Critique on Portrait? (newbie alert)

Can you link the reference?

Okay, I'll just use the ref when talking about values.

I think you did a good job picking the colors and establishing hard and soft edges.
The brushwork is fine, so I feel it looks off to you because of the values and the underlying structure needs a little adjustment.

I tried to keep the original style in tact! The first thing I did was adjust the eye to the right and make the face a little less slanted.

You did great with defining the features, but I felt like some of the edges were too sharp and dark around the chin and eyes. Like you mentioned, there was a lot going on with the shadows so I made her cheek on the left softer and made the highlight darker. I think the focal points are the highlights on her forehead, nose and cheeks. With that in mind, it's good to create less contrast in other places so they don't clash and it's easier for the eyes to move around the piece.

To make it stand out a little more I made the background a little darker around her face.

Hope this helps!

I'll post some questions that you can help us with to go through your critique.

---What is your intention for this piece?
Is it to study value?
Is it to study Expressions which is what the intention of the set of reference photos was for?
Is it to study painterly strokes? If so which master?

---- Do you want us to paint-over your image in order to illustrate our critique theory?

Is this the image set?

I'm going to assume that this is the image set that you are talking about.

If you post it like this so we can compare the screen cap of the image at low rez with the snipping tool app, or screen cap low rez zoomed out, no one is going to get upset since it's a study, you aren't supplying the entire set or high resolution original to the public. I think you would in fact be promoting it for free. You didn't pay Ol' Noah Dollar Signs a commercial licensing fee for 629 images (the whole set) and we aren't paying you to see it, you paid for personal use of the images which you are doing...but....We can't help you as much as we are able without the reference. Until you do we will have limited ways to help.

Yes, that.

As well as you have an extremely high value range which doesn't help for an expressive portrait painting, and entirely too many tiny strokes to describe simple forms of the nose, mouth, chin, eye sockets and iris.

The highest contrast areas are going to attract the viewers eyes the most. This is the hair in your case. There is no interest there so we must look elsewhere but the high contrast pulls us back to the hair because that's how our eyes work. It pulls us into the low contrast ear

If you want this image to look painterly, Use a bigger brush and dont go below say...20 pixels for details.

Well thats impossible since this image reference set is ruined by the insane amount of ambient light everywhere.

This set, has a key light, bounce light from a screen of some kind, and a warm lamp. That's three sources. It looks like a magazine. It looks great and whatever but I think this is so you can see all of the proportions of expressions.

You can see that the overall shadow shape has all of the detail in it because of all this effing bounce light AND THEN an ambient light via a lamp on the floor, but it makes it almost impossible for a student to study the different forms of portraiture composition, shadow shapes, simple shapes and facial structure. It looks confusing as hell to paint for someone new.

If you are a student and a newbie this expression set is not for expressive portrait painting. Its for studying expressions themselves.

Can you please elaborate and describe what it is that you dont like about it? It will help you with your understanding and critiquing your own work, as well as help you write your intention. You need to trust your first instincts. Being able to decipher shape language and describe it is half the battle.

And when you write your intention use this for an example.

"My intention is to study the human female Caucasian face, in the style of Sargent/Rembrandt/Pyle/Wyeth/Zorn/Frazetta or whoever, I want to express painterly style and gain understanding of compositon"

I'll leave you with this quote from Howard Pyle,
“The function of all art instruction should be to teach the pupil to
analyze and to separate the lights from the darks, not technically but
mentally. That which a pupil most needs in the beginning is not a system
of arbitrary rules and methods for imitating the shape of an object;
that which he needs to be taught is the habit of analyzing lights and
shadows and of representing them accordingly. Until the pupil is
entirely able to separate those two qualities of light and shadow from
one another in his perception, he should not be advanced beyond the
region of elementary instruction – no matter how clever and fetching his
work may appear to be. That separation is fundamental to the law of
Nature, and until it becomes a habit of thought, no spontaneous work of
art can be produced.”

If you can wait till next week I'll get the reference pack myself and do a paintover. Prepare questions and your intention and post them but also please read through a few of my other critiques they may help.

