It's Better Than You Think!

[Marvin Mattelson]

I'd go with the best that ever lived!

[Elizabeth Schott]

Stupid is as Stupid does.

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?

And that's all I have to say about this.

[Patt Legg]

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?

[Timothy C. Tyler]

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.

[John Zeissig]

Marvin,

you paint a gray scale (equal steps from white to black) hold it up and compare it to a scene of normal contrast, (containing light and shadow) you will see that natures range is greater than paint's range.

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.

it's obvious that you are completely misunderstanding my point.

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.

[John Zeissig]

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.

[Marvin Mattelson]

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

[John Zeissig]

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.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

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.

[Elizabeth Schott]

Just a thought on deception.