PDA

View Full Version : Opposite Effect of Lighting a Painting


davefriend
04-19-2014, 01:51 PM
I am sharing this comparison photo of an unnamed little painting. The painting is not so important as the effect that it called to my attention.

That effect I came across this quite by accident and I am not sure that everyone will perceive the effect the same. I often will light a painting that has texture 2 different ways to see which shows off the texture best. It should be no surprise how important lighting is to a works presentation since we all know that color needs real light to be effective and are acquainted with how the texture becomes highlighted and/or shadowed by the same light source.

After taking the photographs and then comparing the images on the computer I noticed the interesting effect of perceiving raised portions in one painting but seeing the same portion looking like it was depressed in the other. One photo is deceptive to the reality of the paintings surface but is it the photo that is deceiving or is it my perception? I thought some of you may find this interesting or maybe have run across this effect before in your own art journey.

Thanks for looking and any and all comments or criticisms are welcome! :wave:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/19-Apr-2014/538491-diag_lighting_reverses_effect.jpg


Same painting - detail area (Below)

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/19-Apr-2014/538491-diag_lighting_reverses_effect_2.jpg


Thanks again for looking :)

AndreD
04-19-2014, 02:13 PM
That's definitely an interesting effect Dave. So which is the accurate rendition? The depressed look or the raised portion?

davefriend
04-19-2014, 02:18 PM
That's definitely an interesting effect Dave. So which is the accurate rendition? The depressed look or the raised portion?Thanks Andre, it's the ones on the left that are like what I painted. Everything is splatted on the flat canvas. Since seeing this effect I have been thinking how I can produce the depressed effect. I think I would have to do a drywall splatter texture and let it dry some then knock it down so that the flat was in front and not in the background.

I was also thinking, for those who sell prints of their work, you could have 2 versions of work that reacts this way under light.

ChristyQ
04-19-2014, 02:48 PM
The photo on the right looks like the sharpness was enhanced, not necessarily a change in the lighting.

davefriend
04-19-2014, 03:13 PM
The photo on the right looks like the sharpness was enhanced, not necessarily a change in the lighting.Both photos have been treated EXACTLY the same in computer processing and both were sharpened at the lowest setting - except for the lighting everything was the same. The painting itself was physically rotated IRL to get the same light source to show up on the other side when the original photos were snapped.

My take is - the highlights on one may not show up the same ...as the lighting changes the appearance of the exact same features.

saje
04-19-2014, 03:25 PM
this is really impressive and very interesting in its differences! how much of this happens when doing a sculpture? thanks

davefriend
04-19-2014, 04:09 PM
this is really impressive and very interesting in its differences! how much of this happens when doing a sculpture? thanksTo me it points out how the setting for a piece can make a difference - maybe even a 180 degree difference. Paintings are one thing but how much more with sculpture and installation art?

ChristyQ
04-19-2014, 04:21 PM
Thanks Andre, it's the ones on the left that are like what I painted. Everything is splatted on the flat canvas. Since seeing this effect I have been thinking how I can produce the depressed effect. I think I would have to do a drywall splatter texture and let it dry some then knock it down so that the flat was in front and not in the background.

I was also thinking, for those who sell prints of their work, you could have 2 versions of work that reacts this way under light.

I see the lighting changes over the bubbles of paint, but the drastic change still looks like the sharpness to me. lol I am going to find my most bubbly painting and do some experiments now. :lol: :lol:

davefriend
04-19-2014, 04:31 PM
I see the lighting changes over the bubbles of paint, but the drastic change still looks like the sharpness to me. lol I am going to find my most bubbly painting and do some experiments now. :lol: :lol:hope you share results! :thumbsup:

Darisc
04-19-2014, 05:22 PM
...I am going to find my most bubbly painting and do some experiments now. :lol: :lol:

I balk at bursting other's bubbles, but by gosh, believe me, it's all in your heads, i.e., how you can actually choose how to perceive the images.

If you look at the lower left image and see it as being lit by a light source on the the right, the splitpea soup bubbles have white highlights on the right and are shadowed on the left.

But...If you look at the lower left image and see it as being lit by a light source on the the left, the splitpea soup bubbles become craters, have white highlights on their walls on the right and their walls are in shadows on the left.

Since I don't know which direction the light is actually coming from, I can choose to perceive either bubbles or craters, no? :wave:

Edit: see "dimples and bumps" here: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/dimples_bumps_picture.htm

birdhs
04-19-2014, 06:17 PM
what a bumply and dipply delite!

I have experienced some very distinctive results with the effects of differently directed lighting on some cars I took phots of. No results available to explain.

but it seemed like several different cars depending on the light source: the curves of the car were 'altered' by the lighting. All I can recall is that it was my 1967 MGB convertible.

This phenomenon needs a name! Maybe it already has one besides the obvious 'optical illusion'.

obviously this could be achieved in a computer program, but that seems like cheating

""luminensent reversal effect"" ????

ChristyQ
04-19-2014, 06:41 PM
I balk at bursting other's bubbles, but by gosh, believe me, it's all in your heads, i.e., how you can actually choose how to perceive the images.

If you look at the lower left image and see it as being lit by a light source on the the right, the splitpea soup bubbles have white highlights on the right and are shadowed on the left.

But...If you look at the lower left image and see it as being lit by a light source on the the left, the splitpea soup bubbles become craters, have white highlights on their walls on the right and their walls are in shadows on the left.

Since I don't know which direction the light is actually coming from, I can choose to perceive either bubbles or craters, no? :wave:

Edit: see "dimples and bumps" here: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/dimples_bumps_picture.htm

I see the lighting directions. The thing that I was trying to point out was that the difference looks so drastically different, in my opinion, is because of the sharpeness changes from picture to picture. I had a difficult time getting past the fuzz in the first image to really see the difference... if that makes any sense. :lol: :lol:

I sharpened the first picture so that it matches the second one a little better to hopefully illustrate what I was trying to say. You can still see the lighting changes.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/19-Apr-2014/1339374-538491-diag_lighting_reverses_effect_2_copy.jpg

cmorford
04-19-2014, 07:31 PM
I'm not sure about the name, but it is a THING...

It's because out brains are wired to see light coming from above as "normal"...

When an object is lighted from below, it doesn't look quite right to our brains...

May not have the same effect on everyone, since we're all wired a little differently...I wish I could remember where I read that...

idylbrush
04-19-2014, 07:33 PM
Certainly intriguing and shows how important good photographs of your work can be affected by the slightest change, in this case lighting.