@LesleyCarol thanks you rock I can get started on the lesson tonight!

Part 1. Understanding our reference.

Okay,

So I took the photograph and first wanted to illustrate how many light sources are actually on the figure.

Now I'm not saying that this is bad. This is just extremely challenging for a portrait painting. The amount of light sources that you have to achieve in a painting are at most two sometimes three.

We have a flat surface that we are trying to make the illusion of three dimensions on. The easiest way to do this is control of our painting and subject. By composing the light's contrast. The viewers eye path.

There are very few life drawing sessions that I've been to where there is a secondary light source, let alone 5.

Traditionally, (and I may have heard this theory elsewhere but in my opinion ) this limitation allows artists to control the environment and composition to allow them to play. And thus where they want you the viewer to focus and how they will express themselves through mark making.

If I only have one light source I have more control over the kinds of transitions that I have to play with (value, hue and saturation and mark making) and wether or not they have the effects that I the artist desire in my finished piece.

If I have many light sources this limits my room to play with these tools of transition of form, value color and mark making abstraction. All these take a backseat to the laws of physics I now have to follow in order to illustrate what I see to the viewer (if that is after all my intent) . Especially if I am copying for the sake of studying.

Its the difference of being able to dance through a barn door in the dancing style I want vs having to crawl through a shoulder width air vent. In one anything can happen. In the other, there is only one direction to the exit. Which one is more fun? Which one is more challenging?

Moving on.

Now lets do some editing for the sake of studying this picture. First lets make it the direction you posted your study and line it up.

If we do some simple sight size orientation for comparison we can see where the measurements were 'off' and what didn't exactly feel right.

Now this isn't how we draw! This isn't fun! This is the way we critique and find flaws in our work before we show it to anybody. lol

One way we can do this to practice sight size orientation without it being a so much of a handicap, or as shown above, a boring pain in the a**, is to just drop a line that we will erase later.

But in order to drop a line accurately to digitally study a photo we need to work within the same frame ratio so we can compare our work to the original.

Old masters chose the size of the work they made based on the spaces in which they would be permanently hung. They mathematically decided the best compositional frame ratio which also decided their best oe perhaps expressive composition for the room, not just the frame. So for studying masters compositions, and studying photographs the beefing up your sight size orientation.

Like so.

Now here comes the interesting part. Regardless of your skill we can see where you characterized the drawing. All the greats caricature even a little bit.

We can see what you decided to repress on her, what you decided to emphasize on her and what you decided to leave untouched! This can tell us about your subconscious tastes in the female form. Where you see yourself, your mother, a family member. What your left side of your brain decides is the correct symbol for a nose, chin eye and ear and takes over to replicate that symbol instead of letting your right brain take over and use the shapes in front of your eyes.

In order to shut down the left side of the brain we need an easily unrecognizable inorganic reference point. This is the dropped line.

You choose where, anywhere. I just chose the inner socket of the furthest eye here. You can put it anywhere you like.

For the sake of this critique we are going to edit this picture for or expressive needs, our understanding of form and finally our understanding of composition.

To isolate the main light on the light side, the central light, I tried a few different ways to illustrate what I mean and this is one way you can try to use to simplify a complicated light source.

I did it again to illustrate my purpose even further.

We did it. Through the magic of Photoshop we finally were able to find and show you the main light source. Your path to separate the light and the dark becomes clear. With this information we can paint more confidently. I now am understanding that crazy occlusion shadow that the floor lamp is making on her jaw, it's there in order to make a jaw line definition which was lost in the ambient light.

Part 2. Drawing and painting the head. Coming soon.

Okay these are great questions and I have more of an understanding of what point of the journey your on.

I’ll get started on them tonight with some more from what I was originally going to add.

Back soon! May not have demo ready for a couple days.

So after looking at some of your other work online (thank you for sharing) I see that you are needing a process for studying and breaking down real life and references for your own personal knowledge gain. Bravo for you!

I also have an understanding for your stylistic choices and levels of confidence.

