I had a version of this as a kid, that was advertised in comic books. Of course the comic book ad illustration was greatly exaggerated, making it look (to a kid) like it was projecting the image into the page, the way a movie projector today might do. So of course it was a disappointment at first -- but years later, I realized in fact it is a pretty cool and potentially useful device that actually worked.
I remember Jazza messing around with what amounts to an "art toy" version of one of these devices and having that expectation, but he got the hang of it pretty good in a later follow-up after people said he was doing it wrong. He's kind of a pop youtuber, so if you follow enough art videos you're bound to run into him.
@@johnsavard7583 That looks like it! It was not plastic, by the way, as we might expect from a cheap item, but metal. The comic book ad that comes up in a Google search is not one I specifcally remember, but that image might well have caught my eye at that age!
I think it was called a pantagraph/gram. or something very similar. A similar word is used for the mechanism that connects a trolley bus to the overhead live wires in the street. It was only in American comics, though. Otherwise I would have asked for one for Christmas, and a bag of sea monkeys too. 😀
So long as you focus in. Like the video said, the image is going to be squashed or elongated as you move from the central focal point, dependent on the angle the camera lucida is oriented at. You would need very special lenses milled for use at specific angles to avoid this.
Well you're wrong. Using a prism distorts the proportions due to the angles involved. You would need a complex lens in line with the prism to focus the image in a way to remove the distortion.
There's a (huge) book by David Hockney about its use (and similar optical devices). He contends (persuasively to me) that many famous artists used such tools going back several hundred years (much older than the device in this video)
na primeira aula de fotografia da faculdade eu aprendi sobre, a professora fez uma relação entre uma montagem fotografica e a forma que os pintores renascentistas pintavam paisagens utilizando "câmaras escuras", eram mais complexas q esse equipamento, mas segue o mesmo principio
I purchased the NEOLUCIDA through the Kickstarter campaign back in September of 2014. Haven't used it recently but I keep it safely tucked away with the pouch and original box. I'll have to dig it out and freshen my skills with it. I am no great artist but I did take oil painting lessons from the woman who lived upstairs from us. Along the same lines, I saved my allowance when I was a kid to buy a wooden pantograph made just for tracing images at different scales. It was probably around $3.00 and my allowance was 25¢ a week. I used it to trace photographs of different things including photos of my family. Sixty odd years later I still have that pantograph. Don't know how I managed to keep it these many years but I'm glad I did.
I bought one too. But I never used it much. Like those exercise props which being foldable is the best quality, so you can store them easily. I think you can't buy talent.
camera lucidas are also very effective when only used partially - sketch a shape and shade then fill in your own color ideas, try hatching and cross hatching, try improvising certain parts using outside realism skills, etc. there are so many opportunities!
Using this device CERTAINLY does NOT take away the "art" of..art. It's a tool. (and a damn cool one at that). You STILL need talent and skill to draw even when using it. Does ANYONE think architects are NOT artists if the use a scale or compass? It's gear. I have several Nikon DSLR bodies and lenses. THIS ALONE does not make me a "photographer".
Art is the human expression of skill and imagination. Whatever tools needed go fulfill that goal are fine. As soon as you take the human element out I no longer consider it art, but this is not removing the artist from the process.
No kidding. This device won't give you a steady hand. It won't make you perfectly follow a curve. It won't teach you color theory. It won't teach you how to represent different materials in whatever your chosen medium. It doesn't make you an artist purely through use.
It does eliminate the practice of "seeing" a scene, reproducing it in your mind, and then drawing out that image from your mind onto paper. This is certainly one of the fundamental practices of art. The artist using a camera lucida is "drawing blind"/tracing. It may still be art, but it is less so. FWIW, you could also take a photo and project it onto paper or just display on a tablet that comes with a stylus -- and trace it. The reduction in the human element in all of these is undeniable.
People often misunderstand that a tool like this is still just a tool and that it will not make everyone have the same abilities. Back when doing graphic design before the aid of computers, people used a projector attached to a wall that would raise up and down to give a huge range of size reproduction. Good,skilled, AND talented artists could do wondrous things with this tool, while others who relied only on the tool did work of much less quality and skill. Being an artist, it is good to understand that using a tool is a skill in itself.
I'd compare it to a musical instrument. It's also a tool, and one that would certainly "aid" the musician in their craft - giving its player easily visible and reachable notes that (for many instruments, most notably excluding the family of fiddles) automatically play in tune, as long as the instrument is serviced. That doesn't make a musician any less talented than an opera singer, for instance.
I am the most pure form of the "artist". I use zero tools and resources, and I create using my mind and my mind alone with zero training. I have created marvelous works such as, "incomplete mess", "not what I wanted", "total disappointment", and "literally does not exist" using the techniques generated in my mind. It is almost as if art is as much about communal creation, communication, and transformation of existing works as it is about "creating from nothing". It's ALMOST as if "creating from nothing" is a myth.
In the middle ages artists used a version of a pinhole camera. The subject would sit outside in bright sunlight and the artist inside in virtual darkness with a tiny hole projecting the image onto canvass. This was demonstrated very well in "The Tudor Monastery Farm" TV series.
Many years ago, I volunteered at a haunted house. One of the rooms was built inside an old semi trailer. As an effect, I placed colored lights outside, pointed at 1/4” holes I had drilled into a wall. Theatrical fog made virtual laser beams inside. During the day, multiple, crystal clear images of the outdoors were projected inside. If the camera obscura hadn’t already existed, I would have discovered it then, as the effect was startling and the potential uses were just as clear. But, my university already had an updated device, which with the addition of a lens, was essentially an opaque projector, with an easel.
@@CineSoar If you are ever in Los Angeles, Griffith Observatory has an awesome camera obscura that projects the image via a mirror down onto a big white round table in a dark room. The mirror slowly rotates, giving you a panoramic view of the city below the hill.
I'm throughly impressed by the amount of negative feedback this comment received. It fascinates me that there are so many artists who struggle this hard, as to become butthurt other the availablity of tools which would have improved their artistry, broadened their perspective and slashed their learning curve. Things they didn't have, didn't do or simply didn't care enough about to explore and reap benefits of. Hands-on enhancement tools make artists learn quicker with a very few exceptions: notably the fundamentals of the primary utensils, the brush and the pencil, straight lines and proportions. All graphical arts people worth their salt will tell you to just draw. Who or what you draw, and why, matter nothing in comparison to the difference between actually putting down color on a blank paper and not. Tracing, no matter how silly, will teach you valuable skills about attention to detail, stroke response, fine motor skills, appreciation and taste in styles. Our minds are inspired by the world we live in. Make it your own. Successfully eternalising impressions from one's natural environment by sheer effort is guaranteed to motivate even the most pessimitic of students.
1:39 - I love this perspective. I think non-artists and new artists seem to only see the 'magic' (or the results) of the work; perhaps it's more fun to think about someone having this innate talent or quality to produce beautiful things, instead of the lifetime of commitment to the medium. IMO the artist should use most anything (ON TOP of the lifetime of commitment), to actualize the images in their minds. Regardless of the tool, it's the artist that brought life to it. ☺
You see this a LOT with the "CGI BAD! PRACTICAL GOOD!" clowns. A good artist knows which tool is right for the job. They don't exclude themselves from using particular tools because this will somehow make the work more "pure".
@@fireaza Also, no one criticizes good CGI because they can't tell it's "CGI" to begin with 😅 Not to be too black & white, but it seems like it's a lot of naysayers who like to sit on concepts/beliefs vs. artists who make, create (and move on!) using whatever that brings life to their work.
Yeah, but it's not as functional as the Camera Lucida app! Well, I'm biased. Dave, if you want to do a comparison, I'll send you my NeoLucida or something!
Thanks for this. I knew about the use of the Camera Lucida technique for drawing scientific specimens for taxonomy purposes, but that uses a dissecting microscope. This doesn’t work with architectural sketches, so I couldn’t figure that out. There was a huge jump in the accuracy of landscape and architecture depiction in the 19th century. I knew about the grid system, like van Gough used, I also knew that once photography was created, a light table could be used but one was too crude and the other too late. I work with kids and have had discussions about drawing because it can be really disheartening to them to compare their work with professionals. It is good to know about the tools that professionals use. As I point out, using tools isn’t cheating if everyone knows. Also, as with van Gough, those tools can be used to train our brain to draw better free-hand.
What is being overlooked here, including comments that suggest tracing a photograph as an alternative, is that making a good drawing requires skills that tracing cannot replace. Tracing may let you get the general shapes, proportions, composition and perspective right, but the result is still going to look pretty bad if you don't have good drawing technique, and an understanding of how to capture the feel as well as the look of the subject and scene. This is especially true of drawing faces.
Really interesting. However in that interview the guy mentions that the proportions in that sketch were slightly off, so I'm not entirely sold on whether this would work or help to improve on perspectives and proportions. Also I've made these same types of mistakes numerous times but it was because of my posture and the angle from which I'm seated at while drawing. If you hunch over you are focused but it'll hurt like he'll when you get back up, but if you sit back straight, your drawing will be slanted since the paper is laid flat before you rather than on a raised surface like a draftsman table or Professional animators desk.
It's the same with picture, the lens changes the proportion of what you really see. It's much more visible with wide angle lenses and when you have objects in different planes (foreground and background)
I wondered if the woman being sketched might have moved slightly during the rendition. I'm sure it takes time to trace such a detailed image. That would likely affect the proportions.
