Beginning oil painting question
peter nelson
I found it was a lot easier to get the sorts of smooth blends
that I like than in acrylics, and also that I find the color
shift, characteristic of acrylics as they dry, frustrating.
My preferred subject is figures and portraits but I often
paint still-lifes and other subjects as exercises. My studio
is filled with acrylic paintings of apples and oranges and
similar items where I've tried to be as realistic as possible.
Each one was painted beginning to end over the course of
a couple of evenings, in many hours of work and a dozen or
so layers.
But a finely-detailed, realistic oil painting involving several
layers can often take many weeks because of oils' long
drying time. In that time flowers die, apples go rotten, oranges
shrivel up, a tree starts off with buds, blossoms, and ends up in
full leaf, etc. Do oil painters who paint such things work from
photos, or memory, or imagination, or what? Is an oil painting
of a basket of fruit or a floral arrangement like one of those
Hollywood movies starring a baby pig, where the finished
product actually stars a whole series of baby pigs used
during different stages of the shoot? I know they don't all
paint alla prima.
---peter
April Showers
>But a finely-detailed, realistic oil painting involving several
>layers can often take many weeks because of oils' long
>drying time. In that time flowers die, apples go rotten, oranges
>shrivel up, a tree starts off with buds, blossoms, and ends up in
>full leaf, etc. Do oil painters who paint such things work from
>photos, or memory, or imagination, or what?
With today's digital cameras there is no reason to
worry about this. You can take a dozen photos from
different angles while editing or re-shooting those
that aren't good in minutes. And the nice thing is
that you can monkey with the images on the computer
if the composition needs 'arranging' or morphing or
any of numerous other possible changes. I use my
digital now during the progress of the work to shoot
the painting itself and do a computer manipulation or
two if something seems like it might work but you're
not sure. Wonderful tool!
Jim Hurst
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> I mention that recently I started working in oils because
> I found it was a lot easier to get the sorts of smooth blends
> that I like than in acrylics, and also that I find the color
> shift, characteristic of acrylics as they dry, frustrating.
>
> My preferred subject is figures and portraits but I often
> paint still-lifes and other subjects as exercises. My studio
> is filled with acrylic paintings of apples and oranges and
> similar items where I've tried to be as realistic as possible.
> Each one was painted beginning to end over the course of
> a couple of evenings, in many hours of work and a dozen or
> so layers.
>
> layers can often take many weeks because of oils' long
> drying time. In that time flowers die, apples go rotten, oranges
> shrivel up, a tree starts off with buds, blossoms, and ends up in
> full leaf, etc. Do oil painters who paint such things work from
> of a basket of fruit or a floral arrangement like one of those
> Hollywood movies starring a baby pig, where the finished
> product actually stars a whole series of baby pigs used
> during different stages of the shoot? I know they don't all
> paint alla prima.
>
> ---peter
>
That's why I really liked "Liquin" when it emerged on the market -- dries
pretty fast to the touch. But I think you're right about the baby pig
scenario -- grow dem flowers, and keep picking them. I once did some
nasturtiums because if you put them in a glass of water they will stay fresh
for a week or so in your studio. Probably artists have worked out numerous
strategies to overcome the problem you are talking about. One possibility is
working out a 'schemata' in the sense that Gombrich talks about. So you
learn by experience about going through 5 steps (arbitrary number) to
represent the texture of an orange. The actual 'in situ' work is done after
all the schemata is applied -- working with the light (color) or your model.
This is why I always liked the various 'how to' books that crop up. There's
a lot of good ideas how to approach problems (mixed in with a lot of bad
ideas, of course).
Erik
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
April Showers
>Do oil painters who paint such things work from
>photos, or memory, or imagination, or what?
One suggestion for those who don't have access to a
digital camera is to use a conventional one and
have the film processed at a one-hour photo place.
Many times people who are not photographers think
they have to wait until the entire roll is used
up before processing it. That would disrupt the
painting process if you want to work uninterrupted.
Photographers are more accustomed to shooting up
a whole roll on a single subject. Some of the
throw-away cameras today have amazingly good quality
close-up even though the lens is fixed focus and
I've seen them for around five bucks in the USA.
peter nelson
>>layers can often take many weeks because of oils' long
>>drying time. In that time flowers die, apples go rotten, oranges
>>shrivel up, a tree starts off with buds, blossoms, and ends up in
>>photos, or memory, or imagination, or what?
>
>worry about this.
So the answer from the above list seems to be "photos".
I find that when I work from photos, which I do for some subjects
because of the difficulties above, I don't get as lifelike a result
but I'm not sure why. There is no question to me that my
still-lifes of things like fruit and desktop arrangements which
I made with the objects in front of me have a "presence" that I've
found hard to achieve in paintings I've done from photos.
As for digital cameras, I'm a very serious conventional photographer
and since I'm also a high tech nerd I've been eagerly awaiting
digital camera technology, but I haven't seen anything that
produces satisfactory color, tonality and resolution, or that
has any good optics. I haven't tried the $9000 SLR backs
because they're out of my price range, but the $600-$800
"megapixel" cameras I've seen couldn't cut it.
---peter
peter nelson
>Jim Hurst wrote in message <25576-37...@newsd-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net>>Most of my painting in oils is done Alla Prima or Wet-on-Wet, especially>when painting landscapes.>>But when painting something with a lot od detail and structure,>I find that doing a monocromatic underpainting in acrylics, and then> using oils as a glaze after the acrylic dries to be ideal.