I want to tread the line between art lesson and personal critique in order to be useful for people who come across this. I wanted to answer your questions because they are questions many have had including myself and they are not easy to find the names of let alone the explanation or history. I will eventually get back to your portrait but I think I stumbled upon answering a question that I've had for many years by doing the research today.

I'm going to have to elaborate and explain some things that I have saught for a long time and I just might have found it.

Here we go.

.
.
.
.
.

1 - How do I choose the Colors.

.
.
.
.
.

If first you wanted to know what elements you choose for picking color digitally and feel like your getting better without color picker cheating, I tried to explain it here with this viking study critique. https://forums.cubebrush.co/t/vikings-fanart-digital-oil-style-painting/9407/4

In moments like this where you wonder what to do, Always refer back to your intention. It will help you get through the confusion of finishing your current piece. If it doesn’t fit your intention (studying light) you simply can ignore it.

But to be thorough -

This eyeliner is so close to looking like her eyelash, I would take the artistic license and change it to a dark purple or a mute blue since there is so much warm in the piece. But making changes like any choice in your own creations is reactionary, so try it and if you don’t like it try something else. Or just leave it black and say you nailed the technical excercise. But we want to make something that looks like a piece of art.

.
.
.
.
.
2 - Into The Rabbit Hole
.
.
.
.
.

Great creativity is born from strict limitation.

This is a lot to unpack in this simple sentence of yours. Historically painters compensate for real life physics because paint pigments have limitations and don't have the same attributes that light has. So simulating the intensity of real life light by utilizing the contrast of colors, or color relativity, next to each other, would provide the illusion of light's intensity of color in real life. And instead of paint, used the brain's overcompensation to relieve strain on the eye to create the illusion of real light.

People may disagree with your statement, but trust me I understand where you're coming from. The eyeliner may not have been the best example… But I do feel the need to elaborate why this is a thing and it gives me the opportunity to explain something very elusive in my education and very subjective in its application. Not to mention perhaps extremely advanced in art education.

We can change the color hue we paint with on forms to add "vibrancy" that doesn’t exist in a photograph, or real life, and fool people as I mentioned painters have before.

Ron Lemen made a video about it here. https://youtu.be/_vF7wdqCS8g
And he put it best. You can have a technical exercise or a work of art.

He made another video with the simplest explanation I have heard of the complicated process art students are taught to replicate real light. In this video is where I found the relationship of color strings and the rules you can set upon them when painting.

Look at these. Nice Vibrancy. Juicy color. When I first found them I thought what planet are they from? How do they do that with color? They are using the above color strings to describe forms of plains and intensity of light within the main shadow and light areas. They can limit themselves to bolster a style, or enhance an area effect to draw focus in the composition.

See how the blue devel has green blue and red in his skin tones. How the skull in the space helmet has dull purple and orange and yellow but appears to glow? The Blonde lady with purple on her face. All elements of contrast inteded to draw the eye without being over bearing, but at the same time adding vibrancy.

For a long time I always wondered things like “why that color? This looks so alive but why? I would never have chosen that color because it isn't what I see.“

Your job is you have to control the viewers interest.

To quote Stan Prokopenko, " We make these decisions to improve the visual impact of our picture."

Stan started talking about "transitions" of of plains on a video I found. He talks about it starting at 5:50 https://youtu.be/wlLU05hmXyA?t=350

And he revealed the thought process. They are using color hue, and saturation shift, to show the changing of form, and not using just value to show the changing of the form.

This bolstered my theory that Color hue, and separately, chroma(saturation) intensity gradations, or transitions, can add a natural vibration because of contrast in the viewers eye.

Like so.

But he only talks about it for like two seconds. And in other videos I found there is minimal discussion of it's application.

Until I found Marco Bucci's video this past winter, and it was the quickest way I have seen this concept explained in actual application of the practice of painting, it includes a portrait. https://youtu.be/kYtGh2xTAlg

And then they published THIS video.
Where Marco called his color vibrancy his "color trajectory", And calls these little accents of blue dots on brown hair "tension colors".

But stylistically he will use them to create "transitions" of plains like Proko states in his video and also sometimes just dapple tensions of color like the blue in the hair in his video. https://youtu.be/FtQA9_vtREU

So which is it? Strict transitions, or fun dappling?

