Results 27 to 39 of 63
Thread: Using photo reference correctly
May 8th, 2008 #27
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMay 8th, 2008 #28
May 8th, 2008 #29
May 8th, 2008 #30
Whenever we witness something 'new', as we do in great paintings, however old they are, there is always a certain kind of awkwardness about them, or rather an ineloquence that is very difficult to put one's finger on - I guess it is that when we surprise ourselves we are in a similar state to the amature in that we are of neccessity on unfamiliar ground. Slickness is almost by definition, lack of surprise.
As a professional, I am always trying to find the amature in me or, to put it much more accurately, and to paraphrase Isaac Newton (har har), trying to stand the amature on top of the professional's shoulders.
From Gegarin's point of view
May 8th, 2008 #31Yeah some, on occasion, but I've understood that there's this wide misconception that nearly all of them used it, all the time.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not speaking from experience here, only what the internetz has told me...
And besides that, who really cares how someone worked several hundred years ago? I hear that the old masters didn't use email to send in their finals either, but personally I just don't believe that.
May 8th, 2008 #32
May 8th, 2008 #33
Well, I knew the quote was out of context, and as some of you have mentioned, misquoted too.Thats what I get for posting on the last 5 minutes of my lunch break. The spirit of the comment was intact in my head( if no where else lol ) Next time I will take the time to make sure I quote the statement correctly. I apologize for any ruffled feathers. : )
Honestly though I am glad I got it wrong, because if I hadn't I never would have heard Chris's interpretation of the statement. I love that interpretation of the quote. And while all artist didn't use camera obscuras,many did use grid systems, and sketched from life. Alternate forms of copying but copying nevertheless. I guess what I am trying to say is like art, its a matter of perception for me. Some people will always see anything that isn't formed from pure imagination as copying and that is a perception that we have to get away from.
Reference is a good thing! ( but only if you quote the reference right lol
June 12th, 2008 #34
Hello, I'm new here. I'm so glad to have read this thread. I've recently experienced personal issues about ref material in my own work. The info. here has really expanded my thoughts on the topic.
August 19th, 2008 #35
August 19th, 2008 #36
I've got to tell you, even with modern projection equipment using bright electrical light sources and good lenses, it's VERY difficult to draw from a projected image. If you turn up the room lights enough to see what you're doing, you can't see the projection. If you turn down the room lights to see the projection, you can't see what you're doing. And the MOMENT you make a mark, you are no longer projecting that information onto a white surface, but a dark one. You ever projected an image onto a dark surface? Oh, and then there's your hand shadow. And keystoning.
Now imagine doing all this without electrical lights and dimmer switches and focusable lenses, but with candles and tents and pinholes and sunlight.
I. Don't. Think. So.
Drawings done from projected images have a distinct 'look' about them (until they're worked over by a decent draughtsman). A jerky, spikey, wavery, hesitant look...like the person couldn't quite see what he was doing. Because he couldn't. Does that sound like Vermeer to you?
Vermeer's specular highlights are round, just like highlights seen through an unfocused lens, and that's what gave the original bright spark the idea that he worked with a camera obscura. You know what else makes round specular highlights? Paint that is looser and oilier than the stuff we're accustomed to. And that's clearly what Vermeer worked with.
Ummm...sorry to come completely unstrung here, but every time I read that assertion it makes me The proper use of reference entirely aside, it's just not technically feasible pre-electricity. If you ever get a chance, try it. It's a cinch the 'experts' never have.
I was once on the receiving end of a critique so savagely nasty, I marched straight out of class to the office and changed my major (sketchbook).
The Following User Says Thank You to Stoat For This Useful Post:
September 9th, 2008 #37
Im glad this thread exists. Never has an art teacher told me to even bother looking at pictures for sources of references. It's so obvious now. I'm 18 (Soon to be 19) and have yet to be told by any of my art teachers about this stuff. Guess there are some things that going to college can't teach you about art.
September 9th, 2008 #38
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
September 11th, 2008 #39
You are absolutely right about Vermeer's paint. If one uses pure white lead in linseed oil (no additional fillers) and your paint is oilier than what normally comes out of the store-bought tube, the combination of the oily paint and the wonderful natural ropiness of white lead results in very beautiful, and very easy to achieve, white dot highlights.
I can achieve a tinier highlight with pure white lead in oil than I can with pure titanium white in oil. The secret is the ropey stringy quality of pure white lead. White lead is the best paint of all!
The Following User Says Thank You to William Whitaker For This Useful Post:
- ThanhVu Dinh,
- Mister Snow Leopard,
- Mad Savier,
- Zewar Fadhil,
- The Red Raeburn,
- Mocha Monkey,
- Paulie Knuckles,