Maggie on Photographic References, Part III

portrait commission/ work in progress
16 x 20" colored pencil on pastelbord
copyright 2008 Maggie Stiefvater.

I am interrupting a fun filled evening of child-rearing and art-making to continue my series on altering photographic references for art. (Last part can be found here)

Anyway, so I just rolled over an Oreo with my desk chair (remind me to tell you guys tomorrow about buying a new desk chair) and I'm amazed at how large a splatter pattern one Oreo can make when faced with light-colored carpet. Really, the government should study this. I'm sure it has some use in the defense area.

All right, last post I covered lighting and composition in photo references. Tonight I'm going to write about how I approach photographs that are lacking good color or nice backgrounds, two things that are particularly important in simple portraits.

CORRECTING FOR POOR COLOR IN PHOTOGRAPHS

This one is sort of easy. It takes a bit of leg work, but it's not really hard. I get photos with poor color all the time -- flashed photos often are washed out, dark photos can be brightened for details but often lack good color, weird lighting situations can create technicolor creations of terrifying hue.

In this case, it's a matter of finding another photo, or photos, that fill in the information gap. Sometimes, this will be very easy. For instance, I love the pose on the tiger shot above, one I took at the National Zoo last year (appreciate that the tiger was 8,000 miles away when I took this shot if you will). I know what color this tiger was because I was there to take the photo. However, since I didn't have a sketchbook with me to record the colors, another ref would help fill in the gaps in my memory. It's a simple matter to hit the internet (google's image search is a nice function for this) to find another tiger photo with better color. I'll use my pose and the color from the other photo.

In this case, it's not really necessary to track down a copyright-free photo, since you're not using the likeness or copying the photo in any way, but if you do need to borrow majorly from a photo in anyway, there are several places to find photos that are copyright free, like the WetCanvas reference library, or with photos available under the Creative Commons License, like Flickr (notice that not all photos on Flickr are available under the Creative Commons License, you have to check that box on the advanced search page).

Sometimes, however, the task is harder because it's a commission and you've not met the subject. Say it's a flashed photo of a girl with what looks like dark brown hair. You're pretty sure that it's lighter than the photo, but you're not sure how light. This is not the time to pull out hair dye swatches and start guessing. This is where normally I would send the client an e-mail asking them to search through one of the photo sources for a girl with the same color hair. I've not yet had a client be bothered by such "homework." I find that usually, however, I can just ask the client if they have a photo that has good color and bad everything else. Usually there's a blurry photo with accurate colors that they can send.

So.

Problem: Poor color in reference photos.
Solution: Fill in the gaps with other photos of similar subjects, with color sketches (if you made them), or with photos lacking in other elements but sporting true color.


ADJUSTING BACKGROUND IN PHOTOGRAPHS & COMBINING REFERENCES (part 1)

This is a biggie. Now, you'll have to pardon my example photos here. In the great Computer Porno Fire of 2007, I lost many of my photo references, and then in the Great Hard Drive Malfunction of 2008 I lost many more (for those who may not remember either, the first was when Norton AntiVirus downloaded 3,000 porno videos onto my computer into hidden folders - thanks, Norton! and the second was when Life decided it Hated Me), so I'm kind of running short of examples here. I'll have better ones on Friday, promise.

Okay. So what do you do when you need to change backgrounds? Let's say you're doing a portrait of your charming daughter and the background is either boring or shows something really unartistic behind her, like your neighbor's dog making love to a sofa pillow or the such. The simplest way to change this is to do a studio background, just a single color, either flat or in gradient. But I hate studio portraits with a passion (my apologies to those who love them) so for me, I need all of the image to be doing something.

So let's imagine that I have consumed an ungodly amount of sweet tea and I want to do a portrait of my daughter as if she is in the middle of this lovely field near Warsaw, Virginia. I have two real options for references.

When I was first starting out, I'd use option A -- I'd digitally combine the two photos in Adobe Photoshop. This is problematic for a few reasons. While it gave me a reference instantly and beautifully combined, it didn't require me to use my artistic brain. So if I'd just thoughtlessly combined the two photos above, I would've been making a major lighting error (note the direction of lighting in each) and I would've been forced to make all my position and sizing changes dependent on how well I knew how to use the program. Any color changes I thought I'd needed I'd have to tweak individually. There are entire college degrees based around this stuff, folks.

