Results 1 to 13 of 14
July 20th, 2009 #1
True or False (Lighting and colour) (12/25/09 Post #9: New question)
Here I go again...
In this Briggs post, assuming white main light and white ambience/secondary light, brightness is the only aspect that changes while hue and saturation stays the same in the shading series.
(diagram by Briggs)
Taking a look at this picture:
True or false...
The diffuse reflected regions where the presumably white sunlight hits are more desaturated (going towards white) than the shadowed areas only because sunlight is incredibly strong. This makes it a special exception to what Briggs stated in the post. This does not apply to weaker lights, most notably artificial light.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by Alex Chow; December 25th, 2009 at 03:23 PM.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberJuly 20th, 2009 #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Thanked 53 Times in 18 Posts
Constant saturation holds true in the real world, but a photograph doesn't show real life perfectly. It lacks the dynamic range to show colors that bright, so it just shows up as white. It has more to do with the exposure of the photo than how light works in life. Basically, your statement is true for photos.
Pigments have the same limitation, so if you were painting this scene from life, you would somehow have to solve this problem to give an illusion of brightness.
The Following User Says Thank You to plundh For This Useful Post:
July 20th, 2009 #3
As Zvuv said, those lights are only blown out because of the limitations of photography.
**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."
The Following User Says Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:
July 20th, 2009 #4
July 20th, 2009 #5
Color theory is only there to help, you're not a slave to it.
If it looks good, it looks good.
July 20th, 2009 #6
July 21st, 2009 #7
It depends on the material. If the sphere was - bizarrely - made of flesh and skin you could expect enhanced saturation around the terminator, due to subsurface scattering where the light emerges through the skin. Similar to if you shine a torch behind your closed fingers.
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron Impossible For This Useful Post:
July 22nd, 2009 #8
The Following User Says Thank You to Aaron Death For This Useful Post:
December 25th, 2009 #9
I figured it was best to necro my own thread rather than to create a new one.
Does anybody have any pictures which utilizes exposure (artificially desaturating high-end values on the lights) effectively? This could be photographs or artwork, preferably with a figure. I know Anime-styled colouring does this a lot but I'm not so sure I can learn from that...
I've been trying to "break the rules" but I haven't been able to do it without making it look really wrong.
If I find anything, I'll post it here too. That said, Google isn't bringing up useful pictures.
EDIT: Here's something to get started:
December 26th, 2009 #10
Hrm, as far as paintings go you may want to look at the work of artists from around the advent of photography. The first image I thought of was Olympia by Manet, he seemed quite fascinated by the effect of the direct lighting from photography at the time which lent towards very washed out lights.
-My work can be found at my local directory thread.
The Following User Says Thank You to Anid Maro For This Useful Post:
December 26th, 2009 #11
Velazquez has similar effects in some of his paintings (or at least his reproductions). Im quite fond of the effect myself, it gives a certain drama. It's basically a strong full-light + higher chroma midtone.
It's not really a photographic effect pur-sang tough.
The last one looks pretty overblown by the camera tough, but the effect is there.
Caravaggio also has pretty heavy chiaroscuro...
The Following User Says Thank You to PieterV For This Useful Post:
December 26th, 2009 #12
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I thought of this post by James Gurney:
I will try to refrain from saying that this link might shed a little light on the problem.
The Following User Says Thank You to Serpian For This Useful Post:
December 26th, 2009 #13
I'll check out Manet. Good call.
As some people have stated in my Ambient Light thread, though, it's hard to tell if Velasquez intended the colours to be that way because these are reproductions. Maybe he did... maybe he didn't but I'm not so sure if I want to refer to those (for purposes of this topic) because it may not have been Velasquez's intentions (of course, if anybody has any info to shed light on this, I'll be happy to read it). Thanks for the recommendation, though. He's an awesome artist regardless. Caravaggio as well, though I think he's a safer bet since he's just a madman for contrast.