Possible but many have done near perfection without the need. Why do you want to suppose he needed such an aid? that would be a Big CO for the time to be moved around. Typical for drawing where small. Maybe 8x10ish his paintings go from 18x20 to 51x54 inches. I dont see how a big tent type camera would fit but it could I guess.
On Aug 6, 2013 3:11 AM, "John Palcewski" <palcewski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I imagine he'd do a charcoal sketch on the blank canvas, just to get
the perspective right. Then paint at leisure.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why would he need a CO? in the days if not weeks for all the paint layers
> it would be a hindrance. a painter of his skill just wouldnt need one
> expecially for his subject matter.
>
> On Aug 6, 2013 2:57 AM, "John Palcewski" <palcewski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> "The painter Johannes Vermeer is known for his incredible treatment of
>> light and the near-photorealism of his 17th-century scenes. How did he
>> do it without the use of a camera, which was invented some 150 years
>> later?"
>>
>> My vote goes to the camera obscura, which of course predated photography
>>
>> Rest of the disappointingly short and information-free article here:
>>
>> http://bit.ly/13VnxAL
>>
>