When I was in school, the only explanation I ever heard regarding this concept was, "you want there to be bits of your entire paintings colors mixed in slightly everywhere, because light bounces." That was it, that was all I ever got.....How the hell am I supposed to apply that and been only taught value for two years. It is an enormous gear shift in your brain.

When drawing with only values you are encouraged to use no more than 2 values for a NOTAN. And no more than 4 to 5 values to make strong composition. You organize form shadow shapes, and their plain transitions of 'black and white'.

Okay so stick with me here. It's the first time I've ever written this.

Value turns form, but also is the top of the food chain for how you organize different 'elements' in a picture. 'Elements' meaning the background, the character, the drapery, and the shadow shapes of each.

With colors,
in my observations,
As long as you follow your value groupings hierarchy,
3d forms can be emphasized by hue, and saturation changes and not just value.

Turning form with only saturation or color hue , creates a contrast of color and not a contrast of value, which when practiced, and because of color relationship theory, adds dancing vibrancy and interest, without changing the value hierarchy of the composition as a whole.

This, and the examples provided above, however complex, are simply extreme variations that adhere to the first color strings pallete method that Ron Lemen explains as 'warm to cool'.

The theories stylistic choices To achieve this affect of vibrancy seems you can adhere to transitions of form plains, or daub points of color tension or both.

I looked for this information, and for the 'why' we people would paint hue variety, why it looks so good, and how its supposed to be applied a few times over the years and came up empty handed or lack luster information. This is the first time I have been able to put a few things together to explain something this complicated this clearly and apply it in a demo.

I can only assume that the painters of history as I first mentioned used it to bolster representations of reality because of their limitations. But also stylistic choices for their focal points in their paintings.

Thank you for inspiring me to take this ride and find this answer

.
.
.
.
.
3 - Value Range
,
,
,
.
.

Theres a lot in this statement that makes me want to ask more questions.

"Plasticy/Dont look good with gradient map due to too much/lack of constrast"
I'm gonna break this down.

Plasticy - looks shiny or fake

Dont look good with gradient map due to too much (happens more often) /lack of contrast -
o.0 -- uh-- what?
Dont use a gradient map right now applying the theories. Drop that. I dont know what your talking about exactly. I see plenty of people use gradient maps effectively in their work but they are just a tool to get where they want quicker. If you dont like the effect then stop. And until you replicate the theories without thinking about it only then use gradient maps to change things quickly of you want. Its juat a tool. There are no tool rules.

"Look, I can probably use the color picker, but I feel dirty when I do so, I feel like I've cheated."

Then dont. Create a pallet area. Blur your eyes and average the grouping of color and value of an area, match it as best you can, and block out your portrait shadow shapes with that. Like in the Viking critique listed above.

Start with a NOTAN. Watch this video by Dorien Iten he was a teacher of mine as well as Ron Lemen. Put Dorien on fastforward if you have too. He can put you to sleep. He taught me everything about sight size cast drawing, what I see and understanding values and arranging them. There is a semester worth of lessons right here in an hour. The language the process the whole shabang. https://youtu.be/ZTRYW7Lmdb4

Also watch this video by Marco Bucci if you dont want to watch the hour long dorien Iten one. https://youtu.be/BTYGWfiZnMA

.
.
.
.
.
4 - How deep does one's understanding of light physics have to go?
.
.
.
.
.

We kind of touched on this a little bit down the rabbit hole chapter.

You need to know enough to control compositions. And make illusions that people will pay you for. Or until you are satisfied.

Yes, focusing on all that is not making the paintings better, great you understand how light works and whatever and why it looks a certain way in a photograph but you aren't making a piece of art or studying how to compose a picture. You dont have a job at a hadron collider...

You are correct, focusing on that is screwing you up. All it ever did for me was make me say, "oh thats why." Maybe it would apply to a photography class more. But then how to I tell a story with certain colors and compositions that dont exist became more important and that's what I wanted to know how to do. A technical achievement or a work of art. You get to choose.