Most of all I hope that they can manage to optically improve on the old design, which should be a given but too much in modern day quality looses against price, for a good optical glass piece I would spend a right amount instead I wouldn't even consider a plastic thing
OMG, I love what you and the interviewee in the video say: An artist uses the tools available at the time. I am an exclusively digital artist and I always sense the devaluing of what I do, simply because I use a digital pad to pass my stylus over in my painting. Like somehow the computer is doing all the work. My response is always to ask them what a classical artist would have done if they had access to digital technologies. I can't help but think that they would have been elated to use something that expanded their abilities. Thanks for the great video. I may have to try one of these for my plein air sketching!
It would be the same as criticising an artist for not grinding lapis lazuli to make pigment and skinning their own egg yolks for tempura paint. Imagine Leonardo da Vinci having access to a 3D solid body modelling CAD system, or Blender - would he refuse to use them?? Of course not. They are tools that remove the drudgery of creativity.
They wouldnt use graphic tablets beacouse they are not real matter. You are drawing jpgs, paint is a thing that you can own and touch, thats also why paintings survive the time, a png or whatever gets lost in a folder and even if not and you make prints you are making exact and unlimited copies, a painting is always unique. Don't worry, I had the same problem when I started with digital, now I do use it to sketch some times but just from time to time. Read, study and practice and if it is just for fun at least you know what you are doing and what to expect.
Hockney made an entire series of iPad paintings, but he still makes oil paintings as well, because he sees the value of them that makes them superior to digital paintings. After watching them being exposed, I have to agree. The comparison was very interesting though, and I can see merit in both of them. It would be very interesting to see the digital paintings being translated to physical paintings by a 3D-printer of some sorts.
@@Daniel_SoutoQ Digital art needn't be lost. It is, though, as you say, impossible to limit to only one copy and, as such, I can understand why it ultimately carries less value than an original painting. But it has nothing to do with digital art being trivial or requiring less skill. It's just the nature of the media. I did traditional art previously and picked up digital later. I really enjoy that you can create any brush, brush effect, or paint effect that you want. It's a learning curve to get fast at such modifications, but you can play with it without committing to new paints, physical brushes, or substrates. No mess and it doesn't require much space. As far as storage, I created my own database file server for that, although there are commercial products available too. And someday when I'm gone, my art will live on in the online galleries I've posted it to.
I'm an artist and I use projectors and tracing boards all the time. The goal is to make a beautiful photo drawing. I'm not being tested with each work I do. People don't care how it's made. They just want a beautiful art piece. Every single artist I know uses a projector. And all the tiktoks where people seem to be freehanding...look close. You'll see the think light pencil lines from them projecting or tracing the image first.
You used a pencil to draw that picture, pfft. Draw me a picture without tools like pencils or pens or brushes, that will be pure art and really show your skills.
Amazed that Ive been drawing for 30 years and dont remember ever hearing of this. At first it seems like cheating but if you think it is, you can try an easy test. Tear out a page from a magazine containing a figure and tape it to a glass window with sun shining behind it. Now tape a page of copy machine paper to that and start drawing. I bet it will look pretty much like crap even though you had the means to perfectly trace. Tools like the lucida are extremely helpful to get proportion, size, perspective quickly but its not art yet, thats all inside you and how you interpret it. Im not sure but my thinking is that if you already draw completely freehand, this might screw you up and be very hard to get used to but id love to try it.
I was going to say that your drawing skills weren't poor. Seems like you just didn't work at it enough. But the samples you provided were actually pretty good.
There’s a documentary about Vermeer using optical instruments to make his photorealistic paintings, it’s called Tim’s Vermeer, worth checking out for sure.
I’ve had a Lucy stored safely in its shipping box since December of 2019, untouched. I just dusted it off and I’m excited to get over my fears of jumping into drawing again, after so many years. Thanks for this video!
There is a giant, table (or room) sized camera lucida known as the “camera obscura” in Edinburgh, built in 1835. A purpose-built tower on the sixth floor houses the lens. It projects a living view of Edinburgh city centre in a big circle. You can still go and see it today.
I’ve been there. There’s tons of camera obscurae of that size all over the world. But you don’t need a room size to get the effect. A big one like that just lets you see the city. You can have one in your bedroom with just a slit in the curtains with the sun just at the right angle. Back in the day, they just had tents with tiny holes in them.
Artists either "Trace" ( like this ) or " Construct" who's results obviously depend on visual memory from years of practice and study . Personally I have found that once one masters a subject and it's construction, the freedom and satisfaction of results are amazing...but of course, expediency usually pays the bills.
it's not just about expediency. It's about what skill you are mastering. A photographer masters a different skill than a painter. in the end if practically fully mastered, neither is more skillful than the other, because their skills are different. This is just a tool that puts you in between a photographer and a painter.
@@DrTheRich There is no comparison in effort between someone that trains for years to be a good painter and someone that takes a good picture, sorry. I don't subscribe to the modern standard that all can be called art especially when minimal effort and sacrifice is needed to produce it. This is the kind of thinking that induces the bland mediocrity of today....AI created art for example is not art IMO, it is actually another nail in the coffin of the true artist. Of all the muses human kind is naturally gifted to create , their art, their music, their poetry give them life...The moment these are completely in-organically created, is the moment life will mean nothing for us...because generating "art" will be as effortless as taking a dump. This of course is just MHO.
1. My position on drawing is that there are two places to put down your line: the right place, and the wrong place. When working realistically, this camera lucida is another tool for "finding" the right place. Except for the hyper-trained, trying to draw the right line free hand/by eye is generally a practice of trial and error. Some might prefer to draw the right line immediately, skipping the preliminary approximations, at one go. Like me. 2. My position on cheating is always cheat. Always. Make the best possible drawing you can. 3. Personally, when drawing larger than 8x10", in a realistic vein, I use the grid system to transfer and enlarge a photo shot specifically with the intent of making a drawing from it. When smaller, I print the photo on copy paper at the final size and transfer full size via carbon paper. 4. However, I rarely work in a realistic vein anymore, as I have developed grave aesthetic issues about the point of creating a drawing or painting that is effectively nothing more than a rendered photo. If I want a photo-like image, I try my best to be satisfied with an actual photo. But I reserve the right to "correct" the photo by drawing it.
I feel the same way. I like the idea of realism but creating something from the imagination is more interesting. I've always likened it to bullshitting my way into making art.
we had these in Botany Departments when i worked as a botanical illustrator in the 1980's. Made the job of drawing sometimes very small samples brought in from the field, very easy to draw. But the ones wee had were large and clunky compared to the neat small original one shown here. Thanks for uploading!
Ohhh reminds me when i got started into drawing was (tracing paper). Then i used basically this similar thing but a cheaper version (Mirror Optical Drawing Board). Then i finally got off that, since i kept losing my viewing angle and things were definitely off. Overall, it helped very much to get my practice in!
It would work astonishingly well if you could use it for distorted angles (ie. one drawing, but with gradually changing perspectives, like with a fisheye lens or mirrors), if you could connect the images together. Would look utterly surreal.
We learned about these in art class (50 years ago for me) and I've always wanted to check one out, very cool device and thank you for making this video, well done and cheers from Canada! I have a feeling that using this device regularly as well as drawing without it would help improve you free-hand drawing, so students would benefit from it, even if its just learning to steady your hand and build muscle memory.
Here’s an idea for a novel way to draw… Take a photo. Reverse it to be a negative. Print it in the size you want. Lay a blank piece on top of it. If you have a light source underneath you can use a soft pencil and gently make the whole picture the same shade of grey. In other words, you push slightly harder on the pencil over light areas and less over dark areas.
Just tried this-- I tested it on that meme picture of the terrible craft clay pikachu with the thousand yard stare and bloodshot eyes, since it had a lot of complex shading. It worked 100% flawlessly and I was able to make an exact copy in 5 minutes.
maybe because they have put enough skill points into the minds eye perk and the accompanying mental projection perk. extra skill points into memory holding also helps. basically, they replicate the same thing the device does simply by looking at the subject and then the paper.
I wish i had known about this as a teen. I was desperate to improve at drawing but failed because my output never improved beyond a third grader’s level no matter how long i practiced. I gave up after ten years of trying classes, techniques and all kinds of things. If I had the chance to produce something that at least had proportions right, it would have inspired me to continue. Im buying one for my oldest daughter, who has talent way beyond what i had. She deserves more opportunity! Thank you!!!
Big same. I really loved art but struggled with the process and the results, eventually giving up when i left school at 16. It didn't help that I was being told to focus on realism when cartoons and animation were what i preferred. Sucked all joy out of drawing things I love when being told what I loved drawing wasn't 'real' art. But I digress... As someone middle aged just getting back into drawing for the first time in over 20 years, I offer you this small bit of encouragement; if you EVER wanna try anything again, i recommend buying a cheap wacom tablet on ebay (they're like $20) and trying a free trial of a program like Clip Studio Paint. Digital art has really blown me away and sparked my interest again. Being able to place a photo down on a layer, and then trace of the photo in much the same manner as this camera, has helped so much with training my hands and brain, and give fun results too. There's no shame in something like tracing while practicing, imo, it's been a really encouraging process for me.
