| Author | Message | ||
  Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 394 Registered: 8-2006 |
Maryo, there's no problem with using pastel with watercolor. You might find it easier to use cold pressed paper because it has more tooth, and is henc e more similar to pastel paper, than hot pressed paper. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 353 Registered: 8-2006 |
Maryo, I have successfully corrected SMALL misshaps with pastel pencils. But this was done on cold pressed paper. If this is done carefully and blended little mistakes(like a spot in the sky)can be covered with pastel and cannot be noticed, even when inspected closely. Unrelated--one time when I dropped an unwanted spot in the sky. I put wings on it and made it a bird. | ||
Maryo New member Username: Maryo Post Number: 2 Registered: 9-2007 |
Thank you for your insights. I'm new to portraiture, and relatively new at watercolor. So with the exception of Suzanna Winton's DVD and all that I can read and view on the subject, I'm feeling my way forward painting portraits using photos of family members. I'm surprising myself with the results, but there are some places where I'd like to lighten and some places I didn't allow for proper highlights. I realize what I've done wrong, but at the same time I'd like to salvage the portraits. I'm OK with Mixed Media. I have on order two different pastel sets I'm anxious to try. One is the Holbein water soluble set. The other is standard soft pastel. This discussion board is a great resource! Thank you everyone for all your postings, Maryo | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 361 Registered: 8-2006 |
Maryo, I remember watching Jackie Simmonds and Margaret Evans using any old watercolour paper and painting the background in watercolour before using pastels. She created patterns in watercolour which then could be hightlighted with pastels. Hope this helps | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 366 Registered: 8-2006 |
Maryo, Since your concern is primarily portraits, I would suspect that Marie will have the best advice for you based on her own experience. I'm sure you are already aware of much of what I wrote in my last post. It applies to painting in general, not specifically portraits. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 365 Registered: 8-2006 |
Maryo, You're talking about creating something that is classified as "mixed media" and not strictly "watercolor." Pastel and watercolor are quite different media, but creative people often produce beautiful mixed media paintings. The idea of mixing media is not bad, but that does not mean that a particular painting will work. Give it a try (probably more than one try!) and see if you like the results. The key for me is mingling two or more media that provide their unique accents and qualities in complementary ways that result in a harmonious painting -- unless, of course, your intent is to present a message through some kind of disharmony, or an attention-getting artistic interpretation of reality! An example of harmonious blending would be using white gouache to add white accents to a watercolor painting. I think John Yardley does this very well in his loose painting. Your library may have a copy of "John Yardley, a personal view." David and Charles is the publisher. | ||
Maryo New member Username: Maryo Post Number: 1 Registered: 9-2007 |
I'm interested in applying pastel corrections and accents to my watercolor portraits. I've used hot press paper, so the surface is quite smooth. Has anyone tried this? Is it a bad idea? And if so, why? Thanks, Mary | ||
Joanna Intermediate Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 57 Registered: 10-2006 |
Griz--I think if you accused Moore of making paintings that looked like old postcards, he'd be like "Gee! Thanks! That's what I was going for!" He's definitely doing "nostalgia with a twist"--something very surreal to the point where using real figures to get the lighting right is part of his lengthy process. Personally, I must have a split personality. I love loose paintings but I've been tending toward more tight work. Not sure why. I do prefer the life and light and inner glow Marie has achieved for real portraits, but it's all about your goal. If you don't want the muted postcard look, you'd include more pure white in the highlights, I imagine. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 346 Registered: 8-2006 |
Joe and Joanna, It seems to me that Scott Moore's painting technique of using successive layers ends up somehow losing the "life" that we see in Marie's portraits. I don't know if he's working too hard to achieve what he believes are "natural" colors and lighting effects, or deliberately trying to reproduce the look of old postcards and photographs, or (as Joe says) simply using the less bright chroma of the "real" world. It simply may be a problem of working inside a studio under florescent light! Whatever the case, his paintings look to me more like reproductions of old postcards than inspired paintings. After all, we have to remember that artists most often are not trying to reproduce photographically, but to artistically interpret what they see, often in more dramatic and colorful (stronger chroma) ways than actually exist in "real" life. If we only want to capture exactly what's "there," a good photographer can accomplish that for us. On the positive side, Moore's careful and exacting attention to detail and accurate drawing is admirable, though I personally enjoy a "looser" style. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 68 Registered: 2-2007 |
