Painted View: NAPPAP Log Entry - Digital Photography

Painted View: NAPPAP Log Entry - Digital Photography

NAPPAP Discussions - Large Format Painting

NEW COMMENT: I recently
read a write up by a fellow artist redefining plein air painting, emphasizing
the quick sketch technique that "historical Painters used" This reminded me of
the previous discussions we've had about this issue here on NAPPAPmail
and so this in turn was one of the issues which I wanted to put on our
Painted View Log... We will not only have our regular PR announcements here but
also will be gradually adding our disscussion archives. This being one of the
first to be added.
On this particular subject I have a differing point of
view in that there are many historical artists who used the outdoor studio on
large format works which is one of things that got me into doing this type of
technique. One of the things which I believe we do as a membership here in
NAPPAP is point out other lines of thinking, reinstitute old ideas in fact the
NAPPAP (for those who are new to this group) was founding on
the original model laid out in the creation of the impressionist group in the
1800. With our shows and our group shows we can develop the range of
possibilities in this field. Here is an old discussion on the topic of large
format work by this group.
------------------------------------------Starting
in February 2000:
I have a question for my fellow plein airists here.
Hopefully a question for some HONEST discussion. I see a number of plein air
paintings in popular current issues of art magazines, labeled as plein airs. I
think we all know that plein air has become a vogue and current marketing
interest. These paintings I'm referring to are 36"x 40" in size, for
example....and I'm thinking, "oh c'mon....the artist dragged these potential
hang gliders and put them on their French easels with no consequences out into
thedeserts or mountains to paint on?


In all seriousness....I would imagine their habit like many plein
airists would be to paint small....perhaps no larger than about 11" x 14"...take
a few photographs, then paint a large "in-studio" piece from the
references.


So..then, my question is...how many here might have that same practice,
and do you then refer to these large canvases as "plein air?"
It was the
original purpose of making plein airs by many artists to get an actual feel of
natural light upon a scene and then use the "sketch" made for reference to make
a larger in-studio painting. We learned that the camera could not be
trusted.


Such has often been my practice. I never felt comfortable calling a
painting produced in the studio a "plein air" unless of course it were a
stilllife. If for the sake of marketing we call such larger in-studio reworks
"plein airs"....I'd like to hear some justifications or thoughts that might
stretch my understanding of it. I'm not looking for a fight....just trying to
sort this through with some sense of integrity.Thanks....
Larry
Seiler
--------------------------------------------------
Subject:
DefinitionsDate: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 06:37:41 -0500From: Deborah Chapin Reply-To:
"Professional Plein Air Painters" Organization: Chapin's Studio Site of Plein
Air PaintingTo: "Professional Plein Air Painters" HI
I disagree with some of
the extremes I see touted as a definitions here. I personally think if the
painting is mainly executed on site it is plein air if it is mainly executed in
the studio it is studio work. You'll never convince me that if I tread 2.5 miles
with a back pack of 40 lbs and come up with a marine 2 hours later and then hike
back up the cliff and I tweak it for 20 minutes back in the studio that makes it
is a studio piece? The point here it seems to me is to be honest but not absurd
in our thinking.
Also, it occurs to me that those who started this idea that
plein air work is mainly sketch work have done our profession a disservice. Go
back and read and see some exhibitions guys. If you don't go a full 9 yards with
the work fine, that is your choice, but don't change the definitions of plein
air work just because that is your idea of plein air painting. Lets just agree
to disagree alittle, and stay within the basic concept of the original
definition that plein air painting is painting "sur le motif" on site and then
be honest within our conscience of what we are doing.


Also, I question that any one particular group of painters was any
better as a group than others. Individual artists might be better than others,
but groups all have their weak painters and strong painters which evens them
out. I personally believe, that there are some outstanding French painters from
the last century, one of my favorite pieces is a Courbet, and his beach scenes
are fabulous and impressive in person. Sorolla is my favorite over all painter,
his portrait work puts most "Portait" artists to shame, Winslow Homer is a
favorite American "marine" artist, and I think among my favorite CA artist is
Jack Wilkinson Smith or Maurice Braun, so far.
Going back to Glen's original
message, on the 17th, I want to ask Glen, (forgetting color for the moment) is
it your conclusion that there were more smaller works being done now, or was
there still a mix among the contemporary artists in painting sizes being sold?
2nd how do you think this will affect the market place over the long haul, for
plein air work? Do you think that the public will start relagating us to just
the small work "buy" category at cheaper prices? Consider our work light weight
comparitive to the studio
works?
Debbie
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
RE: Question on making "LARGE" plein airs??Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:34:44
-0500From: David Johnson Reply-To: "Professional Plein Air Painters" To:
"Professional Plein Air Painters" There are three issues here. Is it possible to
do large outdoor paintings. Integrity of methods and labels. And, how do you
identify true plein airs. First it certainly is possible. I've seen it done, and
the many references in other letters confirm it. As to integrity in labelling. I
solve it by identifying them as "plein air" done outdoors, "plein air plus
studio" begun outdoors with finishing touchs in the studio, and "studio" done
inside usually from outside sketches and photo references. I find that those who
like the paintings don't much care how they're done. Those who do are galleries
and other artists. I think the original tradition of plein air painting was to
do sketches on site to be used for studio works. Plein air has evolved into a
purest idea of painting on site only. I personally feel I work better from life,
and therefore prefer on site work. Returning to a site several times to complete
if necessary. I do feel you can tell the difference by the coloration and
tonality of a work. However, some artists do not try to capture the light of a
scene, but use the site as a starting point for their personal vision. In these
instances, the color issue is mute, isn't it. Those are my thoughts, which I
doubt differ much from anyone elses.

