What is so great about Rembrandt lighting?

[Michele Rushworth]

Light and shadow is what we have to work with--it's virtually the whole ball game.

Well put!

[Dean Lapinel]

The lighting is appeciated back then as it is now because it is natural to the eye and depending on the amount of ambient relected light on the shadow side, can be mysterious.

Most of my portraits use this form of lighting and about 25% of my studio photography shots use this approach.

I like hard light as often used by Rembrandt because the features develop more character and the eye fills in the rest.

[Pam Powell]

Tom, your explanation was superb! I taught beginning figure painting for years and always lit the model from one side to create light and shadow patterns. Why? Because if you got the values right, there was instantaneous form. Two values, light and shadow, would give the illusion of 3 dimensions. With all the other value changes ( core shadow, reflected light, middle tone, highlight, etc) added, a simplified structure becomes the complex rendering of a specific being appearing
3-dimensional.

The use of all-over ambient light makes it much harder to create the appearance of 3-dimensions, as it tends to flatten the form, so you have to be very subtle and diligent with the value changes. My examples here are William Merritt Chase (ambient light) and Zhaoming Wu (strong single light source).

[Pam Powell]

oopps, I forgot to attach the examples! Sorry.

[Steven Sweeney]

From Joe Singer

[Dean Lapinel]

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Dean Lapinel

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?