So exactly. There is no proof he used a CO. Just speculation based on how painted perspective and a lot of arguing that he did or didnt.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message --------
From: Mario Pires <retorta@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 08/06/2013 7:22 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Vermeer
http://www.essentialvermeer.com/
Mário Pires
Photographer and curator of Photography now!
http://www.scoop.it/t/photography-now
retorta@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.retorta.net
https://www.facebook.com/retorta
http://twitter.com/retorta
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Ken Sinclair <photo1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> There is a book titled 'Vermeer's Camera' wherein the author Philip Steadman
> has offered (via diagrams.. and, having had built the 'sets' with the UK's BBC
> research staff for a television program, provided a rather strong argument
> that Vermeer actually used a camera obscura as a basis for a large number his paintings.
>
> It is a good read, well written.
>
> Ken
>
>
> On 2013-08-06, at 3:56 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
>>
>
