Painters Online Logo

Login/register

Studio

Tablets as an aid to help portrait painting

Welcome to the forum.

Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.

Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.

Hang on Studio Wall
Showing page 4 of 4
Author
Message

Keith Orange

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 239
Posted
It seems that you have a digital copy of the photograph but don’t have an iPad. Provided you have access to a laptop and a printer you can print a paper copy of the photo. Then add a sheet of tracing  paper on top of the photo, add a grid and trace the photo.
big hat

Collette Hughes

  • Forum Expert
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 227
Posted
Helen: its this one :- https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0B1WQDDDR. I've no idea if its better or worse than any others available, as its the only one I've had. It clamps well on the easel. My only gripe is the gooseneck is too long. I have it almost doubled back on itself. 
IMG_7097

Helen Martell

  • Respected User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 485
Posted
Thank you Collette 😀
With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, NAPA

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 20386
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 7150
Posted
"a very bad book by David Hockney" you say; Robert. Where's your evidence that he's wrong? To even things up I say his book is so interesting and well thought out, I couldn't put it down.
Marjorie Firth on 27/02/2024 14:39:06 I have a much better question: where is the evidence that he is right? There is none.  He has speculated - anyone can do that; he has adduced reasoning to substantiate, so far as he can, his speculation.  But it's like theology - the argument may be absorbing (and may not): but the basic premise remains entirely lacking in evidence.  It's not going to worry Rembrandt, Canaletto, Vermeer - it doesn't even bother me all that much.  But a good argument is one for which there is concrete proof, or, if not proof, reasonable inference.  And that is totally lacking - Hockney came up with a theory; that informed all he had to say and all the justification he produced sought to demonstrate the theory.  You just don't write art history like that, but then, Hockney is an artist, not an art historian - he should leave that to those who know how to conduct historical research.  In a world full of speculation and conspiracy theory, the last thing needed is more of it. There is evidence for various artefacts used in drawing and painting - artists themselves drew the materials they used, from the Claude mirror to the camera obscura/camera lucida.  These things existed.  The controversy lies in the use they made of them - and the assumption that the results they achieved could not have been reached by any other means - which is implied in the book, if not stated outright (I think: I don't have a copy of my own, I borrowed it).    We can't ask Rembrandt, Canaletto, Vermeer, de Hooch - but we can ask for evidence - now: unless they thought such devices were cheating, and why would they have done?  It would hardly have been a secret, why would they not have had  left either a record of their use or some evidence from their effects at death that they had possessed them?  Vermeer certainly didn't - that isn't even a matter of speculation, every one of his possessions was itemized when he died.  
logo2

Martin Cooke

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 150
Posted
Leaving Hockney aside, has anyone had a chance to read Philip Steadman's book on the subject (Vermeer's Camera: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Masterpieces)?
IMG_8857

Marjorie Firth

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 6385
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 1787
Posted
Martin, I’d like to read that, I’ll search out a copy. 
IMG_8857

Marjorie Firth

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 6385
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 1787
Posted
Robert, Hockney’s not claiming to have evidence but that doesn’t make it a very very bad book - that’s what I’m saying. He produced a book with wide appeal, with historical art facts which don’t make you nod off. His arguments are very plausible…whether you go with that, or not, is then up to each individual. Aside from Hockney - and you might see red again Robert - this is for Denise ( although she might be well aware of it ) - Andrew Graham-Dixon wrote a very readable book on Caravaggio, full of facts and illustrations. Going back to camera obscura and lucida, I remember being fascinated by the idea of them and seeing similar things happening “ naturally” - I painted the reflection of the building opposite which appeared on the worktop in the kitchen…at the risk of boring you, here it is:- ( there’s a better one in one of my galleries but can’t find it quickly)

Edited
by Marjorie Firth

Dmitry Shaklanoff-von Seipt

  • Forum Member
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 16
Posted
Interestingly, I saw at some London life classes and elsewhere  people getting a likeness in a few minutes without using cameras lucida, obscura, iPads, cameras, etc. Just an artist and a model. It's amazing that someone like Hockney with his reputation, ignores it. We are all different, some work faster, than others. France Hals worked very fast. On the other hand, it is known that Rembrandt had problems with clients, claiming that he did not catch the likeness. If I can't get a likeness fast or at all it does not mean others can't  and that they only do it using telescopes, computers, etc.  I am sure that if Hockney gets a good classically trained tutor (they exist), he , with some perseverance, would be able to catch a likeness without using all those optical paraphernalia. 

Edited
by Dmitry Shaklanoff-von Seipt

IMG_1787

John Graham Inkson

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 106
Posted
Interesting, someone said to Picasso,” your portrait does not look like them.“ Picasso replied “IT WILL DO.” 😜
Jack mural 3 August

James Endeacott

  • Forum Member
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 24
Posted
Bought myself an officially secondhand Lenovo tablet which seems to be unused actually. I'm really looking forward to using it to help with outdoor larger than life murals with the grid method.  ps it was £65 which was a little more than I originally hoped to pay but I bought it at a store rather than online, so I don't feel too bad about it as I value our real shops!

Edited
by James Robert Endeacott

With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, NAPA

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 20386
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 7150
Posted
Let us know how you get on, James.  And Dmitry - I much enjoyed your post! I had to leave a conversation the other day, on this subject.  I maybe should make clear - I have no objection at all to people using whatever device they find helpful, or fun, or interesting.  I have no problem with David Hockney's experiments with his Ipad - I have a lot of trouble with a concept for a book which purports to be "secret knowledge - secrets of the old masters revealed" and all the rest of it; that may have been as much to do with Falco, and the publisher's blurb and title, as with Hockney; but it's presumptuous and arrogant.  We do not know - Hockney and Falco do not know - how Rembrandt, Vermeer et al painted, or what devices they used or did not use.  Speculation is perfectly permissible, but spurious claims of "secret knowledge" are not.  The writers of that book failed to back up their claims - I wouldn't care one little bit if Vermeer DID use mechanical devices; but if there's no evidence that he did, no one should be saying that he did - at least, not in a book that sought to be taken seriously.  THAT'S why the book is a bad one: it deceives or seeks to, if not quite so egregiously as Jacques Maroger's fabricated account of the old masters' oil recipes and practices; but see the problem.  For years, Maroger was taken to be an authority on oil painting - people used his concoctions, and there's still a substance called Maroger's medium on sale today; he claimed that these were the secrets of Titian, Michaelangelo, Leonardo, Tintoretto, and more.  And it was all hogwash.  He'd made it up; he claimed sources for his claims which were found to be bogus. That was more serious, because people used his awful gunk on their paintings: in the Falco-Hockney case, whatever they believe will do no harm EXCEPT - some might believe that you can't achieve good results without various aids; that you can't hope to draw well without using, e.g., the Lucy drawing aid; and so they won't try to do without it.  That won't cause their paintings to crack, corrugate, shrink - which taking Jacques Maroger seriously well could - but it'd be, to put it no more strongly, a pity.  Because these devices are NOT essential or necessary.  Which doesn't mean it's a hanging offence to use them - by all means do!  It's not cheating - but sorry and all that, David, I have every respect for you as an artist, but claiming to know what you can't know does no service to practising artists, or art history.  That's me lot. 
With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, NAPA

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 20386
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 7150
Posted
Well, ALMOST me lot - sorry Marjorie, I somehow managed not to see your most recent post - too involved with the argument....  I understand what you're saying, and the book is not badly written, it's very entertaining and not without interest.  It's the claim about revelation of artist secrets - and that alone, really - which has ruffled my feathers.
Showing page 4 of 4