>>After the glaze, you can work the image, bringing out the highlights> and deepening the shadows.I've thought about doing this. Helen Van Wyk recommends somethinglike it in her book. But I was talking to the chief technical advisorat Grumbacher a few weeks ago and he said that its not a goodidea because acrylic paint is not acrylic gesso and doesn't make agood, long-lasting ground for oil painting (even though it's commonlydone. On the other hand I use colored gessos all the time so Ican't think of any reason why I couldn't use them for this. Goodidea. Thanks for the suggestion. BTW, Maxfield Parrish used todo something like this on many of his paintings - he did the detailwork in ink and then a put several carefully-chosen glazes overit for the color.---peter
peter nelson
>>photos, or memory, or imagination, or what?
>
>digital camera is to use a conventional one and
>have the film processed at a one-hour photo place.
>Many times people who are not photographers think
>they have to wait until the entire roll is used
>up before processing it.
I do this a lot. You can buy film in bulk and load the
canisters yourself in the darkroom so if you just want
shoot four frames that's all you put in. ( I never shoot
fewer than 3 of anything anyway because I bracket all
my exposures.) Then I can use my regular Nikon bodies
and lenses.
My problem, as I mentioned above, is that for some reason
I don't get the same results painting from a photo, but I don't
know why. I've heard people here suggest that it's the
fact that it's not 3D, but I don't think that's entirely it because
what I notice the most is that my paintings from real life
have better LIGHT - they're more luminous, somehow.
---peter
jha...@om.com.au
> But a finely-detailed, realistic oil painting involving several
> layers can often take many weeks because of oils' long
> drying time. In that time flowers die, apples go rotten, oranges
> shrivel up, a tree starts off with buds, blossoms, and ends up in
> full leaf, etc. Do oil painters who paint such things work from
> photos, or memory, or imagination, or what? Is an oil painting
> of a basket of fruit or a floral arrangement like one of those
> Hollywood movies starring a baby pig, where the finished
> product actually stars a whole series of baby pigs used
> during different stages of the shoot? I know they don't all
> paint alla prima.
>
> ---peter
>
How right you are Peter. Look at it this way, most oil painters are
essentially idealists and if they want to paint an apple they want to capture
the essence of appleness.This may require eating and looking at a whole case
of random apples, just to get the feel and idea of the thing. When eventually
the artist has it fixed in the mind he or she can set about painting some
individual apple. If in the meanwhile, if it withers, goes rotten or merely
dies it is not a worry for the ideal apple will prevail and no doubt sustain.
John Hagan PS,some wag said about painting anything ... if it is still paint
it but if it moves grab it. http://www.cowdisley.com
April Showers
>>With today's digital cameras there is no reason to
>>worry about this.
>
>So the answer from the above list seems to be "photos".
>
>I find that when I work from photos, which I do for some subjects
>because of the difficulties above, I don't get as lifelike a result
>but I'm not sure why.
Think about what loss of detail there is in the shadows
when you photograph. That seems to me to be one of the
best arguments against using ONLY photos as references
for a painting. It's the one I use when I refuse to let
my beginning students paint from photos. I make them
paint from still lifes or from detailed drawings that
they bring to class. I have less problem with advanced
students using photos once they understand that photos
cannot duplicate what the eyes see in actuality.
You mention in your other response in this thread
about not having the 3-Dness in the photos that you
do with a still life and I think what you are missing
again is the 'detailing' that is lost in photos,
especially in the shadowed areas. I try to teach my
students who are working from their OWN photos to make
sure they get plenty of shots for various shadowed
areas so that the camera exposure shows what's in the
shadows as well as what's in the better-lit areas.
Take a current problem of one student who was painting
from a magazine photo. It's a gate house with lovely
flowering vines but in the photo there is absolutely
no detail showing for the shadowed interior spaces
of the gate house. So what is the painter going to
do? Invent the details? One thing you learn when
painting from life is that shadows are always transparent.
The detail is still there even when shaded. You only
really lose the details in complete darkness.
>As for digital cameras, I'm a very serious conventional photographer
>and since I'm also a high tech nerd I've been eagerly awaiting
>digital camera technology, but I haven't seen anything that
>produces satisfactory color, tonality and resolution, or that
>has any good optics.
The cameras are undergoing rapid improvement and prices
have been plummeting in recent years. But you must be
willing to spend the time learning photo manipulation
software in order to compensate for the kinds of things
that you would otherwise do when printing in a darkroom
using conventional film. I prefer using Photoshop but
that is a very steep learning curve to master. There
are always simpler software programs that come with most
of the digital cameras 'as sold.'
In answer to your
concerns about digital cameras, I'd have to say that
only the issue of resolution is a stumbling block to
using digital images. But I don't use the digital camera
because I expect razor sharpness. I use it to work out
compositional details that are unaffected by resolution
issues. I can see where resolution would be a concern
for anyone wanting photographic quality prints if they
are using the printed image as a final work of art.
But since I'm using a computer monitor for displaying
the digital camera image it is a compromise at best.
In short, use the digital tool as a tool and not as
a means to an end. My paintings are
the end product -- not the digital images.
You mention loading your own film. That is a good
option for those who know how. But I wonder how many
know how or want to bother. I find it tedious and
would much rather simply use the smaller rolls of
film as they are sold, with the fewest exposures per
roll locally available.
scottb
I know I jumped in sort of late in this particular thread, but you might want
to stop by the site below and check out a couple of things. First, Roger
Elliot is in the middle of a new series of lessons called, interestingly
enough, "Painting from Photographs". Also, we just published a new tutorial
on using your PC as a tool for composition (specifically, how to transfer
digital images to the canvas).
Not sure if this info is helpful, but worth a shot... :-)
Best regards,
Scott Burkett,
Editor, WetCanvas!
http://www.wetcanvas.com
sco...@wetcanvas.com