|
Thanks, Tim, for your input. I delivered the painting to the client (with a few small changes compared to what I first posted) over the weekend and she was delighted. However I am still most interested in the ideas you and Peter proposed regarding lighting, for my future works.
Sargent was indeed a master at lighting. I particularly like his few paintings which were lit by artificial sources.
In this painting I did of the two kids, the relative strengths of the two light sources made it a softer less dramatic painting than what I'd like to explore in the future. The kids were in a room near a very big window (the large, cool, and diffuse light source from the right). The lamp was much weaker in comparison (the smaller, warmer and more "specular" light source from behind them to the left). Changing the relative strengths of those light sources makes for some very interesting changes in mood.
Much as I love window light, I love drama in lighting even more. Eventually you'll all see a painting I'm working on that is lit only by the smallest, warmest light source possible: one candle.
I remember Marvin pointing out Eakins' comment that light is the big tool. It determines so much in the mood of a painting, the direction in which the viewer's eyes move through a piece, the sense of form, etc. Perhaps light is THE very biggest tool, the MOST important aspect in any painting.
|