light within a painting

[.:bushido:.cs]

hi,

Im currently doing art for A level and am just starting a new project. I wanted to investigate how you can give the impression of light within a painting, i.e. as though a candle was burning.

I would like to look at the techniques used to create this effect, and how and why artists used them in their paintings. My problem is that i do not know much about these techniques or which artists to look at, although i know i will have to look at the impressionists.

Please can you tell me some techniques i can look at and the artists that used them, or where i can find more information.

Thanks in advance.

Chris

[Bendragon]

JMW Turner is dubbed the "painter of light" and Claude Monet andthe other impressionists had similar objectives. Theres tons of books on them around and you can search for them around the internet too. But when I went to London to see Turner's work, they looked they had a real sun/light source inside them. So if you can, I'd say go and see some of them for yourself.

[DMickey]

For a candle burning I can think of a couple artist, mostly from the baroque period, like Gerrit van Honthorst, saw one of his paintings at MMFA and he seemed to have it down pretty good, or Godfried Schalcken, Gerrit Dou, theres loads of them. How to actually copy this onto a real painting though I have no clue - I don't really paint.
Here are some links to their paintings though if it helps at all.

Honthorst
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=23414
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=23416
Gerrit Dou
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=30061
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=1463

[DavePalumbo]

I love seeing the lightsource in the actual picture. The difficult thing is keeping it brighter than everything else (which must be the case) without ruining your focal areas. What can I suggest except shoot some photos and do some work from life. Reference and direct observation are the best ways to learn.

[Patton Art]

I LOOOVVEEE the topic of light. Seriously. Artists dont pay attention to it very much-- yet if light didn't exist, you wouldnt even be able to see anything to paint it.


Ok-- remember that light is light. Candlight is still light, just like a lamp or outdoor sunlight. The nature of the light changes depending upon the light source, though.

One of the biggest differences in light, that'll be obvious in your picture-- is the wash of light across your picture plane. Do the following thing, seriously:

Get in a room with one light source. A lamp, preferably. (If this lamp were off, the room would be very dark). Turn the light on, of course. Now put your hand up next to it-- look at how bright the light is on your hand.

Now pull your hand back, paying attention to how bright your hand is. You'll notice the light got less intense.

Step back another 5 fight, and you'll notice it got even less intense. Another 10 feet, and its even less intense.
If you were outside with this lamp, the light may be totally diminished after, say, 100 feet.

Light diminishes as it travels from the light source.





The stronger the light source, the longer it takes to diminish. A candle light may diminish after 10 feet, a lamp after 100, and sunlight after 100 billion miles. (hence Pluto is colder than Earth, and Mercury is warmer than Earth)

For instance, if I have a candle in my bedroom, my white walls will barely be receiving any light, and the far corners of my room will almost be in shadow. Yet my lamp lights up all the walls pretty good (though if I pay attention, there's still a difference between each wall).

The same is true of north light. Go by a window and see how it gets less intense as it gets away from the window. North light is actually light reflected from the sky, so it's technically not direct light. On top of that it still has a smaller source (i.e. the size of the window-- as opposed to the whole sky or the enormous sun). So even though its technically sun light, it's actually reflected sun light, and the 'source' is only as large as your window-- so this 'real sunlight' still diminishes within the expanse of your room.
Whereas direct light from the sun takes all the way to Pluto before it's considerably different.



So if your distance from the light effects how much light youre recieving--- this obviously effects how light or dark the values are on you. So if you have two figure in a candle lit room-- one holding the candle, and the other 15 feet away-- the amount of contrast will be much much higher on the person holding the candle light.








diminishing light in Bouguereau's paintings:

http://208.49.98.6/www/imageserver/7/Jeunes_bohemiennes.jpg


look at the amount of light the child and his drapery are recieving. Now compare that to the girls foot. It's in light-- yet look how dark it is! Also Look at the light washing across the womans arm.
Judging from that, it's obvious Bouguereau painted this in north light-- even though the composition is outdoors.

You can see this in a lot of Bouguereau's (and other old masters) works. Sometimes they'll "break" the rule for compositional purposes, but it's obvious that most of them were aware of it.


I could go on and on with more stuff, but I'll see if anyone understands this first.

[Mullet]

quick, bright, loaded, intelligent brushstrokes.

[Pixeldragoon]

"Seriously. Artists dont pay attention to it very much-- yet if light didn't exist, you wouldnt even be able to see anything to paint it."

Just want to say;
"PEOPLE" may not pay attention to it, but I can assure you any accompished artist pays more attention to it than alot of other things, like food...

And... I thought it was Kinkade who was called "The painter of light"?

[Patton Art]

"Seriously. Artists dont pay attention to it very much-- yet if light didn't exist, you wouldnt even be able to see anything to paint it."