What a beautifully done video! I love all the information, i love the personal trial. When i was a kid I had a kids art projector, where it came with various slide reels of different themed images (basic clear plastic with black outlines of animals, flowers, etc) so you could put it in, turn on the light and it would put the shadow on the surface. I took it to school and charged kids a quarter each for gel pen tattoos.
What an incredible struck of luck to stumble over this video, im a hobby watchrepairer and i have a little vice that looks exactly like the vice on this tool, i have wondered why there are Sawmarks on my “vice” now i know, it belonged to a larger device and a watchmaker for some reason once sawed it off, to be reused in his shop 😃👍🏻
This is another practical way to learn how to control the pencil than say tracing or using grids. All three have their plusses, but being able to see the example as though on the surface you are working on is a big one.
I have one of these, its clumsy, and if you move or have an unstable base, it totally blown, as the alignment is almost impossible to realign. Move your head out of the specific distance to the prism, or take any break just to stretch or relieve the crick in your neck from sitting still for so long, and the drawing is pretty much done. The field of view is also relevant to the picture, the further out of the small prism zone you try to look, the more distortion there is. The different lenses help to a point, but they also have their own distortions.
ANDY WARHOL - Used a similar projection technique to make his Soup Cans and all other paintings. I don't think Andy could draw. He was just good at publicizing his work.
I do drawings using a camera lucida app on my iPad. You can get crazy detailed using it. I try to use it for outlines sometimes and fill in the rest freehand.
As a grouch, I am tossed betwixt the use of such devices. I have always had a love/hate relationship with tracing --- love that I got such good results in it, and hate that I was copying someone else's work. But, even using such to draw a landscape, I felt I needed to program my inner eye to do it all. I've seen at least one film that had an artist draw the manor, and of course they used some sort of prop to help keep scale and situation in focus. I've tried those things. In senior-high I was further taught to use them, but fought it.... even so far as to deny the use of my implement as a ruler! However, getting plants and zoology correct 'back in the day', if that's what they needed to succeed with, then I am all for it. If only I'd have that kind of leniency with myself. Thanks for the upload. I enjoyed it.
I'm surprised this isn't a more well known tool. It seems like a great learning/teaching device for beginners, and probably useful for more skilled artists at taking quick sketches.
A camera lucida is a great tool that allows the user to more easily and accurately draw the real world. It still takes real skill to use it to create very good artwork. The modernized version you showed most likely wouldn't work as well simply because it most likely would be much easier to accidentally move the camera lucida lens slightly. If it gets moved at all it will change the relationship between what you drew previously and what you draw after that point. If you wish to document the work on an analog medium today a camera lucida is still a very good option.
Thank you enlightening me with the vid on Camera Lucida and the NeoLucida !🤓 As a child, I loved to draw. I remember a drawing tool made of lite plastic, that looked like a lattice, and you placed a drawing pencil on your side and the other end on the picture you wanted to copy, as you outline the picture you actually were drawing a copy on your side. This drawing thing came in a breakfast cereal box as a gift for kids. We luved it, it helped increase our drawing ability when we did free hand drawing !! 😃
I feel like I've been lied to my entire life. I always assumed that naturalists of every stripe were talented and skilled artists, hands down; it had never occurred to me that they might have a technology that helped with the images.
Um..Artists use tools. Always have, Always will. I can't draw. Even IF I had this device, The drawing, shading, ETC still requires SKILL and TALENT. You can prove this yourself with a pencil and tracing paper.
@@jamesslick4790 honestly yeah , even just by using brushes and modern paint and pencils artists always use more advanced tools than cavemen that painted their hands in ocra and splattered them on cave walls , and even those cavemen used ocra ... so yeah saying this is cheating is wrong also this is infinatly cheaper and imo a lot more fun than a camera a printer and photoshop , it also trains your skill and makes you into a better painter
No, not all artists use tools like that! My brother used to draw without any devices; he'd draw from his memory too! Anything at all ! When we were kids, we'd ask him to draw something difficult, a crashed car, for example, expecting he'd decline, but he'd draw it so amazingly well! The car would look like a real car wreck! He drew animals, also without looking at one, streets full of houses , aeroplanes, tanks, missile launchers, rockets, guns of any make! He was brilliant at caricature and this was his favourite! But he was best at drawing machines with all the parts beautifully executed, looking like a blueprint! We couldn't understand how he knew where all the parts were, but to him it was easy-peasy , he'd say! He did mechanical engineering.
I think it’s better to view those sort of drawings as proto-photography. Aesthetics and “authenticity” are not their primary goal. They were simply trying to portray subjects accurately and scientifically in an age before cameras.
This is a good parallel to AI Art now. Everyone is shouting its the death of the artist but even back then they used tools to help create things. And even the camera spawned this same conversation
Exactly, same thing happened with digital image processing in the first place. It's funny how "digital painting" is such a mainstay now that a lot of people don't even realize that it once was the new controversial thing, and that they're now the ones making the cyclical argument.
@@seedmole the problem is photos are not allowed to be a substitute in a hand painting competition. basically, its not that its not art. or bad to choose that method but its not a fair metric in a competition. the digital art one may be "fair play" simply because there was no rule against it. but future comps will prob need to rule out computer AI being used or have separate categories similar to photography.
@@ericp3645 ML will never substitute humans, as it's just a tool. And there's a good reason i call it ML and not AI. Back when i did vector drawing, i couldn't use autotrace for most work i did because it didn't understand even simple concepts as line, vertical, horizontal or parallel. I can teach a ML model that. And ML's aren't creative either, even if they are sometimes "funky" due to errors (sounds human doesn't it...), they are just very consistent and better than 97% of humans at whatever they do. tldr: ML's are just tools you teach WHAT you want them to do (by example) and they learn HOW to do it. Presto, another tool in the toolbox.
@@ericp3645 The idea shouldnt be I type in a sentence and get art. Look at someone like Scott Detweiler where he uses AI to enhance his photography. AI Art should not be the end product but a step in the process. 3D printing is a good example. It was supposed to be for rapid prototyping and not an end product that gets thrown on kickstarter. if used PROPERLY AI art is just a tool for the actual artist and should not be the end result. Im working on a game and dont have a concept artist. Ive ran my idea through midjorney a few times to make something I thought was cool and thrown it in a pureref board with other non AI art to help me create my end product. EDIT: and yes @Nuno Trancoso is correct this should be called Machine Learning not Artificial Intelligence
Something really cool that I realized about the camera lucida is that you could create stereoscopic images with it. make one drawing from left-eye pov, move it to the right eye pov, make a second drawing, and then scan the images and use X method to view them in stereo. Alternatively, you could do both drawings on one sheet and use red/cyan inks and glasses to view the image.
damn in the years without camera this really is the most mechanistic way of replicating a scene. would've been dead useful for all sorts of science edit: I just remembered when I was a kid taking biology class, I think it was grade 7. we were looking at some cells under the microscope and we had to draw them, and the teacher told us to "don't close any eyes, open BOTH eyes at the same time, and draw and observe at the same time.
Many famous artists used this technique, including Norman Rockwell, Alphonse Mucha, Olivia DeBerardinis and many, many others. It is a tool that helps construct a scene. I bought a digital version of this a few years ago and have made quite a few sketches and drawings with it. It’s a lot of fun and has opened up a path for me to create the images I have in my minds eye. I also still draw and paint freehand, because there’s still nothing like your own imagination.
Penn Gillette, of the Magic and Comedy team Penn & Teller, did a documentary on a similar theory on optical devices in the film "Tim's Vermeer." It simply starts with the premise that Vermeer's sense of value was so uncanny, so realistic, that it really has not been duplicated by traditional methods to this day. From there, they go down a rabbit hole, trying to determine how the "magic" was done. Well worth a watch.
My father used this tool for years while working at the comic industry. I always thought that it was a beautiful piece of technology, even if I wasn’t gifted with any artistic talent.
I have one of these. I have the skills to just look and draw so I have never used it. But, I noticed it has more lenses, I don't think I have all of those, are they available.? Cool video thanks.
I read Hockney's book and although a lot of it has been updated/corrected since its publication, his basic premise is solid: Artists will use whatever helps them. At the time of publication the news was full of 'experts' saying 'great artists don't cheat.' These 'experts' were all art historians, not a single one was an artist. I've worked with a lot of artists, including David Hockney (I photographed one of his catalogues), they, we, will use anything we can get, whether it's a camera, or a computer. There's an interesting effect I notice in many portraits painted from the early 16th Century through Lucien Freud and Francis Bacon. If you place your eye in the same spot the artist had his/her dominant eye while making the work the proportions will look noticeably different than if you use the other eye. One way is three dimensionality, a real person suddenly appears, the other - the cheek looks a bit too wide. For Rembrandt and Bacon you use your right eye, they were right handed, for Rubens and Freud you use your left eye. (John Singer Sargent seems very 'left eye'd' but as far as I can tell he was right handed....so this needs some work.) It's an amazing effect, I don't think David Hockney is aware of it (somehow I thought that by now I'd have bumped into him in a museum... ) Anyway. Vermeer is absolutely flat, either eye his work is exactly the same, as are photographs. Optical device. This almost only works with portraits and then only from the distance an artist would be from the canvas holding a brush, so for Freud and Bacon you have to walk right up to the large canvases (the seemingly unfinished canvas of George Dyer in the Dublin City Museum works amazingly well.) Also as soon as there is a second person in a painting - the effect is not there. In the British National Gallery you can see the effect in two Ruben's portraits, and right next them them a double portrait - no effect. Ingres? Have I done this with Ingres? I'll have to check my notes. What I think is happening is 1. the 'effect' is not mechanically optical - notice it and no devices were used. 2. I think it's generally the result of very careful observation and constructing the portrait image on the canvas. 3. Likely it uses some slight difference between our two eyes (I hope it's just some common astigmatism I and these artist's happen to have) perhaps the Pulfrick Effect.
