What is so great about Rembrandt lighting?
 

It seems I learn everything the hard way. As long as I can remember I've heard how wonderful "Rembrandt Lighting" is (where there is only a triangle of light on the cheek opposite the light source), this must have come from some of my classes. Well, after aiming for that for the past year and being very frustrated with all that SHADOW, because with only a little triangle of light on one cheek the rest of that side of the face is in shadow, I have finally begun to wonder what is so great about Rembrandt lighting anyway? I spent some time looking through books today and see that many of the old masters have positioned their models with the a little shadow on the side of the nose and the side of the head.

Why had I not realized this before? Is it possible to paint a face half in shadow and have it still look good? :bewildere I'm sure it is possible but is it a good idea for painting children's portraits that will appeal to a broad market. Perhaps I should reserve this kind of lighting for a more dramatic effect. So, as I said, sometimes I feel I learn the hard way, now I'm off to explore light with just barely a shadow on the side of the nose. :)

BTW I just posted my latest attempt in WIP and the photo posted is what led me to post this!

I'll be very interested to see how other's feel about lighting their models with Rembrandt lighting.

Joan

Joan:

I'm not a lighting maven, and I don't have years of art class experience, but I'd say that Rembrantd lighting has to do with how it reveals the form and shapes in and of the face through shadow.

The shadow side of the face doesn't have to be in DEEP shadow to be effective. I believe that his basic lighting, where the light is generally high and to one side, can leave some very interesting shadow patterns on the "shadow side" of things. For example, as you noted, on the side of the nose away from the light.

Look again at some paintings using this kind of light, and you should see these interesting patterns. Depending on where the light is, how intense it is, how high it is, will reveal everything from deep to subtle shadows that form some very interesting patterns as it travels down the face and body. The far side of the forehead, the eye socket, nose, shadow side of the mouth, and the chin will reveal, through shadows, the form of the face.

By refining where you place your light, you can highlight the top part of the eye in shadow, for example, or that little triangle of light. These little patches of light on the shadow side add interest, and further define the shape (form) of the face.

As Forrest Gump says, "And that's all I have to say about that."

I think this would qualify as an example of Rembrandt lighting. The shadow side, however, doesn't have to be in total darkness to get the effect.

Mike:

Yes, I agree. In my opinion, it's not the depth, or darkness of the shadow so much as it is whether the shadow (on the dark side) presents an interesting pattern, and defines the form. I like just enough shadow to have the accompanying "core shadow" where light and shadow meet. But, of course, being the artist, I can put it in my picture with paint if I feel it will help define the form further.

But, I digress. Yes, this is basically Rembrandt lighting.

I agree with you Mke, and Joan, I love Rembrandt's lighting... Did you watch the movie "Incognito"? The plot is not wonderful, but it's a good movie if you like Rembrandt!

I suppose Rembrandt painted with that kind of lighing because that was the way people viewed the world indoors before electrical light was invented. Imagine how different the world must have been with only candles or your fireplace to light your room!

But still today, a light from the side makes the pictures much more interesting than the flat front light such as you see in amateur flashlight photos.

Joan--

I appreciate your frustration, but here's a (perhaps too) simplified explanation of "why it's so great." Richard has put it better than me, but I want to chime in and stress how really important shadow shape is.

Accurately painting the outside contour and, perhaps more importantly, the shape of the shadows, goes more toward capturing and defining form on a two-dimensional surface than anything else. So-called Rembrandt lighting is essentially a three-quarter light--at a 45 degree angle off of dead center (more or less), designed to unite the shadows into a unified, pleasing, and interestingly shaped mass. Move the light a little more to the front, and the magic triangle of light connects to some of the lights on the bottom of the face and chin, and the LIGHTS become connected into a pleasing mass also. Anywhere in this general area--a roughly three-quarter direction off of center--is the optimum placement for the light to describe form and mass. More shadow on the face and the available contrast range to describe form diminishes, as does light coming directly from the viewer's point of view--in other words, flash-lit photos.