Just want to say;
"PEOPLE" may not pay attention to it, but I can assure you any accompished artist pays more attention to it than alot of other things, like food...

And... I thought it was Kinkade who was called "The painter of light"?


well, he calls HIMSELF the painter of light. That doesnt make him the painter of light though. lol It isnt even his own work, he has a workshop of artists doin it for him; no different than Jeff Koons or Andy Warhol.



I'd disagree that most artists (even accomplished ones) percieve light as it is. They probably want to, but that doesnt mean they all do. I'm not saying NO ONE does... but the nature of the art schools curriculum goes against it. I've looked through the "best" art schools curriculums, and I've never seen a class devoted to light.


Most art schools curriculum is derived from a sorta watered down version of the Reilly method. The modelling is more of a sculptural approach-- whereas focusing on light is more of an optical approach.
There's also the massing in approach taught in some art schools-- where you copy flat shapes, and keep breaking them down. The idea is that theres no lines in reality, so use mass instead. The problem is, light doesnt come at our eyes in globs of shapes, either. (though, I'm not saying this is a bad way to paint, plenty of great painters paint like that)


quick, bright, loaded, intelligent brushstrokes.



Oh, as far as technique goes-- use light brushy strokes, tight strokes, medium strokes, breast strokes, no strokes, whatever. haha. I don't think Sargent, Rembrandt, or Bouguereau would have problems seeing the light from a candle correctly, yet all painted totally different. It's about how you see the light, not your technique of painting it.

But this makes me wonder-- why do people think "loose" painting is more expressive/less stiff/more gestural/etc? Why do some people think tight rendering makes something stiff/dead? If that were true, then every photo would look dead-- the photo captures the light exactly as it is in a moment, so one would say the rendering is technically perfect. Yet I never hear people saying a photo looks dead.

I could paint something a hundred times looser than Sargent..and if it's a candlelit still life, with a person 30 feet in the background, and the person is recieving as much light as the still life in the foreground... the figure is way out of key. It's wrong. Regardless of how loose or tight it's painted.

Anyways! My point/idea is that any technique can get you to your end result---- but if you dont know what you're seeing, no technique can get you there.

Soooo... yeah... maybe mess around with lights like I suggested? Put your hand next to it, 5 feet away from it, 25 feet away from it, etc. Then look at masters and see how they handled it.

[Patton Art]

DavePalumbo:
I was just looking at your website and saw that you studied privately with Burton Silverman. What's he like? I like his work a lot... not that I want to paint in his style or anything, but he's still very awesome.

What does he focus on a lot? Does he sight-size? I dont know too much about his ideas and approach.

[Pixeldragoon]

"
I'd disagree that most artists (even accomplished ones) percieve light as it is."

Not quite what I said =\ I said they pay ATTENTION to it. Not that they see it as it is =P biiiiiiig dif there. I pay ALOT of attention to light but still understand almost nothing about it.

[DavePalumbo]

Burt's great, very laid back in his teaching (have to keep after him to get crits). He can block in a painting faster than just about anyone I've ever seen. He focuses a good deal on drawing, which I think is a good thing.

And I have to say, any artist worth his salt should be giving a good amount of thought to the light in his/her work. Angle, temperature, intensity, etc. All very important.

[Patton Art]

"
I'd disagree that most artists (even accomplished ones) percieve light as it is."

Not quite what I said =\ I said they pay ATTENTION to it. Not that they see it as it is =P biiiiiiig dif there. I pay ALOT of attention to light but still understand almost nothing about it.

aahhh, that's truuueee. I get what you mean


Burt's great, very laid back in his teaching (have to keep after him to get crits). He can block in a painting faster than just about anyone I've ever seen. He focuses a good deal on drawing, which I think is a good thing.

And I have to say, any artist worth his salt should be giving a good amount of thought to the light in his/her work. Angle, temperature, intensity, etc. All very important.

that's awesome. he's a pretty big name in the art community, I've only talked to him a few time through emails though.
How long does he take to block something in? I try to be more worried with accuracy than speed... but... speed is still gooood. From what I can see he's still pretty dang accurate.

angle/temp/intensity... yup. I guess I meant that a lot of artists dont worry about that... they talk a lot about anatomy, gesture, loose/tight, etc; but I guess I just dont see many people reeeaaally talking about light.
But yeah, Burton Silverman knows his light, obviously... definately wasnt referring to him... or anyone in particular, really.

[.:bushido:.cs]

Thanks everyone. Great help.

I'll look at those artists but i guess i need to do a lot of experimenting!!

Thanks again for all your help

Chris.


I could go on and on with more stuff, but I'll see if anyone understands this first.

