Comments on: What the Mona Lisa Can Teach You About Taking Great Portraits

By: Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:32:47 +0000

Nice piece, but you asked if you had missed out anything from a photographic nature… Well, have you noticed the horizon? It’s higher on the right than it is on the left, which gives the picture a greater sense of depth and lifts the portrait from the picture..

By: nai

nai — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:45:41 +0000

I like the fact that on the surface it seems to be such a simple painting, but it can be disected down to its finer points.

I wonder if Leonardo would say huh? Its just a painting, nothing special. :)

Its amazing that after 500 years it still gets the attention that it does, great article, thanks you!

By: Arno

Arno — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:50:22 +0000

Ahoy Darren,

Thank you so much for your tips, they’ve given me a new look on how to take photographs, and your Mona Lisa article has shed new light on my photography skills.

Mucho thanks!!

Peace
-Arno-

By: Sandra Hindmarch

Sandra Hindmarch — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:20:34 +0000

Darren, thanks for the article on Mona Lisa, very interesting. I look forward to receiving my email from you on a Friday morning. I have learnt a lot from your emails, despite the 1001 photography books I have on my coffee table. Thanks very much !

By: Adit

Adit — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:54:22 +0000

Wow, I never thought that deeply about the masterpiece. Great article! Very analytical.

I wonder if the Mona Lisa was actually taken by an ancient form of camera lol ? Anyways, it’s good to know that the painting has actually taught us the art of both painting and photography.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:55:36 +0000

You pointed out somethings about Mona’s portrait I did not know about like the circles on the edges of the frame and really how much like a camera captured image this portrait is, considering how amazing his vision was in other works he is know for, maybe he was rather prophet like, seeing into the future by impression. There is something else I noticed and I have never heard anyone mention this, She has no Eye Lashes, or Eye Brows. I bet this is part of the captivation of her face. Wonder if we should ask people we do portraits of if they would oblige.

By: Nancy D'Antonio

Nancy D'Antonio — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:19:07 +0000

This article was really great. All the points are well thought out. I am planning to send my middle-school photography students to this site to read it because it really covers all the main elements of portrait phography using a famous painting that everyone can relate to. THANK YOU FOR WRITING IT AND PUTTING UP SUCH A GREAT WEBSITE.

By: peter k

peter k — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:59:28 +0000

Well, Mr. Rowse, I think that Da Vinci might have been an excelent portrait photographer and that you might have been an excelent art critic ! You talk here about Da Vinci and Mona Lisa because is an article about portrait, but don’t forget that there are many rules of composition with the roots back in the painture of the 16th century – the rule of thirds, the positioning of a trail or of a river in a painting, the frame that is to put in the forground (such as a branch with some leafs) to bring a 3D feeling and so on. They knew empiricaly that it works, and we know it today scientificaly, that is – we know why ! Anyway, the article is excelent and teaches a lot, and there are some tricks that I’ve got from it. Thank you !

By: Ingrene

Ingrene — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:23:00 +0000

My Best Congratulations for your article. I consider that the classical painters give us something very important for a photographer : sensibility.

By: Martin Katz

Martin Katz — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:13:05 +0000

Your insights are quite interesting. I learned a lot from this post. The known history of the painting may enhance your observations.

Unlike photographs (which take seconds), the Mona Lisa was painted over a period of years, while Leonardo was traveling and painting for several sponsors. The model only sat for Leonardo long enough to get most of the facial features and some rough sketches of the hands. The hair, dress, and background were all painted from the artist’s imagination. This is why many art historians believe that this was not a commissioned piece.

Some details were painted several times. For instance, there is a string of pearls that were painted over; supporting your discussion of elimination of distractions. Other details were repainted as Leonardo learned of new techniques during his travels.

I believe that those who see an ugly portrait are not seeing the detail in the work and are forgetting that the face is beautiful for the time.

The painting is small, because it is painted on a single board, not a canvas. This allowed Leonardo to move the painting as he received new commissions.

Because it is painted on a board, it is unlikely that much of the painting was lost during framing. This makes me doubt the idea that there were columns at the sides of the original painting. It is more likely that the partial spheres were part of sketched-in treas that were left indistinct so they would not detract from the portrait.

On the other hand, I am not an art historian and I am a mere amateur at photography. I suspect that others commenting here have a better grasp of most of the artistic issues issues.