It's why artists working from really sorry, flash-lit photography wonder why their paintings look so horrible, as Karin points out. The flat lighting from the camera mounted flash kills all available shadow, and the contrast range available for describing form drops to nil. Put simply, all shadow shape "washes out."

I'm not saying that any other light but three-quarter light should be avoided, but a basic knowledge of this optimum form lighting, plus continual experimentation with lighting the subject from a variety of angles is essential. Light and shadow is what we have to work with--it's virtually the whole ball game.

Once an artist learns that shadow shape may be the most important factor in creating an illusion of three dimensional mass on a flat surface, and seeks or creates lighting that gives a strong, interesting shape to the shadow(s), their work improves dramatically.

Fight for this understanding and apply it to your work--it's really important.

Best as always--TE

(As a result of this discussion, I walked over and incrementally deepened and simplified the shadow under a subject's nose in a WIP, and everything in the painting suddenly became a lot deeper and more three-dimensional.)

Well put!

Very simply ...
 

The lighting is appeciated back then as it is now because it is natural to the eye and depending on the amount of ambient relected light on the shadow side, can be mysterious.

Most of my portraits use this form of lighting and about 25% of my studio photography shots use this approach.

I like hard light as often used by Rembrandt because the features develop more character and the eye fills in the rest.

Tom, your explanation was superb! I taught beginning figure painting for years and always lit the model from one side to create light and shadow patterns. Why? Because if you got the values right, there was instantaneous form. Two values, light and shadow, would give the illusion of 3 dimensions. With all the other value changes ( core shadow, reflected light, middle tone, highlight, etc) added, a simplified structure becomes the complex rendering of a specific being appearing
3-dimensional.

The use of all-over ambient light makes it much harder to create the appearance of 3-dimensions, as it tends to flatten the form, so you have to be very subtle and diligent with the value changes. My examples here are William Merritt Chase (ambient light) and Zhaoming Wu (strong single light source).

oopps, I forgot to attach the examples! Sorry.

From Joe Singer

Not a good reference
 

I read that book and it didn't make it into my extensive library.

That quote is incorrect in so many ways there is little value in offering a support for my comment. I would suggest that a review of Rembrandt's paintings is required.

Of course, though, support for the comment is the only way in which it would have value.

Remember -- this is a book on painting women's portraits. The observation that a very strong value contrast across a woman's face will not likely be desirable rang pretty true. I used this lighting (or close) on my son's portrait, but wouldn't ever have considered it for my daughter's. Singer isn't saying, I don't think, that there's no situation in which you couldn't get away with this. He simply states that a traditional portraitist's female clients will most likely not wish to be portrayed in this lighting.

What are the "many ways" in which you feel that Singer's advices are wrong-headed?

Clayton - Sounding off on lighting
 

My SOG friends,

As for lighting a subject, you must first understand what it is from the subject you're trying to bring out. If you're interested in the solidity and the form of the object, Rembrandt type lighting is probably very good. If you're more interested in color or expression or any of a number of other things that we try to bring out of our subjects, other lightings make more sense.

A flat lighting, that which comes from behind the painter, such as with Nicolai Fechin or Holbein, emphasizes an overall color design. Other times available light, such as we see in "snapshot" photography, gives a life and spontaneity to the subject that is gotten no other way.

Here are some examples of my thoughts about lighting. The first two express the smooth skinned youth and beauty of my models. The third expresses the spontaneity and overall expression of the model and the final expresses the large and interesting form of the model.

All are accomplished with a main direction of light in varying degrees.

Clayton

about Rembrant lighting?
 

Clayton,
Pictures speak louder than words and that backs up what you have explained in a milllion ways better. Thanks for this insight of different lightings with solid paintings to back them up!

These are fabulous examples. The paint handling is superb.

I totally agree about experimenting. I may have implied that I think 3/4 lighting is the only approach, but that was an attempt to answer the question originally posed about Rembrandt lighting and how it defines form. Clayton's point about trying many types of light is what makes Art the exciting adventure it is.