This is great Bill, they really love each other and it comes through clearly.

Thank you! Hey, I just browsed your blog, and I saw a very nice, metal proportional divider on one page of it. Could you inform me where you obtained that? I looks like a good one, and is much more solid than the cumbersome, composite plastic one that I own.

Mine only cost about $8, as I recall.:lol:

Thank you, everyone. I’m having a bit of a bad day, today, and your nice comments are good to hear!

Stapeliad, thanks for the information. What a pricey little tool that is, though!

Excellent work, Bill…you’re an example of what I hope to eventually be…

Wow. Thank you! That is about the nicest comment I’ve ever received! But, I’m hoping that you will far exceed anything that I’ve done.

That is beautiful work. Truly.

I know that comparisons can be problematic, since different artists have different goals. But there was a thread about Mark Carder recently to which I did not contribute — and the truth is that, while I respect Carder (whose work can be breathtaking, and who has earned a LOT more at this game than I ever could), there’s something about that guy’s work that rubs me the wrong way.

I think that “something” comes down to this: A lot of Carder’s work looks, to my eye, like photographs made with paint.

I like realistic, representational painting. But there’s a difference between a good realistic work (like this one) and a photograph made with paint.

I honestly believe that “something being a bit ‘wrong'” is because of the concept of mechanically isolating specific colors of the subject (whether it be a photo, or from real life), for the purpose of matching exactly the color of the subject.

I realize that many disagree with me on the point I’m about to make, but please give this a consideration, if you will. When one views any scene in real life–let’s say a landscape, for example–there are not only the colors of the objects in the scene, but numerous optical illusions of color, as well.

For example, many cast shadows appear a bit Blue, or Violet, to the viewer’s eye, when viewed in context, and this is because Blue, or Violet are complementary colors to Yellow, or Orange, the color of the light shining upon the objects that create those shadows.

These Blue shadows are an optical illusion, pure and simple, and they only exist between the viewer’s eye, and the viewer’s brain. Those shadows truly are NOT Blue, but merely a darker version of the surface upon which the shadow is being cast. (That’s the reason they don’t show up in a photograph.)

Now, when one “waxes scientifically” enough to isolate the color of that cast shadow, thus removing it from the surrounding Yellow light that is causing it to appear Blue, or Violet in the real-life scene, ….it ceases to be Blue, at all, and merely takes on the color of a darker version of the surface upon which it is being cast.

My feeling is that while super-accurate color matching can be accomplished with many types of “color checkers”, it causes you to lose the effect of the moment, that involves all these optical illusions that are created by the close proximity of light, and cast shadows.

That may be the reason Carder’s, or anyone else’s paintings appear to be a photograph done with paint, as much of the “reality” that is represented by these numerous optical illusions of color in the real scene are lost because of isolating such colors for the purpose of matching them precisely.

The isolating of colors for the purpose of matching them accurately is a very useful concept, but one needs to know when using it is appropriate, and when it is not.

Anyway…..That’s my theory!:D