It's Better Than You Think!
 

I

Dr John
 

Impressive thesis! I wish I had said that.

Good points all-but artists must needs grumble, even in the face of facts.

By the Beautiful See
 

John,

I think your observation about the nine-fold overall contrast ratio between the most highly and the least reflective surfaces in nature aligns itself (I was going to say

Flawed logic
 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the measurements you have stated are for different surfaces (textures and values), all measured under a consistent degree of illumination. Unfortunately there is a condition called light and shadow. There are many degrees of contrast between the two based on the strength of the light source and the value and reflectivity of the surrounding area.

For example, the value differentiation between two objects placed in a room with black walls, a white shirt illuminated by sunlight streaming through a window and the shadow of a black velvet dress on the opposite side of the room, far exceeds the range between white and black pigment.

Ansel Adams developed the zone system for photography, which allows a photographer to expand or contract the range of values in a scene to correspond to the black and white points of photographic paper. Adams realized that photo paper, whose value range is almost identical to that of paint, was woefully inadequate when it came to replicating the full range of natures values.

People can always find data to back up their hypothesis. However appropriate knowledge and sound logic will always prove correct in the long run. Take a spot meter and measure the difference between white and black paint swatches. Then measure the difference between the white shirt in the sun and the black velvet in the shadow.

Thinking that you can accurately copy nature with paint values is simply an illogical supposition. That is, unless you are willing to forgo the inclusion of shadows in you paintings.

Not
 

Marvin, you and I are not ever going to agree on this. I'm telling you if you can see it you can paint it. Or, maybe I should say SOME artists can paint what THEY see. Usually these threads go off into the; "yeah, well, artists ought to make decisions and improve what they see", sort of offshoot. That is an altogther different discussion.

Some eyes and some hands are better than others. This is not about logic or thinking it's about seeing.

The work below has a range of values (1-10) and correct colors and temperature variations that read to me like reality. It lacks for nothing - I even love the composition. I could well have posted any number of works by Benson, Moran, Hurley, Clark Hulings, or Dan Sprick.

JSS

Tim, I don

Sheesh - we should have a separate padded room for you two guys to fight it out in! ;)

Light
 

The light comes from the window which is the same light that falls over the table and the person. (See the cast shadow?) Follow that back. I imagine Frank Reilly taught you that.

There are some people who don't admire Frank Reilly any more than Sargent. Maybe this is why we don't have both portrait societies giving out Reilly medals or Paxton medals.

Fiat Lux!
 

Tim and Steven,

Thanks for translating my physiologizing into

[QUOTE] However, there are other visual effects produced by very intense light sources that might be usable by painters in this situation. What about

Delight
 

We do, however, have the students of Paxton and Reilly and their progeny winning the awards from these societies.

Dark Thoughts
 

Marvin, I'm not just cooking up some data to support a position. The logarithnic relationship between intensity and perceived brightness goes back to the middle of the 19th century, as summarized by Fechner's Law, Delta I/I = klogI. Ernst Mach first described the perceptual effects of lateral inhibition at the end of the19th century. Hartline and colleagues exhaustively investigated lateral inhibition for several decades, starting in the 1930's. These phenomena are ubiquitous in both vertebrate and invertebrate visual systems. The intensity-response function data goes back at least to the early 70's, principally by Werblin and his colleagues. This is not to mention the thousands of experiments relating these physiological mechanisms to visual perception. There's a vast literature on the subject.

But I think your example, particularly the reference to using a photometer, misses the point of the graph above and emphasizes your seeming disagreement with Tim, which I see as mainly a disagreement based on ambiguity. I'd like to try to resolve it.

Steven and I were discussing events at the upper end of the intensity-response function, but since shadows are important, let's look at the lower, or decrement end. Imagine that you're standing in the noonday sun and looking at the facade of an adobe cantina. The open entrance appears to be a nearly uniform black rectangle. Within the entrance you cannot discern any differentiation of form. If, however, you take measurements with a spot meter, you discover that there are significant variations in light intensity within the entrance. Clearly the meter is responding to something to which your eye is not.

Let's relate the example to the graph below. Here the intensity difference between the brilliantly illuminated adobe walls and the interior illumination (shadow) of the cantina coming through the doorway is so great that the receptors under the image of the doorway are saturated on the low end of their response range. They are receiving relatively little illumination from the interior to excite them, but are powerfully inhibited by their neighbors that are strongly excited by the intense illumination from the adobe walls. The combination of little excitation and massive inhibition sums algebraically to a near total shutdown of response in the receptors within the image of the doorway: the heart of darkness, the blackest of blacks.