We often forget that in the past when there's no camera devices available, people paint like we take photos, and they wanted photorealistic shots very badly. Now that we have cameras all over the place we're kind of spoiled to aspire for artistic images.
I saw a documentary on science and knowledge in the 1970s, and in their minds, it was clear Gustave Caillebotte used a tool to draw "The Painter's Eye," and the documentary also showed how Renaissance painters used mathematics. I remember seeing a re-enactment of a painter looking through a frame with tight strings running vertically and horizontally in a grid pattern; the painter looked at the subject through the grid, which made it easier to make things look more realistic.
I can understand someone like Vermeer using a similar device because his paintings had a photo realistic light to them and he wasn't known for his draftsmanship, rather his unique light and tonal qualities. However, I find it hard to believe someone like Ingres using such a device. Arguably one of the greatest draftsman to pick up a pencil I doubt he'd use or need a device. Especially because his lines varied in thickness in order to differentiate sharp or soft turns along the figure. He also distorted his image for aesthetic purposes and a device would not be helpful to him. I'm 74 and I still remember similar devices being advertised in comic books way back in the 50's and 60's. Being interested in art since a young boy I always wanted to buy one but could never come up with the money. Thanks for the interesting post.
The way I would consider using this as an artist is to trace my own drawings in order to improve them, a lot of times I’ll mess up while inking in a drawing or color it in a way I don’t like and there’s no way to undo on paper, but with this I could just trace the drawing and try again or add to a drawing and try different things
I am a landscape artist and I have my own version of this tool. My version is called kinkos. 🤣 I take a picture of my subject matter, then take it to Kinko's and have them blow it up a little bigger than my canvas size. Next, I lay vellum over the blown-up picture and trace the sketch through it. After that, I take the vellum off and put carbon paper underneath it, lay the whole thing on the canvas squarely and then just retrace the sketch. This gives me an accurate sketch to which I then back color or under paint or block in or whatever you want to call it, the major color schemes and all that's left to do is add detail consisting of light and shadows and I'm done. To me, even though I have painted for well over 50 years, and accurate sketch is the hardest part. Doing what I have described here makes the sketch a cinch.
Having those three devices, cameras and drawing apparatus, sounds like a good idea, as a way of thinking about reality in 3D-T Perspective.., and then CAD.
I honestly think these should be readily available! Think of all the people that can't draw.i feel it would open up art and really helping people express what they imagine.
Getting the proportions and perspective correct is one thing. They're like the foundations upon which the artist builds the artwork. If you only get those first two correct, it will look like a computer drawn picture (no filters or other add ons). Also: during the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, artists had to be able to 'mass produce' paintings if they were popular. That is why all the great painters with exception of one or two, had workshops which were more like painting factories or probably paint sweatshops. Students would do the basics of any painting, or more if they were talented. The artist would finish the painting and put on his signature, so it could be sold as a true 'Rubens' or 'Rembrandt.' That is why so many Rembrandts have been revealed to be done by his students (Man with Helmet for instance). But Rembrandt seems to have disliked the workshop concept and became more and more focused on his own ideas, not on what his customers liked. And that is why he died in poverty. Rubens on the other hand was quite the succes story. He had perfected his school to such an extent that he had plenty of time left for his other profession: diplomat. He died at the ripe age of 62 due to heart failure, probably induced by gout (gout was a well-know rich man's disease, caused by an unhealthy diet of too much meat & wine).
The distortion can be resolved by placing the paper on an angled flat surface and then drawing on it. The problem is that the level flat plane of the table causes a "stretching" effect on the vertical axis, which then translates into the drawing as a distortion. The other way to do it would be to give the lenses used a sort of "prescription" that would automatically correct for the distortion on the part of the lens viewed by the artist.
If you want to build one, modern beam splitting prisms are inexpensive online when buying 2nds with chips in the edges. They work fine and are dirt cheap over the undamaged ones. Instead of buying the lenses, I found taking a cell phone photo, then displaying it on a computer monitor takes care of the issue with different focal lengths with the drawing. You can set the distance from the monitor and cube to be the same as the distance from the cube to the paper for a perfect overlay of the image.
People in the past: Look at the head and hands. That's definitely Camera Lucida! People nowadays: Look at the head and hands. That's definitely Artificial Intelligence!
Even not as in AI, I started drawing hard stuff through the screen or drawing over it - not as art to sell, but to help figure out how to place things and perspectives, where I don't have a trained enough eye yet. Or better yet, to learn to see lines in difficult objects
As a kid I would prop up a piece of glass from a photo frame with the subject on one side lit by a desk lamp. Kind of a beam splitter I think. Traced the image viewed through the glass.
Indeed, Hockney's 'Secret Knowledge' is brilliant book and a great read and your interest in the Lucida doesn't surprise me as your approach to composition and light is far more considered than usual and I now realize your early interest in drawing has likely reason giving you a wider gamut of sensibilities of what an image might and could be. That said two other books may interest you E H Gombrich Art & Illusion A study in the psychology of pictorial representation (1956). Maitland Graves The Art of Color and Design (1951) And while we're at it: Ivan Illich The scopic past and the ethics of the gaze. As well as Guarding the eye in the age of show. All in all pretty interesting stuff. Looking forward to seeing your progress with the Lucida. Cheers Mathieu
Thanks for watching!! Discover more experiments and weird lenses here :
📷 Instagram: instagram.com/mathieustern/ 🐦 Twitter: twitter.com/mathieustern
💡 Patreon: patreon.com/mathieustern 🧨 Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@mathieustern2
🏛 Weird Lens Museum: tinyurl.com/ybwzlqz3 🇫🇷 Chaine en Français: www.youtube.com/@mathieustern-fr
Fun fact the guy who invented film used this in Italy and his idea came as he found it no help as he wasn't a trained artist
@@duncanhewitt6557 fun fact, thats what I exeplain in the video
Hey Mathieu, your own drawings are much better, keep practicing !!
I had a version of this as a kid, that was advertised in comic books. Of course the comic book ad illustration was greatly exaggerated, making it look (to a kid) like it was projecting the image into the page, the way a movie projector today might do. So of course it was a disappointment at first -- but years later, I realized in fact it is a pretty cool and potentially useful device that actually worked.
I remember Jazza messing around with what amounts to an "art toy" version of one of these devices and having that expectation, but he got the hang of it pretty good in a later follow-up after people said he was doing it wrong. He's kind of a pop youtuber, so if you follow enough art videos you're bound to run into him.
The "Magic Art Reproducer" from Norton Products?
@@johnsavard7583 That looks like it! It was not plastic, by the way, as we might expect from a cheap item, but metal. The comic book ad that comes up in a Google search is not one I specifcally remember, but that image might well have caught my eye at that age!
Did you also buy sea monkeys?
I think it was called a pantagraph/gram. or something very similar. A similar word is used for the mechanism that connects a trolley bus to the overhead live wires in the street. It was only in American comics, though. Otherwise I would have asked for one for Christmas, and a bag of sea monkeys too. 😀
This feels like a very useful way to get the proportions down quickly, even if you're not going for realism.
So long as you focus in. Like the video said, the image is going to be squashed or elongated as you move from the central focal point, dependent on the angle the camera lucida is oriented at. You would need very special lenses milled for use at specific angles to avoid this.
Totally agree.
Well you're wrong. Using a prism distorts the proportions due to the angles involved. You would need a complex lens in line with the prism to focus the image in a way to remove the distortion.
@@IRMacGuyver its like you copied almost the exact same comment as someone a year prior to you lol
I have been a photographer for many years, and it's incredible that I had never heard of this device. It's also wonderful to learn about it.
There's a (huge) book by David Hockney about its use (and similar optical devices). He contends (persuasively to me) that many famous artists used such tools going back several hundred years (much older than the device in this video)
@@Joe-lb8qn Thank you!
Not really. This isn't part of basic photography
Just because it has the name camera in it doesnt mean its something photographers use..
na primeira aula de fotografia da faculdade eu aprendi sobre, a professora fez uma relação entre uma montagem fotografica e a forma que os pintores renascentistas pintavam paisagens utilizando "câmaras escuras", eram mais complexas q esse equipamento, mas segue o mesmo principio
I purchased the NEOLUCIDA through the Kickstarter campaign back in September of 2014. Haven't used it recently but I keep it safely tucked away with the pouch and original box. I'll have to dig it out and freshen my skills with it. I am no great artist but I did take oil painting lessons from the woman who lived upstairs from us.
Along the same lines, I saved my allowance when I was a kid to buy a wooden pantograph made just for tracing images at different scales. It was probably around $3.00 and my allowance was 25¢ a week. I used it to trace photographs of different things including photos of my family. Sixty odd years later I still have that pantograph. Don't know how I managed to keep it these many years but I'm glad I did.
