Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Grisaille method
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
A while ago I did a monochrome portrait of my New York landlady in the 70’s, who happened to be a famous actress, Viveca Lindfors. Translating it to colour, using a Zorn palette isn’t going particularly smoothly. It just shows up how much touching up went on in Studio photograph, that I used in the original. The harsh lighting looks a bit bizarre and unreal. Any thought folks?
Posted
Yes, you need to address the mask-like quality - she looks at the moment (despite the features being very well drawn) as if she's caked in make-up (as she may well have been for the photograph: or was she just pale?). The very strong contrast between the ghostly pallor of her face and the almost black of her neck also makes it look rather as if she's been beheaded, and hasn't quite realized it yet. In short - here's the trouble, again, with painting from photos - they give you so little to work with. I'm having to do exactly this myself at the moment, by the way, so you have my sympathy - and if you have some to spare, I'd like yours....
I'm got my subject's broad likeness sketched in, I'm working from a composite photo, I have to make up the background..... and I can't put off committing the first flesh tones to it for much longer; but you'd be surprised by how many ways I can devise to put these things off.. I wonder by the way as if we might both save our bacon here by employing a little glazing .... building up the facial contours as the old masters did? Marjorie's right, though - you need some light from one side to show the shapes and shadows.
Posted
It definitely has a certain something going for it Linda.
Marjorie may be right about introducing a single light source as it does perhaps look a little flat.
The corners of the lips look a little hard, perhaps that’s the effect of the lipstick though, I wouldn’t know!
There are no white (or off white) highlights in the eyes, this can sometimes be the case of course.
A rather interesting portrayal as it stands all the same, I like it! A more illustrative quality rather than painterly.
Edited
by Alan Bickley
Posted
Yes Robert, I sympathise. I regard painting as a series of problem solving, but I suppose I like the challenges. But there is only one answer to your current issue and that is mix up 2 shades of skin tone and put in the darks and highlights first. If you work in oil, you can always wipe it off. Then you can mix the in between shades adding a little warmth or coolness as needed. Just take the first step .....
Posted
I found another reference photo where the light is coming from the right as Marjorie suggested. Luckily there are loads on the web. Strangely I chose this photo before, but couldn’t find it when I wanted. She will now have an extra forelock and a hand against her face. I’ve painted her forearm in the wrong place, so it needs to be moved or I will move her shoulder. Progress has been made, but more to do, tweaking the eyes and lips as well as the hair.
Posted
It really isn't easy at all, is it? Linda, I'm using acrylic for the portrait I'm working on, and (fingers would be crossed if arthritis permitted - don't sympathize, just send cake) it's going much better at the moment than I feared it would. I'm working from a number of coloured photographs, but I'm not sure they're not a fair amount worse than black and white - if only I could drag my subject down to my level, i.e. where I am: but he's a commission from someone else, and I doubt he'd make the effort.
Your portrait is already beginning to look more human, though I concur with Marjorie's words of caution/advice. I think you're well on your way to success, though.
And back to mine - beginning to regret slightly that I outlined his features in a mix of burnt sienna and ultramarine, with too much emphasis on the ultramarine: it's given me another problem to overcome; but - I'm enjoying it; I very, very rarely paint portraits, maybe I should have tackled this one in oils from the outset, but thinking it would be easier I went with acrylic: after 50 years' experience in painting, I allowed myself to think that one medium would be easier than another! Well, you can only pity me, can't you?
Posted
Thanks Majorie, Lots more tweaking to do around the hand, which disappeared into the hair and the wrist. I will have to look in a mirror to look for things that are not visible in the photo.
Robert, I’m doing oil over acrylic, because I happened to have some oil flesh colours sitting on my palette waiting to be used. I was amazed how quickly the oil paint obliterated the acrylic. It covered much easier than if I had proceeded with acrylic, but even with acrylic, I think a quick glaze of flesh tone would soon tone it down. Best of luck though. Portraits are never easy.
Edited
by Linda Wilson
