It's Better Than You Think!

John Zeissig · 02-23-2003, 09:51 PM

I

Timothy C. Tyler · 02-26-2003, 02:14 AM

Impressive thesis! I wish I had said that.

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

Steven Sweeney · 02-28-2003, 02:30 AM

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

Marvin Mattelson · 02-28-2003, 10:23 PM

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.

Timothy C. Tyler · 03-01-2003, 12:25 AM

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

Marvin Mattelson · 03-01-2003, 01:52 AM

Tim, I don

Lon Haverly · 03-01-2003, 02:50 AM

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

Timothy C. Tyler · 03-01-2003, 01:16 PM

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.

John Zeissig · 03-01-2003, 09:17 PM

Tim and Steven,

Thanks for translating my physiologizing into

Steven Sweeney · 03-01-2003, 11:40 PM

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