Is the neolucida worth buying? Is it good quality?
I bought one too. But I never used it much. Like those exercise props which being foldable is the best quality, so you can store them easily. I think you can't buy talent.
How old are you now? Or what year was it when you were a kid?
@@Salman-Q I'll be 80 in a few months.
camera lucidas are also very effective when only used partially - sketch a shape and shade then fill in your own color ideas, try hatching and cross hatching, try improvising certain parts using outside realism skills, etc. there are so many opportunities!
Using this device CERTAINLY does NOT take away the "art" of..art. It's a tool. (and a damn cool one at that). You STILL need talent and skill to draw even when using it. Does ANYONE think architects are NOT artists if the use a scale or compass? It's gear. I have several Nikon DSLR bodies and lenses. THIS ALONE does not make me a "photographer".
YES PLEASE!!!!!
@@melody3741 art is whatever you get away with - andy warhol
Art is the human expression of skill and imagination. Whatever tools needed go fulfill that goal are fine.
As soon as you take the human element out I no longer consider it art, but this is not removing the artist from the process.
No kidding. This device won't give you a steady hand. It won't make you perfectly follow a curve. It won't teach you color theory. It won't teach you how to represent different materials in whatever your chosen medium. It doesn't make you an artist purely through use.
It does eliminate the practice of "seeing" a scene, reproducing it in your mind, and then drawing out that image from your mind onto paper. This is certainly one of the fundamental practices of art. The artist using a camera lucida is "drawing blind"/tracing. It may still be art, but it is less so.
FWIW, you could also take a photo and project it onto paper or just display on a tablet that comes with a stylus -- and trace it. The reduction in the human element in all of these is undeniable.
People often misunderstand that a tool like this is still just a tool and that it will not make everyone have the same abilities. Back when doing graphic design before the aid of computers, people used a projector attached to a wall that would raise up and down to give a huge range of size reproduction. Good,skilled, AND talented artists could do wondrous things with this tool, while others who relied only on the tool did work of much less quality and skill. Being an artist, it is good to understand that using a tool is a skill in itself.
I'd compare it to a musical instrument. It's also a tool, and one that would certainly "aid" the musician in their craft - giving its player easily visible and reachable notes that (for many instruments, most notably excluding the family of fiddles) automatically play in tune, as long as the instrument is serviced. That doesn't make a musician any less talented than an opera singer, for instance.
100%
I am the most pure form of the "artist". I use zero tools and resources, and I create using my mind and my mind alone with zero training. I have created marvelous works such as, "incomplete mess", "not what I wanted", "total disappointment", and "literally does not exist" using the techniques generated in my mind. It is almost as if art is as much about communal creation, communication, and transformation of existing works as it is about "creating from nothing". It's ALMOST as if "creating from nothing" is a myth.
It's cheating, plain and simple.
@@BuzzingGoober you think artists sneeze onto a page and it comes to life, mate?
In the middle ages artists used a version of a pinhole camera. The subject would sit outside in bright sunlight and the artist inside in virtual darkness with a tiny hole projecting the image onto canvass.
This was demonstrated very well in "The Tudor Monastery Farm" TV series.
If I remember this would flip the image upside down. This phenomenon is called camera obscura.
@@deemushroomguy You're right X 2.
I forgot about the upside down part.
Many years ago, I volunteered at a haunted house. One of the rooms was built inside an old semi trailer. As an effect, I placed colored lights outside, pointed at 1/4” holes I had drilled into a wall. Theatrical fog made virtual laser beams inside.
During the day, multiple, crystal clear images of the outdoors were projected inside. If the camera obscura hadn’t already existed, I would have discovered it then, as the effect was startling and the potential uses were just as clear.
But, my university already had an updated device, which with the addition of a lens, was essentially an opaque projector, with an easel.
@@CineSoar If you are ever in Los Angeles, Griffith Observatory has an awesome camera obscura that projects the image via a mirror down onto a big white round table in a dark room. The mirror slowly rotates, giving you a panoramic view of the city below the hill.
They should have these in art class for kids. I feel like it would be really motivating to create something that looks good.
Photopea (free photoshop) + Drawing tablet.
Copying is not creating you're obviously not an artist I am
No. If you have these in classrooms then the kids have no incentive to learn how to draw or embrace the fundamentals.
What would it motivate them to do? Cheat? Learn nothing? There's always tracing paper over photographs if you really want to give up.
I'm throughly impressed by the amount of negative feedback this comment received. It fascinates me that there are so many artists who struggle this hard, as to become butthurt other the availablity of tools which would have improved their artistry, broadened their perspective and slashed their learning curve. Things they didn't have, didn't do or simply didn't care enough about to explore and reap benefits of.
Hands-on enhancement tools make artists learn quicker with a very few exceptions: notably the fundamentals of the primary utensils, the brush and the pencil, straight lines and proportions. All graphical arts people worth their salt will tell you to just draw. Who or what you draw, and why, matter nothing in comparison to the difference between actually putting down color on a blank paper and not. Tracing, no matter how silly, will teach you valuable skills about attention to detail, stroke response, fine motor skills, appreciation and taste in styles.
Our minds are inspired by the world we live in. Make it your own. Successfully eternalising impressions from one's natural environment by sheer effort is guaranteed to motivate even the most pessimitic of students.
1:39 - I love this perspective. I think non-artists and new artists seem to only see the 'magic' (or the results) of the work; perhaps it's more fun to think about someone having this innate talent or quality to produce beautiful things, instead of the lifetime of commitment to the medium. IMO the artist should use most anything (ON TOP of the lifetime of commitment), to actualize the images in their minds. Regardless of the tool, it's the artist that brought life to it. ☺
Just like text to image AIs today. They're just tools.
You see this a LOT with the "CGI BAD! PRACTICAL GOOD!" clowns. A good artist knows which tool is right for the job. They don't exclude themselves from using particular tools because this will somehow make the work more "pure".
@@fireaza Also, no one criticizes good CGI because they can't tell it's "CGI" to begin with 😅 Not to be too black & white, but it seems like it's a lot of naysayers who like to sit on concepts/beliefs vs. artists who make, create (and move on!) using whatever that brings life to their work.
Is this device how the sidewalk chalk perspective wizards do their magic?
Speed and work flow lead to more industrious results. Tools combined with skills means faster output. Which meant more $.
the glass optics and brass construction makes tracing classy! :D
Yeah, but it's not as functional as the Camera Lucida app! Well, I'm biased. Dave, if you want to do a comparison, I'll send you my NeoLucida or something!
Thanks for this. I knew about the use of the Camera Lucida technique for drawing scientific specimens for taxonomy purposes, but that uses a dissecting microscope. This doesn’t work with architectural sketches, so I couldn’t figure that out. There was a huge jump in the accuracy of landscape and architecture depiction in the 19th century. I knew about the grid system, like van Gough used, I also knew that once photography was created, a light table could be used but one was too crude and the other too late.
I work with kids and have had discussions about drawing because it can be really disheartening to them to compare their work with professionals. It is good to know about the tools that professionals use. As I point out, using tools isn’t cheating if everyone knows. Also, as with van Gough, those tools can be used to train our brain to draw better free-hand.
What is being overlooked here, including comments that suggest tracing a photograph as an alternative, is that making a good drawing requires skills that tracing cannot replace. Tracing may let you get the general shapes, proportions, composition and perspective right, but the result is still going to look pretty bad if you don't have good drawing technique, and an understanding of how to capture the feel as well as the look of the subject and scene. This is especially true of drawing faces.
There was a Kickstarter for the NeoLucida a few years back. I totally forgot I'd bought one. I should go find it. :) Thanks for the inspiration!
Omg! Have you found it?
I bought one too and never used it. Good idea.
Really interesting. However in that interview the guy mentions that the proportions in that sketch were slightly off, so I'm not entirely sold on whether this would work or help to improve on perspectives and proportions.
Also I've made these same types of mistakes numerous times but it was because of my posture and the angle from which I'm seated at while drawing.
If you hunch over you are focused but it'll hurt like he'll when you get back up, but if you sit back straight, your drawing will be slanted since the paper is laid flat before you rather than on a raised surface like a draftsman table or Professional animators desk.
It's the same with picture, the lens changes the proportion of what you really see. It's much more visible with wide angle lenses and when you have objects in different planes (foreground and background)
But it made me think whether a modern version could have a corrective lense, similar to a tilt shift camera
I wondered if the woman being sketched might have moved slightly during the rendition. I'm sure it takes time to trace such a detailed image. That would likely affect the proportions.
An artist draws what he sees; whether he sees it in front of him or on the paper, he's still an artist.
pretty interesting, I hope they sell a modern version of it, could be a very good gift for somebody that is learning to draw.
It's linked in the description.
@@science830 that's such a rip off 😂 I had a toy version of one of these as a kid but I forgot the name ..
There's a modern version called the ipad. Just take a photo and trace over everything with the stylus.
Most of all I hope that they can manage to optically improve on the old design, which should be a given but too much in modern day quality looses against price, for a good optical glass piece I would spend a right amount instead I wouldn't even consider a plastic thing
I think about camera and projector
OMG, I love what you and the interviewee in the video say: An artist uses the tools available at the time. I am an exclusively digital artist and I always sense the devaluing of what I do, simply because I use a digital pad to pass my stylus over in my painting. Like somehow the computer is doing all the work. My response is always to ask them what a classical artist would have done if they had access to digital technologies. I can't help but think that they would have been elated to use something that expanded their abilities. Thanks for the great video. I may have to try one of these for my plein air sketching!
