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.