|
While awaiting the posting of the image, I should add a caveat to my initial post. What I am NOT urging anyone to do is to take interim photos and then blindly adjust their paintings in progress to "agree" with the photos. Down that road there be dragons.
The progress photo would be just a tool, like any other. Used properly, it will at most suggest reexamination of an area of the work, but that reexamination is strictly between the work and the artist. If the information in the photograph doesn't jibe with the artist's perception upon review, and no change is required, great.
Similarly, when I used to use a mirror to "check" life drawings, I would not just turn around and make adjustments according to what I saw in the mirror. I'd have another look at the model and see if indeed my drawing failed in the way suggested by the reflection in the mirror. If so, I'd redraw -- from life, from the subject -- and if not, I'd leave it alone, despite what I saw in the mirror.
What if the "tools" keep telling you that something's "wrong", but it still looks "right" to you? Or if they report accuracy, but you can't get over the sense that there's a problem? Some folks say they go with reproducible measurements, others go with their feeling that something's nonetheless "off" and needs to be worked on. Luke Skywalker was trained to fly with computer guidance, but when push came to shove, he flew by the seat of his pants to get that missile into the Death Star.
Lastly, I would never use an interim photo to judge color. The eye trumps the camera every time on that matter.
|