So, as I got better and starting using my sketchbook for quick 2 minute preliminary sketches, I started using option B: sketching the various options in quick 2 minute sketches. This is the option I still use today. It's much faster for me than Photoshop, and it also sorts out a ton of problems a lot more effectively. I'm not so worried about details or likeness in these little quick sketches -- more about how values and shapes affect each other.

So enter my ugly two minute sketch. Is it great art? No. Did it work out a lot of problems in my head for this piece? Yes. Notice a couple things about it.

• Light source is identified.
• Possible color conflicts (similarity between sky and shirt color) are identified and a possible solution (intensifying saturation on shirt) is tried out
• Two different crops are tried out. If I was really doing a piece like this, I'd probably have three or four little sketches like this, the others in black and white, trying out landscape versus portrait formats, having her standing in the grass versus up close, more of her face versus more of her body, etc.
• Another advantage? A lot of times, portrait clients are very happy to get these sketches along with their portraits, if you're willing to give them up. People are fascinated by the process.
  

Now there is a compromise between a flat studio background and a fully detailed one -- it is possibly to just simplify and blur the background of photo you already have. In this case, there's a great exercise you can do to figure how to blur elements. Focus on something -- like my interesting blog post on your computer screen -- but make yourself away of the way you're perceiving things outside of your direct focus area. See how uncontrasty and blurred they are? That's what you're going for.

Problem: Crummy background.
Solution: Eliminate the background, simplify the background, or sub another photograph.

Yikes. I just realized this blog post took me a stunning two hours to assemble, which means my portrait is going to be put on hold until tomorrow.

I should take the opportunity to plug myself, shouldn't I? If you're liking this series of blog posts I've been doing lately and feel like showing your support, please head onto cafepress and buy a t-shirt or mug with my art on it, sign up for a workshop, or e-mail my editor at Flux and tell him how brilliant I am. Okay, I'm kidding about the last one.

Next post will finish up photo alterations -- remember to post questions in the comments section. Next week's series topic will be one which is very important to me!

Maggie on Photographic References, Part II

First things first. Thank you first of all to Ginger, who only peed in the house twice in the last week and who posted on my blog to inform the world of my illness. Thanks second to everyone who wished me well in the comments and by e-mail -- I think it helped, because I'm definitely human again today.

Second of all, I wanted to point out that the Apple Tree in Springfield, Virginia, is hosting another two day colored pencil workshop with me on April 5-6 and there are a still a few slots left. Last month we had a full house, so book early if you can. We'll be getting 3-4 colored pencil pieces done from start to finish in those two days and it's a lot of fun.

Third of all, I won first place in the drawing category at the Fredericksburg Fine Arts Exhibit with my drawing, "Victoria in Spring" (at left). Not to brag . . . um, but yes. To brag.

So I wanted to follow up on my photographic post from last week. The one on making art from photos and how to fix said photos that was so rudely interrupted by my throat and sinuses being torn out by small elves and used for target practice.

As I mentioned in the last post, there are seven major items I expect to be missing most photographs. Every photograph I use as a reference will be missing at least one of these components and I'll need to make up for it in another way.

• Good lighting
• Interesting composition
• Appropriate background
• Accurate Color
• High level of detail
• Needs to be combined with the subject of another photo
• My unique artistic vision

And I'll add one more, which was pointed out both in a comment and in an e-mail and is very true, especially for equestrian artists or artists that do a lot buildings or tall items

• Lack of distortion

If I addressed how to fix all of these with nice Maggic examples, the post would become roughly the length of the movie Hidalgo and we would all be here all night. Much as I know that you enjoy my company, I think that would be a bit excessive, so I'm going to break it into three posts and hope I don't come down with chicken pox or something before the next one.

So tonight I'm going to write about how I adjust for lighting and composition. We'll hit the rest of the list on Wednesday and Friday. And questions, I think, on Friday, because I've got quite a backlog now.