....................
LarryJust
back from three glorious days in Yosemite and saw your question. A strait
forward question with very complex multi-faceted answers.
Sorolla is a great
place to start. When visiting his studio in Madrid I saw a show of 40-50 30x40"
sketches he did on one trip to Valencia! He must have layed out a tremendous
amount of paint because he used a big 2 inch brush and they looked like he
executed them in 30 min. Some of those type are illustrated in the big book on
him, if you want I can look up the pages and Ill.s#s for you. There is also a
photograph of him painting a huge painting on the beach...no mention of how many
sessions.
Another artist who consistently painted large on -location was Emil
Kosa Jr. His standard was 24x36 and ranged up to 35x45. One session paintings by
the way. When you really tune into what he was doing they are incredible. There
is a excellent book on him by Hillcrest Press...I can give you the ISBN# if you
like.
There is a interesting story in the Lucy Kemp Welsh book about her
painting a huge painting on location ...again I can send you the ISBN.


Turning to the early Calif. Plein Air movement. No matter how big the
painting they are all called plein air these days. I think most of the Guy Roses
up to 24x30 were done on location. I think the same for William Wendt up to
30x36. I think many of the Edgar Payne oil paintings were done in the studio as
he painted more often on location with Gouache.. As for my practice I used
to do up to 30x36 over four sessions on location. I also did a series of 24x36
in one session following Kosa's lead<
My average lately is 16x20 to 20x24
as my galleries like more finished work. For my first ten years as a artistI did
not use a photograph once. These days I will use one once a year or so. I take
photos all the time I just never use them. I actually streniously avoid their
use. I was asked to produce some large paintings for a show at George Stern's
last year on ashort seven week deadline. I used watercolors I had completed on
location for my preliminary guides and painted large oils 30x40 and 50x60. When
people asked about them I described them as such and there seemed to be no
problem.


One of the great heartbreaks to me is seeing paintings clearly done
exclusively from photos selling for 3, 5, even 10 times as much as other
wonderful plein-air work of the same size. To my very prejudiced mind the on
location work is usually superior. One's impression then is that the buying
public does not care one way or the other. The more realistic it is the more
valuable it must be! Of course there are
exceptions!Glen
--------------------------------------------------------
It
would be great to get discussions going again although it seems just about all
one can say about defining Plein Air has been said below. As far as large pieces
outside or anything else the more you do the better you get at it . Now if we
want a real challenge and sense of accomplishment lets start painting full
figures, animals and seashore all outside on large canvases as Sorolla or
Sargent! I know not everyone is into figures and if you haven't had that
training its pretty hard to do and their training is getting even harder to
find. For the most part I just enjoy making pictures and tend to not get to
worked up over the "purity" of something. I find it more upsetting of people
imitating others styles, composition, and ideas in a very obvious fashion. I
think we are all guilty of all of that from some degree or another, but it just
seems that there is more of it. It is true in everything, music, books, etc. and
for lack of better reasons, maybe the instant gratification which are culture
seems to encourage. Well, I am getting on in the years and I guess this is how
one gets in spite of trying to be more graceful. Ned
Mueller

--------------------------------------------

NAPPAP Log Entry - Digital Photography

I ran across this pdf document thoroughly describing the technical aspects of digital photography and color reproduction. This is pretty technical but a great insight into how those little things with the 'pushbutton' work.FYI

http://www.rmimaging.com/information/color_accurate_photography.pdfMarc R. Hanson

Thanks Marc I'll add that to our help desk link on our website along with the one we have already http://nappap.org . Also we have a file that Mark Anderson loaded up to our Yahoo site at as well so I'll add this one there as well Thanks

-------------------------------------------


Re: Calibrating your monitor


Bob, good to hear from you, you can see how to calibrate your monitor
here: it should help.

http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/digitalphotography/gopro/organize/calibrate.asp


Best
Debbie

---------------------------------------


Digital Photography - Equipment notes

Hi guys -

I've been noticing increasing interest by artists in using digital photos, and I may have some info to offer.....

