Halp

>>2744626
Literally nothing like Chuck Close at all to be honest.

Careful with your values as you are making some things too strong like the beard or the white in your eyes. It can also use some softer edges in places, basically you are not observing closely enough.

I suggest asking somewhere with competent artists instead of /ic/ for critique.

Not bad! The shoulders look a little awkward but they match up to the photo, not your fault. Beard looks a bit off but still a damn fine portrait.

Nothing about it, in any way, shape, or form, resembles Chuck Close.

>>2744626
Values need work, darks need to be darker and lights lighter, all your gradients need to be blended more before you can get close to the level of detail that chuck close has. You also have a few proportion and shape issues that affect the portrait as a whole. Specifically, your eyes, ear, hat, forehead, and beard all need to be reworked significantly

>>2744626
You're probably more interesting than Chuck Close anyway, he's a very boring painter.

The beard looks off to me, like it's pasted on from a different painting. It doesn't seem to match the same painting style as the rest of the picture.

>>2747557
I guess that's an opinion...

>>2744626
Chuck Close used an airbrush for the most part, especially on the photorealistic portraits he's known for. His "style" was that there were no visible brushstrokes or any other marks on his paintings(which were on eight foot canvases , by the way.) . His post-paralysis work might be totally abstract, but even then he has perfect values.
Your painting here just seems like a fairly average portrait.