Joanna I have thought long and hard about chroma and value. Value is self explanatory I think but recognizing chroma is extremely important. If you reqlly really look at things around you you will see a huge amount of it is low chroma. Remember chroma and value are different. You can have light value but low chroma that approaches pure gray. The world, natural world, is not as bright as we think. | ||
Joanna Intermediate Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2006 |
Thanks, Joe, that's also what I got from the software. I didn't realize that mostly mid and low chroma were "good" (I tended to go contrasty as a photographer when I was a kid.) The green is 'jarring'--that's true. It happens to be the color the fellow had on (not that that matters, I moved his hand behind his head, in the photo it was shading his eyes.) I considered pinkish or blue, but in a way, I like the green. There is almost no yellow in the painting and I could have gone more turquoise on the shirt. This helped a lot. I did use that technique of successive layers from light to dark, picking the lightest highlight color in each shape, per that technique I mentioned. Aha, it was in American Artist Watercolor (Not watercolor magic) and it's issue Summer 2007. The artist is Scott Moore. http://www.scottmooreart.com/gallery/gallery06.html He explains his technique on the site (photos aren't very good, though, magazine better) and this is a real breakthrough for me to get my values in line. Go visit his site, it's very interesting. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 67 Registered: 2-2007 |
Joanna this picture is so right on. Great job. Your value structure is very strong and it is almost 99% low and mid chroma. When I convert it to black and white it still reads well. I personally do not care for the mid value green on the shirt but the value and chroma make it work. Mostly red, orange and a little yellow. A dribble of blue and green. I did notice on the shirts a pretty good pure gray area and it adds to the piece. A good gray area will read in relationship to the other colors. In this case it reads slightly green to the eye. A nice professional touch. I would ask a nice price for this one. Did I answer your question? | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 49 Registered: 10-2006 |
Joe, I am experimenting with the artell. Could you 'check my work' and see what you come up with in this portrait?  | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 66 Registered: 2-2007 |
artellmedia.com I think. Glad you found it. Good program at least for me. | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 44 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hey, Joe, I did find it, referring to the "black" thread here. It's a good deal with the month free test and reasonable enough. I plan to give it a real test. I noticed a painting I really liked in an old issue of "Watercolor" and the placing of the darkest dark was near the lad's tow-colored hair. Overall, the painting was a masterpiece in value selection, so it really is something that can add that good-to-great difference in one's work. | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 43 Registered: 10-2006 |
Thanks, Joe. This info is interesting. But I just don't know WHERE to find the software in the first place, and I would like to experiment with the software. If you email me, or provide a url, that would help. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 147 Registered: 8-2006 |
When I am shooting a picture that I want the colors and values to be as close as possible, I always shoot with a white card next to the desired object. I prefocus on the edge between the card and the painting (both the same distance from the camera) and then reframe on the picture without lifting my finger from the shutter's 1/2 way down point. This takes the picture with better color and values. Try it a few times till you get it to come out right! Gary | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 63 Registered: 2-2007 |
I am not much of a photographer so I understand. After you mentioned it I got to thinking and it makes perfect sense it is a photo problem. A lot of times a light value will come off as white. Especially in watercolor. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 377 Registered: 8-2006 |
I'm not offended at all. The two paintings are just going after two totally different moods. The photograph is also not quite up to par for the jester. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 62 Registered: 2-2007 |
Marie it seems I have offended you when I am only trying to help. Please forgive me. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 376 Registered: 8-2006 |
The light quality was very different for the two paintings. The maid was in bright, late afternoon sunlight. The jester, on the other hand, was is hazy, humid, and diffused light. There were no strong shadows on anything. He was grimy and emotionally detached from the environment. The difference in contrast was quite intentional. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 61 Registered: 2-2007 |