It would be the same as criticising an artist for not grinding lapis lazuli to make pigment and skinning their own egg yolks for tempura paint. Imagine Leonardo da Vinci having access to a 3D solid body modelling CAD system, or Blender - would he refuse to use them?? Of course not. They are tools that remove the drudgery of creativity.
The sense of devaluing should tell you something, but don't let it stop you if you are enjoying yourself.
They wouldnt use graphic tablets beacouse they are not real matter. You are drawing jpgs, paint is a thing that you can own and touch, thats also why paintings survive the time, a png or whatever gets lost in a folder and even if not and you make prints you are making exact and unlimited copies, a painting is always unique. Don't worry, I had the same problem when I started with digital, now I do use it to sketch some times but just from time to time. Read, study and practice and if it is just for fun at least you know what you are doing and what to expect.
Hockney made an entire series of iPad paintings, but he still makes oil paintings as well, because he sees the value of them that makes them superior to digital paintings. After watching them being exposed, I have to agree. The comparison was very interesting though, and I can see merit in both of them. It would be very interesting to see the digital paintings being translated to physical paintings by a 3D-printer of some sorts.
@@Daniel_SoutoQ Digital art needn't be lost. It is, though, as you say, impossible to limit to only one copy and, as such, I can understand why it ultimately carries less value than an original painting. But it has nothing to do with digital art being trivial or requiring less skill. It's just the nature of the media. I did traditional art previously and picked up digital later. I really enjoy that you can create any brush, brush effect, or paint effect that you want. It's a learning curve to get fast at such modifications, but you can play with it without committing to new paints, physical brushes, or substrates. No mess and it doesn't require much space. As far as storage, I created my own database file server for that, although there are commercial products available too. And someday when I'm gone, my art will live on in the online galleries I've posted it to.
⭕ Your contributions make these videos happen! If you enjoyed this video, please consider making a small donation at tinyurl.com/4stmfpph
I dont think not knowing how to draw and just googling it with words on AI ganerated image web is considered an art
I'm an artist and I use projectors and tracing boards all the time. The goal is to make a beautiful photo drawing. I'm not being tested with each work I do. People don't care how it's made. They just want a beautiful art piece. Every single artist I know uses a projector. And all the tiktoks where people seem to be freehanding...look close. You'll see the think light pencil lines from them projecting or tracing the image first.
Excellent point! Also most people want beautiful art very cheap.
You used a pencil to draw that picture, pfft. Draw me a picture without tools like pencils or pens or brushes, that will be pure art and really show your skills.
Artists back in the day used projectors and tracing too. They just used a camera obscura.
@@ferretyluv not all of them, many just had skill.
@@rexmundi5180 Oh by no means, not all of them. But many did for stuff like landscapes.
Amazed that Ive been drawing for 30 years and dont remember ever hearing of this. At first it seems like cheating but if you think it is, you can try an easy test. Tear out a page from a magazine containing a figure and tape it to a glass window with sun shining behind it. Now tape a page of copy machine paper to that and start drawing. I bet it will look pretty much like crap even though you had the means to perfectly trace. Tools like the lucida are extremely helpful to get proportion, size, perspective quickly but its not art yet, thats all inside you and how you interpret it. Im not sure but my thinking is that if you already draw completely freehand, this might screw you up and be very hard to get used to but id love to try it.
You are a great artist even without the camera lucida. Keep up the good work.
Thank you so much 😀
I agree with Shisir :)
Yeah, you're humble babe, not a poor artist. :)
I was going to say that your drawing skills weren't poor. Seems like you just didn't work at it enough. But the samples you provided were actually pretty good.
There’s a documentary about Vermeer using optical instruments to make his photorealistic paintings, it’s called Tim’s Vermeer, worth checking out for sure.
I’ve had a Lucy stored safely in its shipping box since December of 2019, untouched. I just dusted it off and I’m excited to get over my fears of jumping into drawing again, after so many years. Thanks for this video!
There is a giant, table (or room) sized camera lucida known as the “camera obscura” in Edinburgh, built in 1835. A purpose-built tower on the sixth floor houses the lens. It projects a living view of Edinburgh city centre in a big circle. You can still go and see it today.
I’ve been there. There’s tons of camera obscurae of that size all over the world. But you don’t need a room size to get the effect. A big one like that just lets you see the city. You can have one in your bedroom with just a slit in the curtains with the sun just at the right angle. Back in the day, they just had tents with tiny holes in them.
Artists either "Trace" ( like this ) or " Construct" who's results obviously depend on visual memory from years of practice and study . Personally I have found that once one masters a subject and it's construction, the freedom and satisfaction of results are amazing...but of course, expediency usually pays the bills.
wrong
Nobody asked
Omg so true. Unfortunately.
it's not just about expediency. It's about what skill you are mastering. A photographer masters a different skill than a painter. in the end if practically fully mastered, neither is more skillful than the other, because their skills are different. This is just a tool that puts you in between a photographer and a painter.
@@DrTheRich There is no comparison in effort between someone that trains for years to be a good painter and someone that takes a good picture, sorry. I don't subscribe to the modern standard that all can be called art especially when minimal effort and sacrifice is needed to produce it. This is the kind of thinking that induces the bland mediocrity of today....AI created art for example is not art IMO, it is actually another nail in the coffin of the true artist. Of all the muses human kind is naturally gifted to create , their art, their music, their poetry give them life...The moment these are completely in-organically created, is the moment life will mean nothing for us...because generating "art" will be as effortless as taking a dump. This of course is just MHO.
Fascinating. I also agree with Hockney that the skill in any process is down to the artist's ability to use the available tools.
1. My position on drawing is that there are two places to put down your line: the right place, and the wrong place. When working realistically, this camera lucida is another tool for "finding" the right place. Except for the hyper-trained, trying to draw the right line free hand/by eye is generally a practice of trial and error. Some might prefer to draw the right line immediately, skipping the preliminary approximations, at one go. Like me.
2. My position on cheating is always cheat. Always. Make the best possible drawing you can.
3. Personally, when drawing larger than 8x10", in a realistic vein, I use the grid system to transfer and enlarge a photo shot specifically with the intent of making a drawing from it. When smaller, I print the photo on copy paper at the final size and transfer full size via carbon paper.
4. However, I rarely work in a realistic vein anymore, as I have developed grave aesthetic issues about the point of creating a drawing or painting that is effectively nothing more than a rendered photo. If I want a photo-like image, I try my best to be satisfied with an actual photo. But I reserve the right to "correct" the photo by drawing it.
I feel the same way. I like the idea of realism but creating something from the imagination is more interesting. I've always likened it to bullshitting my way into making art.
we had these in Botany Departments when i worked as a botanical illustrator in the 1980's. Made the job of drawing sometimes very small samples brought in from the field, very easy to draw. But the ones wee had were large and clunky compared to the neat small original one shown here. Thanks for uploading!
Ohhh reminds me when i got started into drawing was (tracing paper). Then i used basically this similar thing but a cheaper version (Mirror Optical Drawing Board). Then i finally got off that, since i kept losing my viewing angle and things were definitely off. Overall, it helped very much to get my practice in!
It would work astonishingly well if you could use it for distorted angles (ie. one drawing, but with gradually changing perspectives, like with a fisheye lens or mirrors), if you could connect the images together. Would look utterly surreal.
We learned about these in art class (50 years ago for me) and I've always wanted to check one out, very cool device and thank you for making this video, well done and cheers from Canada! I have a feeling that using this device regularly as well as drawing without it would help improve you free-hand drawing, so students would benefit from it, even if its just learning to steady your hand and build muscle memory.
Here’s an idea for a novel way to draw…
Take a photo. Reverse it to be a negative. Print it in the size you want.
Lay a blank piece on top of it. If you have a light source underneath you can use a soft pencil and gently make the whole picture the same shade of grey. In other words, you push slightly harder on the pencil over light areas and less over dark areas.
Just tried this-- I tested it on that meme picture of the terrible craft clay pikachu with the thousand yard stare and bloodshot eyes, since it had a lot of complex shading. It worked 100% flawlessly and I was able to make an exact copy in 5 minutes.
Based pfp
@@Hypnotically_Caucasian
Give it a try.
Wouldn’t logic tell you that it works?
Yet, there ARE artists that can actually draw that well, which is hard for people to believe.
maybe because they have put enough skill points into the minds eye perk and the accompanying mental projection perk. extra skill points into memory holding also helps.
basically, they replicate the same thing the device does simply by looking at the subject and then the paper.
A pretty neat instrument if you want to mark out on a canvas. Had one as a kid. It works absolutely fine.
I wish i had known about this as a teen. I was desperate to improve at drawing but failed because my output never improved beyond a third grader’s level no matter how long i practiced. I gave up after ten years of trying classes, techniques and all kinds of things. If I had the chance to produce something that at least had proportions right, it would have inspired me to continue.
Im buying one for my oldest daughter, who has talent way beyond what i had. She deserves more opportunity! Thank you!!!