Please do that would be great:}

[v0rbiss]

My first post here, been lurking for year maybe. :) I'm no expert at all, but i'll still share my observations on the subject.:P Specifically the candle light tend to be much warmer than the oher common light sources, and since it's very diffused it tends to create soft casted shadows that arent much darker than the object/plane they are casted upon. And everything that isn't very near to the source tend to be very dark and "murky" as seen in numerous master's paintings. I'd also recommend looking at Carravaggio's works, i think it would be helpful. :)

Oh, and I'm sorry for my poor endglish. :dead:

[Patton Art]

Please do that would be great:}

haha allrighty! So there's a few other things that effect how much light an object is recieving (and thus it's value).

The angle towards the light source, and the angle of the observor.

Put an apple (or anything rounded) onto a table in front of you. Pull out a pencil with a flat bottom on it.
Now put the flat part of the pencil onto any part of the apple. The direction your pencil points is that planes angle to the light. Now move it 1/2 an inch across the apple. You'll see the plane shifted quite a bit. Keep moving it around, every point on the apple has a completely different plane.

So the apple isnt planed off into 4 or 5 different planes, neither is a human head, or any other object. Every time that pencil shifts, is an entirely different plane.

You see a lot of people draw a rounded object with only 4 or so values. They'll have shadow around an "8" on the value scale, right outside the shadow (in the "dark-light") is maybe a 5, and then the lightest part is a 1-3.

But check this out-- every time your pencil shifted, it's on a different plane, and so is recieving a different amount of light. If your pencil was facing directly towards the light source, it was recieving the most light. If it was 90 degrees from the light source, it was in shadow. Everything else (in the light) is somewhere inbetween.

Now if you run your eye slowly from the shadow up towards the light, you'll see it gradually gets lighter. There's arent 3 big value jumps. The light right before the shadow is almost as dark as the shadow itself. There isnt this big huge sudden change between light and shade (on a rounded object at least). Look at how much darker that area is compared to the highlight.

There arent just 3 values in the light (nor is there 7, 10, or 100)! The value at the beginning of the shadow, and the value at the highest point of your lights, are the two extremes. There's an 'infinite' number of values inbetween.



The angle of the observer also effects light a lot. If you put that apple on a table, and move around the table while looking at it, you'll notice that the "form light" stays the same, but the highlight seems to follow you around.
This is hard to explain, but just imagine when you throw a ball against a wall. It reflects in the opposite direction, but at the same angle that you threw it at.
Light does the same thing when it hits form, and it's done in the highlights. (The highlight is literally a reflection of the light source).
If you've ever walked across a lake or the ocean while the sun was getting low, you'll notice that the waters' reflection of the sun was always below the sun. No matter where you walked, how long you sprinted down the beach, the suns reflection was still below the sun.
So the light goes out from the source, and reflects off the form in the equal but opposite direction, and goes into your eye. That's the highlight. If you step 5 feet to the right, you changed your position, so you'll be recieving a different tangent from the light source/form-- so the highlight 'moved'.
Technically there's highlights everywhere in the light, which one youre seeing just depends upon your position.




Keep in mind this is all science behind drawing... you dont have to draw super-realistically and use 'millions' of values like I'm saying. Obviously when painting loose you dont model every little plane on the apple... but youre still summarizing what you see there. You can paint the apple in 4 values if you want, but you should still hopefully be able to see what I'm talking about.

[DavePalumbo]

I try to be more worried with accuracy than speed... but... speed is still gooood. From what I can see he's still pretty dang accurate

well yeah, that's the thing. Any shmo can block in a wildly inacurate painting real fast, but it's jaw dropping to see someone do it correct

[el coro]

painting light, and making it look like light is ALL about value usage. basically its as easy as making sure your light source is the lightest value in the painting. also how well you interpret how it reacts with the different surfaces, ie a matte surface will not reflect the light as brightly as a shiny surface will play a pretty big role in selling it. i ususally try to make sure im painting with a dirty brush until im placing in the actual light source, at which point i will use a clean brush, and more white in my mixture. but keeping all your values dialed down and saving the pure bright paint for the highlights is really the key. -c36

[.:bushido:.cs]

haha allrighty!

Cheers. Thanks for all your help, it has given me a great start to my project.


i ususally try to make sure im painting with a dirty brush until im placing in the actual light source, at which point i will use a clean brush, and more white in my mixture. but keeping all your values dialed down and saving the pure bright paint for the highlights is really the key.

Thanks for the tip. I knew i would have to use a high contrast in values but i did not think about using a dirty/clean brush. will definitely try that out.

Im going up to London soon, to the Tate and now i know what artists to look for. Thanks again everyone.

Chris.

[egerie]

Ooooh OOOOH ! I know you already got so many references but I'm suprised no one mentionned Georges de la Tour !

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=927

My favorites :
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=5627
detail : http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=5628 (speaking of observing the effects of light!)

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=5630

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=5621

Cheers!