Joanna my program has a place I can eliminate colors by intensity. Low , medium and high and I think one for extra high. I just click on low intensity and they disappear. Pretty simple actually. There is a similar place for taking away colors. Several different aspects to the program give more info. After you work with it a while it seems pretty cohesive. I left an addy on the black discussion. There is a free month to try it out I think. If you read the tutorials and need help let me know. | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2006 |
Joe--how do you check chroma values? The jester struck me as lacking contrast and the lady portrait as, like you said, right on. And of course darks next to brights are always good for a painting. What is this software? I'd be curious to try it. There is a good article on using photoshop to posterize and then delete color to create a sort of value map in "Watercolor Magic" but the posterization to me is slightly artificial. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 55 Registered: 2-2007 |
Marie I forgot to mention that you should trust your sense of values because they were usually right on the mark. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 53 Registered: 2-2007 |
Marie I copied your orleans lady into a program I have and looked at the values and the chroma. The values are right on the money. The program read the cad red and the burnt umber as low chroma family members, and it should have. If you haven' sold it yet you might want to hang on to it. It is a great job. The jester was correct in the values but in looking at it I think the value of the background, behind the jesters head, that section from top to bottom, could be about 1 1/2 values darker. Low chroma. Don't get it anywhere near pure color or chroma. If you have a way to look at it and try it out then see what you think. I think it would catch your eye more like the new orleans woman. I am going to do a post on the sargeant piece in the do you use black section. I did not keep your pictures I copied. I just wanted to look. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 372 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, I like the New Orleans lady, too. I think she had just gotten off work and was sitting on a newspaper stand. There was something incredibly strong and dignified about her. By the way, there was a *lot* of burnt umber and cadmium red light in her skin. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 333 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, Good one, Marie. I can almost see that she is daydreaming or thinking about something! Great darks as well -- I think your range of value and consistent temperature and chroma between light and shadow work wonderfully in both this and the New Orleans paintings! I especially like the New Orleans painting because it reminds me of a question I often got as a kid: "What you doing, honey child?" | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 371 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here's another recent piece that I was happy with -- from Atlanta this time. I forgot about it last night.  | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 331 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, Marie, for taking time out of your work to post the pictures -- hope it was a good break from your painting! I especially like the portrait of the black lady in New Orleans -- it goes in the direction of capturing the personality as well as the physical characteristics, which is the thing that the Velazquez's portrait of Innocent X brought so powerfully to my attention! Incidentally, in terms of the discussion on the thread about black, the cheek and neck shadows seem to work very well in terms of value shift while retaining the right temperature. Is that mostly due to making the front of the face in the strong light so light, avoiding the necessity of struggling with getting a deeper value in the shadows? The top of the forearm and the elbow shadow look a little closer in value, but are very effective, indicating reflected light from the leg. Great work! | ||
Joanna Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 40 Registered: 10-2006 |
Marie, that's my kind of watercolor, the kind that gets me all excited. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 367 Registered: 8-2006 |
I don't do a lot of formal portraits, although I do tend to get decent likeness most of the time nowadays. Here are a couple of my recent pieces from New Orleans.   | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 329 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie, Noting your recent restatement of your interest in portraits on our discussion of black, I thought this thread might be worth resurrecting. Portraiture never captivated me very much, though I confess to being fascinated by what sidewalk artists can do with "walk-up" customers. However, I had an experience in Rome that caused me to think of portraits in an entirely new light. My wife and I were trying to visit all the major museums, and finally stumbled on one that was somewhat out of the way, off one of the main streets in what had been a residence -- the Doria Pamphili. In wandering through the old residence that is now a gallery, I turned a corner and was face to face, literally within inches, of a portrait of Innocent X by Diego Velazquez. I was startled at first, thinking I had stumbled on a stern clergyman, since the portrait is so very lifelike! What was so stunning was how the personality had been captured in the painting. I have looked it up online a number of times since, but I have never been able to recapture that moment, or what the painting actually looks like when face to face with the real thing. I have never seen another portrait that leaps off the canvass into reality in the same way. If you continue to be interested in portraits, it would be well worth your time to go and see it for yourself, taking the time to make notes on what you see. I can't remember which thread contains the post of your portrait which I noted in a subsequent post looked very much like a Charles Reid, but I would like to see it again, and perhaps a couple of others. I know you are busy at the present, but maybe you could post when you get a chance. | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 125 Registered: 8-2006 |
Let me elaborate a bit more ... First off, just about any combination of yellow, red, and blue can be used to make flesh tones. The question is how much effort you want spend mixing on the palette. I tend to work fast, and so I try to pick paints that require minimal mixing and are easy to handle wet-in-wet. Second, getting the bone structure right is more important than getting the skin color right. Having said all of that, I have experimented with a lot of yellows, especially earth yellows. Here are some paints that have worked well for me: * W/N Cad Yellow Pale -- good for blonds and when I am using a bright palette. It's often a little too bright for my style. * W/N Yellow Ochre (or Raw Sienna) -- good for average caucasian flesh tones. * M. Graham Raw Sienna, Daniel Smith Brown Ochre, or Prismacolor Raw Sienna --- good for olive or cafe au lait complexions. * W/N Raw Umber -- good for middle value african-american complexions. * W/N Burnt Umber or Daniel Smith Burnt Umber -- good for dark skin. * M. Graham Raw Umber (very dark, almost more like a sepia) -- good for extremely dark skin tones. I don't see people with skin that dark very often. It's also good for wash drawings, where you're not after a specific color. Paints that have *not* worked so well for me for flesh colors: * M/G, Holbein, and D/S yellow ochre (all extremely opaque). * Most of the Daniel Smith earth colors (except for their transparent yellow oxide and the ones mentioned above) -- tend to be anemic, not saturated enough. * Holbein earth colors -- tend to be stringy and hard to handle. * W/N Brown Ochre -- no personality. Your mileage may vary. | ||
Marie Advanced Member Username: Marie Post Number: 124 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bill, I don't like Golden Barok Red for figures at all. Somehow, it never works for me in that context. I think you're right on the mark with what you're using for flesh tones. My basic preference is for W/N yellow ochre (much more saturated and transparent than other yellow ochres) for the basic yellow. Depending on the model and the lighting, I may go for a duller/darker earth yellow or cadmium yellow. For the red, my mainstay is M. Graham Cadmium Red Light, which is very versatile for most flesh tones. Sometimes, with very young or fair-skinned models, I will lean more toward quinacridone rose or red. On occasion I will use some perylene maroon in the shadows -- it tends to be a bit dull in the light areas. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
I looked at the Barok red (gold) color swatches online and they look a lot like quinacridone sienna. | ||
Bill Unregistered guest |
Marie--- I am searching to expand my figure/portrait palette with a dull red and a dull yellow and would like some advice. First, I have used perylene maroon before and liked it but am curious wheteher Golden Barok Red might be even better as a flesh tone component (I don't both in my palette). Second, I use a very dull , tan raw sienna as a base for mixing mid flesh tones but for the lighter, yellow tones, use Cad. yellow which is too yellow. Is there a pigment that is yellower than raw sienna but less strident than cad. yellow and more friendly for flesh highlights? Thanks. | ||
Eugene |
Sutureself. I agree-- pure drivel. Just another critic playing with words. | ||
SutureSelf |
Here's the text attached to the linked "genomic portrait": Sir John Sulston: A Genomic Portrait Marc Quinn Unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery in September 2001, Quinn's innovative work presents the DNA profile of Sulston, who played a pivotal role in the international Human Genome Project. Although abstract in appearance, in reality the portrait represents the most exact likeness possible of the sitter. This is pure drivel. While the picture may represent, in genetic terms, the most exact possible information specific to a particular individual, it in no way approaches a likeness. Genetic information is no more identifiable with a unique person than is a set of fingerprints; each is absolutely unique. I could easily frame a set of my fingerprints and call it whatever I choose to call it, but it will not and cannot be a likeness of me. The reason is simple; if you look at me and then look at a picture of my fingerprints, you will not see me in the fingerprints. The fingerprints don't look like me. Neither does the representation of a genetic sequence. Fingerprints don't represent a likeness and neither does a genetic sequence. Claiming that it does does a disservice both to art and the viewer, who is being bamboozled. Jerry Fied | ||