Big same. I really loved art but struggled with the process and the results, eventually giving up when i left school at 16. It didn't help that I was being told to focus on realism when cartoons and animation were what i preferred. Sucked all joy out of drawing things I love when being told what I loved drawing wasn't 'real' art. But I digress...
As someone middle aged just getting back into drawing for the first time in over 20 years, I offer you this small bit of encouragement; if you EVER wanna try anything again, i recommend buying a cheap wacom tablet on ebay (they're like $20) and trying a free trial of a program like Clip Studio Paint. Digital art has really blown me away and sparked my interest again. Being able to place a photo down on a layer, and then trace of the photo in much the same manner as this camera, has helped so much with training my hands and brain, and give fun results too. There's no shame in something like tracing while practicing, imo, it's been a really encouraging process for me.
I am amazed that I hadn't heard about this. This looks like a wonderful tool for the novice and the professional.
What a beautifully done video! I love all the information, i love the personal trial. When i was a kid I had a kids art projector, where it came with various slide reels of different themed images (basic clear plastic with black outlines of animals, flowers, etc) so you could put it in, turn on the light and it would put the shadow on the surface. I took it to school and charged kids a quarter each for gel pen tattoos.
What an incredible struck of luck to stumble over this video, im a hobby watchrepairer and i have a little vice that looks exactly like the vice on this tool, i have wondered why there are Sawmarks on my “vice” now i know, it belonged to a larger device and a watchmaker for some reason once sawed it off, to be reused in his shop 😃👍🏻
Even with a camera lucida you must be an artist, because that is a skill you bring to life...
This is another practical way to learn how to control the pencil than say tracing or using grids. All three have their plusses, but being able to see the example as though on the surface you are working on is a big one.
I have one of these, its clumsy, and if you move or have an unstable base, it totally blown, as the alignment is almost impossible to realign. Move your head out of the specific distance to the prism, or take any break just to stretch or relieve the crick in your neck from sitting still for so long, and the drawing is pretty much done. The field of view is also relevant to the picture, the further out of the small prism zone you try to look, the more distortion there is. The different lenses help to a point, but they also have their own distortions.
ANDY WARHOL - Used a similar projection technique to make his Soup Cans and all other paintings. I don't think Andy could draw. He was just good at publicizing his work.
There's something that Camera Lucida cannot draw. It cannot draw Lucid Dreams!😂😂😂
I do drawings using a camera lucida app on my iPad. You can get crazy detailed using it. I try to use it for outlines sometimes and fill in the rest freehand.
Sounds like an excellent way to practice the feel of proportions.
As a grouch, I am tossed betwixt the use of such devices. I have always had a love/hate relationship with tracing --- love that I got such good results in it, and hate that I was copying someone else's work. But, even using such to draw a landscape, I felt I needed to program my inner eye to do it all.
I've seen at least one film that had an artist draw the manor, and of course they used some sort of prop to help keep scale and situation in focus. I've tried those things. In senior-high I was further taught to use them, but fought it.... even so far as to deny the use of my implement as a ruler!
However, getting plants and zoology correct 'back in the day', if that's what they needed to succeed with, then I am all for it. If only I'd have that kind of leniency with myself.
Thanks for the upload.
I enjoyed it.
I'm surprised this isn't a more well known tool. It seems like a great learning/teaching device for beginners, and probably useful for more skilled artists at taking quick sketches.
Totally agree!
A camera lucida is a great tool that allows the user to more easily and accurately draw the real world. It still takes real skill to use it to create very good artwork. The modernized version you showed most likely wouldn't work as well simply because it most likely would be much easier to accidentally move the camera lucida lens slightly. If it gets moved at all it will change the relationship between what you drew previously and what you draw after that point. If you wish to document the work on an analog medium today a camera lucida is still a very good option.
0:12 not good? what do you mean thats amazing
Learn something interesting every day. The real usefulness of the internet.
Exactly the “I’ve never heard of” we want to get known of, thank you very much!
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Glad you liked it!
Thank you enlightening me with the vid on Camera Lucida and the NeoLucida !🤓 As a child, I loved to draw. I remember a drawing tool made of lite plastic, that looked like a lattice, and you placed a drawing pencil on your side and the other end on the picture you wanted to copy, as you outline the picture you actually were drawing a copy on your side. This drawing thing came in a breakfast cereal box as a gift for kids. We luved it, it helped increase our drawing ability when we did free hand drawing !! 😃
That was a Pantograph 😁
I feel like I've been lied to my entire life. I always assumed that naturalists of every stripe were talented and skilled artists, hands down; it had never occurred to me that they might have a technology that helped with the images.
Um..Artists use tools. Always have, Always will. I can't draw. Even IF I had this device, The drawing, shading, ETC still requires SKILL and TALENT. You can prove this yourself with a pencil and tracing paper.
@@jamesslick4790 honestly yeah , even just by using brushes and modern paint and pencils artists always use more advanced tools than cavemen that painted their hands in ocra and splattered them on cave walls , and even those cavemen used ocra ...
so yeah saying this is cheating is wrong
also this is infinatly cheaper and imo a lot more fun than a camera a printer and photoshop , it also trains your skill and makes you into a better painter
@@jamesslick4790 Yes, spot on. Using a tool is still a skill.
No, not all artists use tools like that! My brother used to draw without any devices; he'd draw from his memory too! Anything at all ! When we were kids, we'd ask him to draw something difficult, a crashed car, for example, expecting he'd decline, but he'd draw it so amazingly well! The car would look like a real car wreck! He drew animals, also without looking at one, streets full of houses , aeroplanes, tanks, missile launchers, rockets, guns of any make!
He was brilliant at caricature and this was his favourite!
But he was best at drawing machines with all the parts beautifully executed, looking like a blueprint!
We couldn't understand how he knew where all the parts were, but to him it was easy-peasy , he'd say!
He did mechanical engineering.
I think it’s better to view those sort of drawings as proto-photography. Aesthetics and “authenticity” are not their primary goal. They were simply trying to portray subjects accurately and scientifically in an age before cameras.
This would be highly useful in archaeology as we have to draw our artifacts in addition to taking photographs.
This is a good parallel to AI Art now. Everyone is shouting its the death of the artist but even back then they used tools to help create things. And even the camera spawned this same conversation
Exactly, same thing happened with digital image processing in the first place. It's funny how "digital painting" is such a mainstay now that a lot of people don't even realize that it once was the new controversial thing, and that they're now the ones making the cyclical argument.
@@seedmole the problem is photos are not allowed to be a substitute in a hand painting competition. basically, its not that its not art. or bad to choose that method but its not a fair metric in a competition.
the digital art one may be "fair play" simply because there was no rule against it. but future comps will prob need to rule out computer AI being used or have separate categories similar to photography.
@@ericp3645 ML will never substitute humans, as it's just a tool. And there's a good reason i call it ML and not AI. Back when i did vector drawing, i couldn't use autotrace for most work i did because it didn't understand even simple concepts as line, vertical, horizontal or parallel. I can teach a ML model that. And ML's aren't creative either, even if they are sometimes "funky" due to errors (sounds human doesn't it...), they are just very consistent and better than 97% of humans at whatever they do.
tldr: ML's are just tools you teach WHAT you want them to do (by example) and they learn HOW to do it. Presto, another tool in the toolbox.
Yeah and camera ruined the career of many artists of the time. Though people like to bring it up in this conversation as if it didn't.
@@ericp3645 The idea shouldnt be I type in a sentence and get art. Look at someone like Scott Detweiler where he uses AI to enhance his photography. AI Art should not be the end product but a step in the process. 3D printing is a good example. It was supposed to be for rapid prototyping and not an end product that gets thrown on kickstarter. if used PROPERLY AI art is just a tool for the actual artist and should not be the end result. Im working on a game and dont have a concept artist. Ive ran my idea through midjorney a few times to make something I thought was cool and thrown it in a pureref board with other non AI art to help me create my end product.
EDIT: and yes @Nuno Trancoso is correct this should be called Machine Learning not Artificial Intelligence
I'm always astonished at the creativity and incredible tools they used 100* years ago
My brother drew realistic drawings that looked like a photo without any of that stuff. Just free hand. But looks like it might be cool.
Fascinating. Vermere had the same concept. His work was priceless.
I once used an opaque projector to try and trace a photo. I still couldn't get the nose right.
Something really cool that I realized about the camera lucida is that you could create stereoscopic images with it. make one drawing from left-eye pov, move it to the right eye pov, make a second drawing, and then scan the images and use X method to view them in stereo. Alternatively, you could do both drawings on one sheet and use red/cyan inks and glasses to view the image.
Cool idea!
damn in the years without camera this really is the most mechanistic way of replicating a scene.
would've been dead useful for all sorts of science
edit: I just remembered when I was a kid taking biology class, I think it was grade 7. we were looking at some cells under the microscope and we had to draw them, and the teacher told us to "don't close any eyes, open BOTH eyes at the same time, and draw and observe at the same time.
Many famous artists used this technique, including Norman Rockwell, Alphonse Mucha, Olivia DeBerardinis and many, many others. It is a tool that helps construct a scene. I bought a digital version of this a few years ago and have made quite a few sketches and drawings with it. It’s a lot of fun and has opened up a path for me to create the images I have in my minds eye. I also still draw and paint freehand, because there’s still nothing like your own imagination.
