights and shadows of the flesh tones. Check the values and their relationships.

Very nice in its feel. You have captured for me a spirit that dwells in goodness. Please don't get frustrated. Keep going.

Patricia Joyce · 03-08-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Reidy

Therefore the white habit in its highlights and shadows needs to be lighter than the highlights and shadows of the flesh tones. Check the values and their relationships.

Very nice in its feel. You have captured for me a spirit that dwells in goodness. Please don't get frustrated. Keep going.

Thank you, John for the compliment. It does spur me on! Mother Theresa Fitzmaurice was only 29 years old when she purchased the 55 acres and began to build this beautiful motherhouse in 1905. Pretty incredible for a woman 100 years ago. This part of Cleveland was considered the boonies back then and allot of people thought she was crazy!

As far as the white of the habit. I will keep this in mind. I have not really addressed the painting of the habit yet.

Tom, you are exactly right about the "styalized eyes". I know that is what I am guilty of because I cannot see detail. I have attached a blown up view so you can see how vague the eye is. When I look with a magnifying glass at the photo it even looks like someone at one time drew a line around the iris. (There are a couple very sad looking drawings of this photo in archives!)

Even though I am using a "sit-in" and laying in what I see, when I look at the photo it no longer looked like Sr. so then I reworked the eye and it went back to YUCK. I will keep in mind your thought of straight lines then curved. So basic, yet I forgot this bit about drawing I learned! It is amazing ALL that you have to think about when painting. To concentrate on one aspect I seem to lose something else . . . By the end of the day yesterday, I was happy when I looked at it upside down and it still looked like a human form - I AM still in grade school

Terri Ficenec · 03-08-2005, 09:47 PM

She REALLy does look a lot like your daughter in law!!

Tom Edgerton · 03-08-2005, 11:49 AM

Pat--

There's a lot of good advice here, so I can't add much.

The eyes are so similar that it makes me suspect the problem one is a little too hieroglyphic/symbolic, and not realistically observed. Blow up your reference to the same size as your painted head, first of all. Tape it as close to the portrait as you can, and on the same angle--put tape on the top and the bottom. This will more closely simulate painting sight/size from life. You can't paint what you can't see.

Also, try drawing the eye as a series of short, straight lines, to more accurately observe the linear angles in it, then smooth some of these into curves. The curves are probably a little too "curvy" and stylized, contributing to the symbolic aspect. They told you in first grade that eyes are two curved lines in an almond shape, with a circle in the middle, but in reality, they rarely are. In other words, you may be painting the eye you were taught instead of the eye you see.

Best as always--TE