First, look at the range of intensities reflected from the adobe walls, indicated by the red lines in the graph below. The slope of the function is steep in this region. A small change in intensity results in a relatively large change in response, so we would expect good discrimination of half-tones.

Now look at the range of intensities reflected from the interior of the cantina, indicated by the black lines. Here an equal change of intensity results in almost no response. Everything in this part of the image looks black and we can detect no half-tones.

Now let's take our best black paint and paint a trompe l'oeil doorway on a portion of the cantina wall. The range of intensities in our painted doorway is shown by the blue lines. It's not as dark as the "real" doorway photometrically, by any means, but on the response axis it hardly differs from it (exaggerated here). It's in the region of shallow slope and appears visually to be a uniform black. It is in this sense that I intended the title of this thread. To our visual systems the trompe l'oile doorway represents the "real" doorway fairly accurately.

Taken in this sense, I find Tim's statement, "If you can see it, you can paint it.", to be unexceptionable. Even if we had a superior paint that could somehow reproduce what the photometer "sees", it wouldn't help very much. The physiology of vision precludes good discrimination at the extremes of the response function. In this context, his post of a painting that convincingly captures the brilliance of the lightbulb, as well as the darkest shadows and everything in between, seems entirely to the point (whatever else one might think about the painting or the man who painted it).

On the other hand, Marvin points out that some natural conditions result in intensity differences that are greater than those reflected by paints under uniform illumination. Well. I wouldn't argue with that, since that describes my cantina example. Painting can't capture what the photometer or other instruments can record under all circumstances. So, in that sense, thinking you can accurately copy nature with paint is illogical.

What I hope is coming across is that our vision doesn't give us a complete copy of nature, nor does painting, nor does a photometer. All we need to do to demonstrate this is to walk into the cantina, and everything changes dramatically. The intensity-response function slides to the left on our first graph, to center on the new illumination level of the interior. What was formerly a black hole is now perceived as a reasonably well-lit room where people are playing cards and reading newspapers. We might see a painting on the wall depicting the front of the cantina in the noonday sun, and be struck by what a good job the artist did in "realistically" painting that scene. He did it by painting what he saw. He didn't have to do it that way, but that's what he did. "Real" to our vision? Yes, pretty close. But Reality (without the scare quotes)? Never!

Steven, yes, the description of halation is exactly what I would expect, and, as a matter of observation, what I see. I'm just not sure how to paint it, so I've got to get those books.

I was right with you up to here, John, and then I imagined getting out of that noonday sun for la cerveza mas fina or two, and well, you can imagine the rest. But if I can "see ya" by late tomorrow morning, I can probably "paint ya".

(Harley Brown, by the way, does a pretty good job capturing lights and darks and everything in between in the desert adobe environment. Also some extraordinary and intense light reflections from the surfaces of water that practically make you want to squint.)

Adios

(Moderator's note: John's hilarious response to this post is now a separate thread entitled "Once Upon a Time in the West".)

Paxton dies-1941
 

How many artists out there have studied with Paxton who died in 1941? Or is this one of those, "Well I know so-and-so who studied with so-and-so who studied with so-and-so's cousin who once cleaned Frans Hals' house."

I'm OK you're OK Corral
 

Beth,

I thought it was common knowledge that the bad guy wears a black hat?

John,

It's interesting that your data proves that both Tim and I are correct. Thus the flaw of scientific research. Anyone (who has a grasp on the data) can prove or disprove anything through the artful manipulation of said data.

The question I ask is, what if you wanted to depict both the scene outside in the sun and inside of the cantina in the same painting? Wouldn't you then have to manipulate the values?

Tim,

I said: Progeny (according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: prog

Oh
 

Marvin, I honestly missed the "progeny". Those are good names (as are Rielly and Paxton) you mentioned. However, the very extreme differences in each of these students styles and work (like say, Peter Max and James Bama) make my point. "So what?"

One doesn't have to travel very far from the teacher to get some pretty diverse progeny. Third or fourth generations from the source are moot.

Get to the point
 

What is your point? That the legacy of information that artists have been passing down from generation to generation for the past 500 years, such as the concept of ratioing values in the real world down to the limited range available in paint, has no validity?

I definitely agree with that one!

Sooo, gentlemen, if I boil all of this theory down to its essence, what you're saying is that if you have a really, really, bright direct light source in your painting, you should paint it like it's glowin', right?

Or am I missing something?

Quote: It's interesting that your data proves that both Tim and I are correct. Thus the flaw of scientific research. Anyone (who has a grasp on the data) can prove or disprove anything through the artful manipulation of said data.