ADJUSTING LIGHTING IN PHOTOS

First, let's talk about what counts as "bad lighting." There's all sorts of terrible lighting that one can encounter in the world of photography, but for me, there is only one unforgivable curse (hey! Harry Potter reference! I'm socially aware!) in lighting.

Flash. I cannot say this enough: Flash is a tool of the devil. Don't do it. It gets rid of every contour in every face in every person ever. Did you ever wonder why your driver's license photo never looked like you? Hello! Flash. Now, if you go to a nice posh portrait studio, they'll use flash -- but you better believe they'll have lit the $%^& out of one side of you so that you still have one side of your face lightly shadowed.

To demonstrate the evils of flash, I've taken the liberty of using two photos from my dear friend Helene, who is also a talented artist and possessor of Ginger's very spoiled sister. Photo on left? Flashed. See the way that it flattens everything? There's a weird ghost shadow behind her caused by the flash that would only happen in real life if she was watching a nuclear explosion. There's some interest in the photo because she's got fun colors . . . but can you imagine doing a portrait from that if she was all white? Most. Boring. Portrait. Ever.

Okay. Photo on right. No flash. Strong natural light from left of photo. Look at those lovely contours and imagine what you could do with a portrait of that if you decreased the contrast of those shadows slightly and threw color into them. Say it with me: ahhhhhhh.

Long story short: I would never do a portrait from a flashed photo. Ever.

Problem: Flash
Solution: a) Secure a non-flashed photo from the client or take them yourself. b) find a photograph of a similar animal/ person/ setting with good lighting and apply that lighting to your original image when you work it yourself. (If you do preliminary sketches, which I highly recommend, you can combine the two things in that sketch). Notice the pic of Ginger above. Different color, but similar facial structure and hair pattern. She'd work fine as a lighting pattern for a portrait of Helene's dog if all I had was the flashed photo.


ADJUSTING COMPOSITION IN PHOTOS

This is actually a fun one, because for every image, there are ton of different ways to approach composing it. There are many, many composition rules and guidelines that you can follow to give you a more subconsciously appealing piece of art, but when it comes down to it, I only follow three reliably.

NOTE TO ALL THOSE WHO LISTEN SLAVISHLY TO MAGGIE:

Composition rules are meant to be broken. Just learn them first, okay, before you break them? So now, Maggie's three quick and dirty rules to composition.

• I never center anything. So that means no subject dead center in the middle of the composition (notice how Victoria in Spring is weighted to the left) and I never chop a painting in half by putting the horizon line in the center. Centering an image instantly makes it more static -- dead. Check out this photo I took of the breathtakingly eerie marshes near Tapphannock, Virginia. The one on the left has the horizon line perfectly centered. Blech. Looks like something my 3 year old drew. Good for a 3 year old. Bad for someone who has conquered puberty. Now take gander at the one on the right. Same photo, cropped to allow for more sky and putting that landscape line on the lower third. See how much more impressive that is?
• I put the focal point on one of the "sweet spots." What, pray tell, you ask, is a sweet spot? Imagine dividing your image into thirds horizontally and then again, vertically. What, you can't? Not to worry, I've already done it for you on my painting "The Horses of Roan." Every place where two of the lines intersect is a "sweet spot." Put your focal point (that would be your subject's eyes, dummy) and you'll make magic. Experiment with this rule and you'll see what I mean -- it'll make a huge difference to your work if you don't already use it.
• No kissing. I don't mean the clients. Though I don't kiss them, either. And I try not to hug, if I can help it, as I've noted before. I'm talking about kissing edges. I take great pains to never have the edge of a major object touching the side or touching another object. Far better to overlap. Otherwise, it's just . . . weird. It creates a sharp angle that instantly draws the eye, and that's not a good thing. You want to draw attention to your focal point, not to the edge of your piece. Check out my photo of oranges, for instance. The pretty one on the left sits in a sweet spot away from the edge. Now check out the version on the left, cropped so that the edges kiss. Ick! Disconcerting and unprofessional looking.

So:

Problem: Uncropped photo/ bad composition.
Solution: Crop in a photo editing program or in your sketch book according to composition rules until you find a crop that you like.



Okay. Thus ends post 1! Whoo, I told you it would be long! Questions? Comments? More next post!