LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • Maternitus (edited 4 months ago)
    +5

    The entire process of painting this, I was thinking about a name. During that process I began to love to paint the little highlights with this painting as a result. IRL it has a glowing illusion, because I have been using the principles of contrast and complimentary sort of subtle. The painting is full of colours, but the saturation on the camera screws that up, so you miss a lot of playing.. Light seems to break out, same with the head. The glow was like a crown and then I thought "This catches the light really great. That's the name. Lightcatcher." :-)
    Edit: I am born and raised in the Netherlands and light in Dutch art, throughout history, had a special place. Maybe I inherited that? :-)

    • Appaloosa (edited 4 months ago)
      +7

      That's a great story Dutch masters are my favorite lightcathers. Do you think they used camera obscura for the perspectives?

      • Maternitus
        +5

        Not all of them, but Vermeer is a famous one who actually did that. I think camera obscura is a great way to improve the end results of the painting. But thing is, with just that tool you don't get there: it just helps (in my humble opinion) with composition, accuracy. For the rest it is up to the painter, which is not a calling by the way, but a craft. ;-)

        • Appaloosa
          +7

          Agree.. I think it's a great tool...and you need skill to use it, even assemble it for that matter. The results, between the realistic perspective and the color applications to represent light and shadow are fantastic...and to think they were making their own paint mediums as well! They weren't going down to the art supplies store to pick up a tube of Prussian blue!

          • Maternitus (edited 4 months ago)
            +6

            Yeah, that is very true. I wish I could go deeper into that pigment making, but that is for when I am using oil-paint instead of acrylics. Slowly I am turning away from aerosols in my little workshop. Partly for the environment and partly for my health. Even with a mask I can get blackouts and have dizziness throughout the job, which is bad. My solution is using airbrushes and a paintgun, which are way more efficient and do not use aerosols except compressed air. :-)

            Edit: this is sort of relevant.