The question I ask is, what if you wanted to depict both the scene outside in the sun and inside of the cantina in the same painting? Wouldn't you then have to manipulate the values?


Marvin, I

:bewildere Well I actually prefer to paint and paint and paint and when I opened this page on the forum I was--uh, well, let me say that I have no real idea what you just spoke about but I applaud all of you for effort. :thumbsup:

As soon as I decide how to reply to this perplexing situation then I shall---until then (but don't hold your breath) I will give it considerable thought of just how to "illuminate" the situation .

Bravo, and a good night to all!

Enlightened ?
 

Yes Tom, I do believe you are missing something, but I don

I'm sorry, my comment was so tongue-in-cheek that the bemusement was mistaken for (willful?) ignorance.

If all of this has in actuality saved me some confused thrashing around, I'm grateful, but we'll see.

My point is, whether you favor the stack of 8x10 glossies, or the circles and arrows, sooner or later you are faced with paint, brushes and a canvas. Having all of this theory in mind may or may not help, but when I'm painting, my actual method is to try something and if that doesn't work, try something else.

Or as Friedrich Engels said: "An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory."

Carry on.

My creedo
 

I kind of follow Jim Croce's advice,
Especially the part about spitting into the wind. If one chooses to spit on a windy day, one should learn to do so with the wind at their back.

I look at painting theory as a guideline or a compass. It's function is to appropriately point one in the proper direction.

A wise man once told me, "pigments function in a more limited scheme than actual natural light. Anyone who paints runs into this limitation pretty early, whether they are intellectually aware of it or not. The trick is to translate, and eventually to control and enhance to achieve aesthetic goals."

Tiptoe Through The Tulips
 

Marvin, thanks for the clarification of your position. I don't really have much quarrel with some of your broader views as expressed above.

[quote]If you paint a gray scale (equal steps from white to black) hold it up and compare it to a scene of norma[ contrast, (containing light and shadow) you will see that natures range is greater than paint

Don't eat the daisies!
 

John, when you describe you are it

Marvin, maybe we agree on this part-I'm not sure. Nature on this planet, has fixed ranges of value "on a sunnny day". Paint has fixed ranges of value. In order to depict the former we may use only the latter.

What I see too often are weak paintings where artists don't use all the tools available to them. Some landscape painters like Cyle Aspevig, T Moran, F Church can paint sunlight and distance wonderfully. Sargent and Bougureau can paint sunlight falling on figures in ways that move us. It is only when an artist understands NOT ONLY THE LIMITS of paint but also the OPPORTUNITIES of paint that work becomes more than dull and mediocre.

Tim, Care to identify the title, painter, and provenance? (For both educational and copyright purposes. We can't post others' works here without permission or proper acknowledgment of their rights in those works.)

Sorolla
 

Joaquin and I are very close so he won't mind, sorry.

Perhaps we do!
 

Tim,

My point has always been that the range of values in nature far exceed the values available in paint. By understanding the value (as well as hue and chroma) relationships within a scene an artist can recreate the experience of seeing the "real" scene for the viewer. Gerome, at his best, was also a master of this, as well as his student, William McGregor Paxton.

Paxton is maybe the best American figure painter that actually lived here.

And then some
 

I'd go with the best that ever lived!

I had the opportunity to see this Ingres "Virgin with Chalice" in Atlanta last week. It is touring with the Puskin Museum, Russian exhibit.

Just whose arm is that anyway?

:bewildere Excuse my obvious ignorance of the subject that you posted Beth but, who's arm is that--REALLY?

That looks very peculiar. Ok, now all go ahead and say what you are thinking. I don't know that painting along with many others but humor me please and let me in on the secret. That arm?

See?

The most famous aren't always the best. Da'vid was better and Bouguereau better than he...IMHO


Beth, that's a scene from Puccini's "Floating Arm", no longer preformed in major opera houses.

Marvin,

Well, that's what you said to do, and that's what I did. I did not see that nature's range was greater than paint's range; if anything, it was the other way around.

But I reasoned that, since the amount of light reaching my eye from a source diminishes as the inverse square of the distance from the source, it might not be a fair comparison to hold the value scale close to me while most of the elements of the scene were in the background. So I also viewed the value scale under the conditions described to see if that would make a difference. It didn't. I was just trying to be thorough.