I've been using digital since it became available and affordable for consumers, and I have used it successfully in my articles for American Artist magazine. First, it is true that one should buy the highest resolution camera one can afford, but that is not a rule. Because the light must first pass through the lens before it strikes the CCD or CMOS chip, I would rather afford a camera with a superior glass lens and a lower resolution - megapixels - than more resolution but mediocre optics. Sony offers a superb line of digital cameras for the consumer that employ Zeiss optics, thus guaranteeing superior sharpness and resolution before the image is digitized. One can purchase a Sony Cybershot DSC F717( 5MGP, 2560x1920 ) from B+H Photo in NYC for $700, - a very affordable pro-quality tool. Or, one can step up to the SLR variety, which start at 5MPG and go up from there, and look like and feature all the controls of an analog SLR. These are typically sold without lenses, and represent a sizeable investment in equipment when one adds the lens. But, at 5 or 6 MPG, one will not have to fear the need to upgrade every couple of years - these cameras will deliver images that are nearly indistinguishable from 35mm quality images. Because I already own a Nikon SLR, I am saving for either the Fuji FinePix S2 Pro, 6.12 MPG, $1995, which accepts all Nikon automatic lenses, or the Nikon D100, 6.1MPG, $1499, also from B+H.

About reproduction and creating photo archives: One should always shoot one's master images in either RAW or TIFF file format, whichever your camera will support. These are the largest and most detailed images digital cameras can record. I used to think that there was not much difference between Super Fine and TIFF on my early Nikons, but as the resolution has grown, so has this critical distinction. I know a professional photographer who works only in digital now, and he takes the further steps of making 3 bracketed exposures of each image ( on a tripod, of course ), and then layering them one atop the other in Photoshop, dodging and burning as necessary to create incredibly detailed, deep images, that are indistinguishable from large format view camera prints. His Canon shoots 11MPG.

For magazine reproduction, I start with a TIFF or RAW file in Photoshop, make my corrections, then only resize once I am satisfied that the image is perfect. I size the images down to 3x4" at 300 d.p.i., and e-mail them to the publisher. No kidding - email. Since the reproduction quality of the typical magazine is 150 d.p.i., my images are twice as good as they will finally print, so the printed image quality is very good.

The other advantage to digital cameras is a big one. The sensitivity of the CCD or the newer CMOS chips is much greater than the average film, speed for speed( ASA ). I can shoot in poor lighting conditions that would severely challenge film, if not be impossible, with my digital camera and get amazing results - tough conditions like candlelight, or into the sun. This aspect alone has encouraged me to continue to invest in new equipment over the years. Now that 6 and 11 MPG cameras are within reach, I'm using less and less film, and the cost savings essentially pays for my digital equipment.

Hope this helps.

Best,

John Hulsey


---------------------------------

Making a CD digital photos to send your work.

I've been compiling some photos (digital) recently and have noticed
that there seems to be some gap in understanding digital photos being
used in advertising vs those being used on the web.

I thought I'd give a brief run down of what I know so that everyone
on the NAPPAP list can get up to speed on this.

First, in order to have an ad made from a digital photo that you
either scan in or digital camera, you need to scan in or take the
photo with a resolution of 300dpi (dots per inch) Mac users use a
different lingo but it is the same principal and the media I've dealt
with use the term dpi.

If you have a good scan or digital photo at 300 dpi you still need to
consider the OUTPUT size. You can generally tell this by looking at
the photo properties. If you have 2093 x 1428 pixels at 300dpi your
output is discover by dividing 2093/300dpi and 1428/300dpi roughly
6.9" x 4.76" photo. So if your ad layout is a 1/2 page layout and
you have an 8x10 full page your output size would have to fit into a
page size of 8x5 horizontal or 4x10 vertical ad space.
If you are doing a small 1/6th page ad like I was doing for Am Art of
course your photo will be smaller. I also had to convert my photos from bmp to
CMYK format (simply another format than bmp or jpg) and save the CMYK
photos into a tif file. You can do this through your photo program
and photo program differs so this is something you'll have to learn
though the help menu attached to your computer. This gives the
printer the highest quality resolution and best color production
provided they are truely 300 dpi photos.

Ok once you have the 300 dpi and the output size and converted it to
CMYK you need to consider how are you going to convey it to your
advertiser. If you have a CD writer on your computer you can create
a folder with your name on it and drop a copy of your photo into it.
Simple as long as your equipment works. For smaller files you can
send by email and I think that anything larger than 500mb will be blocked.

Bottom line, it is really an easy process although writing it out
seems complicated it is only a 3 or 4 step process and it saves you
alot of money not having the advertiser do the process for you.
Also, you have control how the image looks. With digital it comes
out exactly which is sometimes a real time saver since the sensibilities
of a printer are often way off when it comes to color.

Hope this helps, Print it out and keep a copy for the next time you
have to go through this process.

Thanks
Debbie


---------------------------------------