Just as I learn from studying painters and painting, perhaps word from a longtime black-and-white photographer will not be entirely out of place. In this domain, of course, we thing of nothing BUT values. A white shirt in shade may be darker than a black one in sunlight. In composing, matters of local contrast, tonal massing, and flow or jumpiness among “spots” and how these either contribute to or distract from the unity, must be considered. We learn quickly that complementary colors of the same value (assuming equal illumination) will appear as the same gray: The still life masterpiece of a red apple and its green leaves that we have just expectantly photographed becomes a flat, dull image. Additionally, we must be aware that, while the iris of our eyes constantly adjusts for maximum clarity, we have but one setting to use for a given image, and that in a scene such as the landscape you showed, the branches and trunk that appear to our eyes full of lively detail will be rendered as empty blacks if we expose for the sunlit parts of the scene (unless processing adjustments are made, allowing adequate exposure of the shadowed parts). This is to say that we must learn to think in terms of light, not objects. The dictum of Heraclitus comes to mind, that we know nothing but change-a remarkably prescient idea when we realize, from our sub-atomic knowledge today, that indeed, what we imagine to be solid objects are built of constant motion.
Hi Paul, I figure since we are on the subject of values I have a question about color theory. I would like a better understanding on the subject of complementary colors, successive contrast, and simultaneous contrast, what is really the difference? Also, What are you thoughts on The book by michel Eugeine Chevreul's book on color theory? The law of simultaneous color contrast I’m really struggling with this one. Please help
Thank you for your detailed explanation. I appreciate it. As a designer, to me the next logical step is arranging these values (and modifying elements) into a composition to benefit the desired outcome. Maybe you have more on this? Side note: check out the documentary, Finding Vivian Maier, for an amazing story.
Hi Paul, thank you for the videos! Here's a *Question* that keeps me up at night: What should we focus on: values or colors? I've heard so many times that value is more important than color - and I am confused about which is the better approach: Thinking about value first, or color? When you refer to 'color notes,' is it more important to determine the color, or should we be evaluating both the value and the color simultaneously? (since every color has a value) Additionally, is there a historical context for these two approaches, such as the differences between Impressionism and Tonalism? - Aiden
Valuable instruction.
Thank you
"Dis to dis and dat to dat" my favourite Ingbretson-ism
:)
Thank you, Mr. Ingbretson for a clear instruction on the importance of values in painting. Very helpful.
very welcome paulb.
Just as I learn from studying painters and painting, perhaps word from a longtime black-and-white photographer will not be entirely out of place. In this domain, of course, we thing of nothing BUT values. A white shirt in shade may be darker than a black one in sunlight. In composing, matters of local contrast, tonal massing, and flow or jumpiness among “spots” and how these either contribute to or distract from the unity, must be considered. We learn quickly that complementary colors of the same value (assuming equal illumination) will appear as the same gray: The still life masterpiece of a red apple and its green leaves that we have just expectantly photographed becomes a flat, dull image.
Additionally, we must be aware that, while the iris of our eyes constantly adjusts for maximum clarity, we have but one setting to use for a given image, and that in a scene such as the landscape you showed, the branches and trunk that appear to our eyes full of lively detail will be rendered as empty blacks if we expose for the sunlit parts of the scene (unless processing adjustments are made, allowing adequate exposure of the shadowed parts).
This is to say that we must learn to think in terms of light, not objects. The dictum of Heraclitus comes to mind, that we know nothing but change-a remarkably prescient idea when we realize, from our sub-atomic knowledge today, that indeed, what we imagine to be solid objects are built of constant motion.
That's stuff for a useful conversation, Philip, thanks.
Hi again Paul
Enjoyed this one and as usual very helpful thanks again for your time.
Sheila
:)
Thank you, Paul. Very useful information.
Very welcome
Thanks for the lessons Sir. Cheers from Brazil
Welcome...hope things a well with our Southern neighbors
Hi Paul, I figure since we are on the subject of values I have a question about color theory. I would like a better understanding on the subject of complementary colors, successive contrast, and simultaneous contrast, what is really the difference? Also,
What are you thoughts on The book by michel Eugeine Chevreul's book on color theory? The law of simultaneous color contrast I’m really struggling with this one. Please help
Don't use those terms but will try to review Chevreul and get back to you. Email me if you want to elaborate in print
Thank you for your detailed explanation. I appreciate it. As a designer, to me the next logical step is arranging these values (and modifying elements) into a composition to benefit the desired outcome. Maybe you have more on this?
Side note: check out the documentary, Finding Vivian Maier, for an amazing story.
Mind clarifying your point for discussion in an email to me? ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com. might be a good video. i will look up maier, thanks.
Hi Paul, thank you for the videos!
Here's a *Question* that keeps me up at night:
What should we focus on: values or colors? I've heard so many times that value is more important than color - and I am confused about which is the better approach: Thinking about value first, or color?
When you refer to 'color notes,' is it more important to determine the color, or should we be evaluating both the value and the color simultaneously? (since every color has a value)
Additionally, is there a historical context for these two approaches, such as the differences between Impressionism and Tonalism?
- Aiden
may be a video there. A conditioned response is called for.
Feels like Im watching Monet 😻
:)
Value talk . thank you
Welcome, Sie.
Thank you sir! Very useful content
Very welcome n glad