Rekha |
SutureSelf, thanks for the elaborate clarification on the subject of subjectivity. Here's the 'genomic portrait', not very clear http://www.ncl.ac.uk/hatton/programme/2002/portraitimagelinks/Quinn.htm | ||
marie |
SutureSelf, that's a wonderful explanation. | ||
SutureSelf |
1. It is true that portraitists put themselves into the portraits they paint. I once demonstrated this in a portrait class I was teaching. At the end of the class period, without telling them why, I had all the students stand in a circle facing inward. I asked them to hold their work up next to themselves so all the students could see all the other students' work. Immediately, every student broke into laughter; every single portrait reflected its painter as much as it did the sitter. If the painter had a long face, so did the portrait; if the painter had a round face, so did the portrait, etc. There's a good reason for this. We look in the mirror every day. For our whole lives, we look at our own faces far, far more than we look at others' faces. Our internalized idea of what a face is is based on our understanding of our own face. Our very sense of self is largely based on our face. So when we attempt to represent someone else's face, we unconsciously and inevitably inform the attempt with our understanding of what a face is; it is our own face. This is related to the idea of regional or temporal style. As different as all our work may be from each others', we can immediately identify it as American or British art (notwithstanding forum members from other nations.) That's not because there's something in the water that causes us to paint in a given way, but because the images we see from the time we are born are culturally informed; it is impossible for us to separate ourselves from that. Likewise different eras. We can identify art as fourteenth century, seventeenth century or twentieth century art in an instant, regardless of the disparateness of the styles within the era. That's because we are all of our times as much as we are of our places. Well, if we are of our times and of our places, then we are certainly of ourselves. Our work looks like our time and our work looks like our place and our work looks like ourselves. Naturally, there are exceptions of a type. Portraitists who work from projected photographs, for example, or who square up a portrait or take many detailed measurements will have less of themselves in the portrait. But those portrait painters who llok, draw and paint will reveal themselves in their portraits. 2. I haven't seen the picture you refer to, but based on the description, I wouldn't consider it a portrait. I would consider that calling it a portrait is just another example of the post-modern conceit of claiming that art is whatever I declare it to be. Calling that a portrait is linguistic inflation, in which a term's definition is broadened to the extent that any idea can fit into the definition, therefore devaluing the term to the point of uselessness. "Portrait" has a meaning and its meaning most sharply includes the representation of a person's face. 3. If the artist wasn't able to expand on this, that shows that the artist was more visually than verbally facile. Non-artists generally can't see the subtle differences of hue from one area of a face to another; it's all "flesh tone" to them. One of the challenges of the portrait teacher is to sensitize the student to these differences. The more one paints and the more closely and carefully one observes, the more apparent - obvious, really - the differences of hue become. When we paint these differences, we generally exaggerate them to a degree for artistic effect. This exaggeration allows the viewer to see the differences of hue within the portrait that the viewer would not be able to see in life. The very sensitive and serious viewer will take this visual information to heart and begin to observe in life what has been revealed in the portrait. In this way, the artist teaches the non-artist how to see. Jerry Fried | ||
Rekha |
Last night there was a television programme Face of Britain mainly to discuss why portraits are preferred to landscape, sculptures or any other. What intrigued me was: 1. There was a suggestion that the artist paints some of him/herself in the portrait and viewers have actually commented on it. Since I don't yet paint portraits I cannot comment but how about you? 2. Mark Quinn painted a 'portrait' of the nobel laureate Prof Sulston which was essentially a picture of bacterial clones from the molecular biologist's DNA. Would you consider this portrait? 3. The presenter and the sitter for one of the portraits was intrigued about the greens and purples appearing on the portrait. The sitter couldn't see those colours but the artist did. However, the artist wasn't able to expand on this. |