Now you advise us to take a spot photometer and set up a scene with black and white objects and take readings off various parts of the scene to compare with readings from the value scale. Neither I, nor any other contributors to this lengthy thread, has quarreled with you over the claim that a photometer might record a wider range of intensities from various regions of an arbitrary scene than it would from a painted value scale. I accepted it when you brought it up earlier. However, you asked us to "see that natures range is greater than paint's range". Performing the exercise with the value scale in my backyard, I was unable to see that. In order to know that "natures range is greater than paint's range", I need to use a photometer or some other quantum counting device: I am unable to see it directly because of the operating characteristics of the visual system presented at the beginning of the thread. Our eyes do not see nature's full range of intensities, and even if we could transfer that full range to canvas, we still couldn't see it.

I think we have a genuine disagreement here. Evidently you don't accept that the visual system functions in the fashion that I claim. I'll be happy to provide references. There's nothing even mildly controversial in my presentation. I don't know how you might think it works, but below are some demonstrations that will show that it doesn't operate anything like a photometer, in case that's what you have in mind.

Finally, your statements on the difficulties of matching hue, chroma, and value are pretty much a summary of the last paragraphs of my previous post, so I've no bone to pick with you there. If there's any disagreement it would be that I see the impossibility of matching all these variables more as a matter of practicality, whereas you seem to see it more as a matter of principle. By practicality, I mean that I would have gotten a better result with cad. red light, but I was out of it. Since it was just for a forum post, I went ahead anyway. If I had a commission deposit from Ms. Piedmont for a portrait with poppies, I would have at least bought some cad. red light and checked out other paints to get a better result. If I had a commission to paint both sides of the entire Great Wall of China with a Calif. poppy motif, I could go to a paint company and say "I need 200,000 200 ml tubes of paint that matches this poppy, so we won't have to waste a lot of time mixing. I can pay $20/ tube. Here's an upfront payment of $2,000,000 to get started, balance paid when you deliver. How soon can you have them for me?" Given enough incentive, almost anything can be matched.

Here's a little demonstration that illustrates the difference between the response of a photometer and the response of the eye. This is adapted from a demonstration found in many introductory texts on visual science or psychology.

The two small squares are of equal absolute intensity, yet the small square surrounded by the larger gray square appears lighter than the small square against the lighter background. A photometer would read the small squares as of equal intensity, but our eyes do not see them as of equal brightness. If the difference in appearance is not obvious, try standing back about 5 -6 ft. from your monitor, or try squinting slightly.

John you are absolutely right in all you believe and all you surmise.

The two major tenets of my approach to painting are that nature cannot be copied and that realistic painting is the art of deception. So whatever truth you seek has little appeal for me.

You are at heart, a scientist looking for empirical proof to guide you. All the proof I need is in my heart. I am bowing out of this discussion because I realize what you are looking for I am not willing to expend the energy to provide.

During this whole discussion you have run circuitously back and forth looking to to prove and disprove each point. I feel I

Hey, Marvin, geez, give me a chance to finish my post! I had to start the charcoal for the barbecue and you snuck in there and nailed me! Anyway here's the rest of it. Don't let me catch you taking a peek though!

This is another demo to illustrate some of the points in the post above.

The field is divided into three squares of different intensity, on each of which is superimposed a smaller square that differs from it in absolute intensity by 8%. Thus the contrast ratios in the three sections are the same. I cannot visually detect the small square in the leftmost section, but those of you with Photoshop or paint programs can grab the image and confirm that it is there by using your eyedropper tool. The background intensity in the rightmost section is the highest intensity available on my CRT.

A photometer would have no trouble detecting the smaller squares and would yield the same contrast ratios for all three sections. Obviously the eye sees it very differently. For the explanation of this I refer you to the earlier posts on this thread.

I think you two both have made your points well. I've read both sides and still have not changed my opinion. As we know, it's far easier to maintain an existing opinion than adopt a new one.

In sight size painting, I set up props or people or both and light them. My canvas gets the same light source as my people or props. I paint until my oil painting looks like the set-up. Painters and non-painters find it great fun to see both side-by-side because both look the same. The colors and values and intensity and edges are the same in the painting as in the set-up. Viewers may say, "I like the light etc." (in the painting) but only because the light was there on the subject and I simply copied it direct from the subject.

This work was 42 X 72" and took all my studios width to do. I painted it from 19' away, if you will. The shine on the saddles, the dullness of the rugs and everything else was there to observe and replicate. It was done before digital cameras where I could shoot both subject and painting, side by side. I mean to post one of those in the future to show how much the subject looks like the painting. I have painted precisely the colors I have seen for years. Having done it, I know it can be done.

It is how artists capture the shine of satin, reflected light, and transparent glass. Artists before 1500 A.D. did not achieve this very often. Yet since then there are thousands of such examples.

Just a thought on deception.