I'm watching
Penn Gillette, of the Magic and Comedy team Penn & Teller, did a documentary on a similar theory on optical devices in the film "Tim's Vermeer." It simply starts with the premise that Vermeer's sense of value was so uncanny, so realistic, that it really has not been duplicated by traditional methods to this day. From there, they go down a rabbit hole, trying to determine how the "magic" was done.
Well worth a watch.
Thanks!
thank you very much Glenn !!
My father used this tool for years while working at the comic industry. I always thought that it was a beautiful piece of technology, even if I wasn’t gifted with any artistic talent.
I have one of these. I have the skills to just look and draw so I have never used it. But, I noticed it has more lenses, I don't think I have all of those, are they available.? Cool video thanks.
I read Hockney's book and although a lot of it has been updated/corrected since its publication, his basic premise is solid: Artists will use whatever helps them. At the time of publication the news was full of 'experts' saying 'great artists don't cheat.' These 'experts' were all art historians, not a single one was an artist. I've worked with a lot of artists, including David Hockney (I photographed one of his catalogues), they, we, will use anything we can get, whether it's a camera, or a computer. There's an interesting effect I notice in many portraits painted from the early 16th Century through Lucien Freud and Francis Bacon. If you place your eye in the same spot the artist had his/her dominant eye while making the work the proportions will look noticeably different than if you use the other eye. One way is three dimensionality, a real person suddenly appears, the other - the cheek looks a bit too wide. For Rembrandt and Bacon you use your right eye, they were right handed, for Rubens and Freud you use your left eye. (John Singer Sargent seems very 'left eye'd' but as far as I can tell he was right handed....so this needs some work.) It's an amazing effect, I don't think David Hockney is aware of it (somehow I thought that by now I'd have bumped into him in a museum... ) Anyway. Vermeer is absolutely flat, either eye his work is exactly the same, as are photographs. Optical device. This almost only works with portraits and then only from the distance an artist would be from the canvas holding a brush, so for Freud and Bacon you have to walk right up to the large canvases (the seemingly unfinished canvas of George Dyer in the Dublin City Museum works amazingly well.) Also as soon as there is a second person in a painting - the effect is not there. In the British National Gallery you can see the effect in two Ruben's portraits, and right next them them a double portrait - no effect. Ingres? Have I done this with Ingres? I'll have to check my notes. What I think is happening is 1. the 'effect' is not mechanically optical - notice it and no devices were used. 2. I think it's generally the result of very careful observation and constructing the portrait image on the canvas. 3. Likely it uses some slight difference between our two eyes (I hope it's just some common astigmatism I and these artist's happen to have) perhaps the Pulfrick Effect.
Another gem. Thank you!
My pleasure! thanks Morgan
"I went to art school when I was younger, but I wasn't that good." *Shows the most amazing sketches I have ever seen.*
Not being an artist type, I never knew something like this existed. Thanks for showing. I learn something new everyday.
We often forget that in the past when there's no camera devices available, people paint like we take photos, and they wanted photorealistic shots very badly. Now that we have cameras all over the place we're kind of spoiled to aspire for artistic images.
Finally, something that might let me draw stuff for real!
I saw a documentary on science and knowledge in the 1970s, and in their minds, it was clear Gustave Caillebotte used a tool to draw "The Painter's Eye," and the documentary also showed how Renaissance painters used mathematics. I remember seeing a re-enactment of a painter looking through a frame with tight strings running vertically and horizontally in a grid pattern; the painter looked at the subject through the grid, which made it easier to make things look more realistic.
I can understand someone like Vermeer using a similar device because his paintings had a photo realistic light to them and he wasn't known for his draftsmanship, rather his unique light and tonal qualities. However, I find it hard to believe someone like Ingres using such a device. Arguably one of the greatest draftsman to pick up a pencil I doubt he'd use or need a device. Especially because his lines varied in thickness in order to differentiate sharp or soft turns along the figure. He also distorted his image for aesthetic purposes and a device would not be helpful to him. I'm 74 and I still remember similar devices being advertised in comic books way back in the 50's and 60's. Being interested in art since a young boy I always wanted to buy one but could never come up with the money. Thanks for the interesting post.
I've seen projectors used, but never this. It's very interesting. Thank you!
The way I would consider using this as an artist is to trace my own drawings in order to improve them, a lot of times I’ll mess up while inking in a drawing or color it in a way I don’t like and there’s no way to undo on paper, but with this I could just trace the drawing and try again or add to a drawing and try different things
Remember seeing these for sale as children's toys in the 60s...great stuff !
I am a landscape artist and I have my own version of this tool. My version is called kinkos. 🤣
I take a picture of my subject matter, then take it to Kinko's and have them blow it up a little bigger than my canvas size.
Next, I lay vellum over the blown-up picture and trace the sketch through it.
After that, I take the vellum off and put carbon paper underneath it, lay the whole thing on the canvas squarely and then just retrace the sketch.
This gives me an accurate sketch to which I then back color or under paint or block in or whatever you want to call it, the major color schemes and all that's left to do is add detail consisting of light and shadows and I'm done.
To me, even though I have painted for well over 50 years, and accurate sketch is the hardest part.
Doing what I have described here makes the sketch a cinch.
That is an amazingly ingenious device!
Having those three devices, cameras and drawing apparatus, sounds like a good idea, as a way of thinking about reality in 3D-T Perspective.., and then CAD.
Totally Cool., I Love the dinosaurs and the sparkly music in the background is Glorious. Wish i knew what it was. - Interesting gadget. Cheers.
I honestly think these should be readily available! Think of all the people that can't draw.i feel it would open up art and really helping people express what they imagine.
Getting the proportions and perspective correct is one thing.
They're like the foundations upon which the artist builds the artwork.
If you only get those first two correct, it will look like a computer drawn picture (no filters or other add ons).
Also: during the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, artists had to be able to 'mass produce' paintings if they were popular.
That is why all the great painters with exception of one or two, had workshops which were more like painting factories or probably paint sweatshops.
Students would do the basics of any painting, or more if they were talented. The artist would finish the painting and put on his signature, so it could be sold as a true 'Rubens' or 'Rembrandt.'
That is why so many Rembrandts have been revealed to be done by his students (Man with Helmet for instance).
But Rembrandt seems to have disliked the workshop concept and became more and more focused on his own ideas, not on what his customers liked.
And that is why he died in poverty. Rubens on the other hand was quite the succes story. He had perfected his school to such an extent that he had plenty of time left for his other profession: diplomat. He died at the ripe age of 62 due to heart failure, probably induced by gout (gout was a well-know rich man's disease, caused by an unhealthy diet of too much meat & wine).
this was awesome I would love to see your progress!
I want one, as someone that always wanted to draw, but lacked the artistic talent, this is what I need.
This video was, in a word, INSPIRATIONAL!
Thank you for creating this. 👍
as an artist, this seems really cool! would be great for constructing the primitive shapes of something, might buy one for studying references.
The distortion can be resolved by placing the paper on an angled flat surface and then drawing on it. The problem is that the level flat plane of the table causes a "stretching" effect on the vertical axis, which then translates into the drawing as a distortion. The other way to do it would be to give the lenses used a sort of "prescription" that would automatically correct for the distortion on the part of the lens viewed by the artist.
Creative and original content as always! Thanks
Wow. That is quite a beautiful piece of kit.
If I had access to this device in high school art class, my life would've taken a different path.
If you want to build one, modern beam splitting prisms are inexpensive online when buying 2nds with chips in the edges. They work fine and are dirt cheap over the undamaged ones. Instead of buying the lenses, I found taking a cell phone photo, then displaying it on a computer monitor takes care of the issue with different focal lengths with the drawing. You can set the distance from the monitor and cube to be the same as the distance from the cube to the paper for a perfect overlay of the image.
People in the past: Look at the head and hands. That's definitely Camera Lucida!
People nowadays: Look at the head and hands. That's definitely Artificial Intelligence!
Fascinating! Beautifully made video, too.
Even not as in AI, I started drawing hard stuff through the screen or drawing over it - not as art to sell, but to help figure out how to place things and perspectives, where I don't have a trained enough eye yet. Or better yet, to learn to see lines in difficult objects
Beautiful tool, even if it's obsolete it should be preserved.
3:54-maybe it brought out his friend's inner beauty, I like it.
Very cool video! Great music match! Thanks!
As a kid I would prop up a piece of glass from a photo frame with the subject on one side lit by a desk lamp. Kind of a beam splitter I think. Traced the image viewed through the glass.
Indeed, Hockney's 'Secret Knowledge' is brilliant book and a great read and your interest in the Lucida doesn't surprise me as your approach to composition and light is far more considered than usual and I now realize your early interest in drawing has likely reason giving you a wider gamut of sensibilities of what an image might and could be.
That said two other books may interest you
E H Gombrich
Art & Illusion
A study in the psychology of pictorial representation (1956).
Maitland Graves
The Art of Color and Design (1951)
And while we're at it:
Ivan Illich
The scopic past and the ethics of the gaze.
As well as
Guarding the eye in the age of show.
All in all pretty interesting stuff. Looking forward to seeing your progress with the Lucida.
Cheers Mathieu
wow, thanks a lot, I will check these books for sure
@@MathieuStern All great reads, enjoy!!
There's also a television programme based on the book; there are versions of it kicking around on UA-cam.
@@headfirstonly BBC David Hockney's Secret Knowledge