Testing the Secret Tool that Lets you draw Photorealistically - Camera Lucida

[@MathieuStern]

Thanks for watching!! Discover more experiments and weird lenses here : 📷 Instagram: instagram.com/mathieustern/ 🐦 Twitter: twitter.com/mathieustern 💡 Patreon: patreon.com/mathieustern 🧨 Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@mathieustern2 🏛 Weird Lens Museum: tinyurl.com/ybwzlqz3 🇫🇷 Chaine en Français: www.youtube.com/@mathieustern-fr

[@duncanhewitt6557]

Fun fact the guy who invented film used this in Italy and his idea came as he found it no help as he wasn't a trained artist

[@MathieuStern]

@@duncanhewitt6557 fun fact, thats what I exeplain in the video

[@jesusivanguerrazaldivar8303]

Hey Mathieu, your own drawings are much better, keep practicing !!

[@danmagoo]

I had a version of this as a kid, that was advertised in comic books. Of course the comic book ad illustration was greatly exaggerated, making it look (to a kid) like it was projecting the image into the page, the way a movie projector today might do. So of course it was a disappointment at first -- but years later, I realized in fact it is a pretty cool and potentially useful device that actually worked.

[@pauljs75]

I remember Jazza messing around with what amounts to an "art toy" version of one of these devices and having that expectation, but he got the hang of it pretty good in a later follow-up after people said he was doing it wrong. He's kind of a pop youtuber, so if you follow enough art videos you're bound to run into him.

[@johnsavard7583]

The "Magic Art Reproducer" from Norton Products?

[@danmagoo]

@@johnsavard7583 That looks like it! It was not plastic, by the way, as we might expect from a cheap item, but metal. The comic book ad that comes up in a Google search is not one I specifcally remember, but that image might well have caught my eye at that age!

[@susanfudge1737]

Did you also buy sea monkeys?

[@Ndlanding]

I think it was called a pantagraph/gram. or something very similar. A similar word is used for the mechanism that connects a trolley bus to the overhead live wires in the street. It was only in American comics, though. Otherwise I would have asked for one for Christmas, and a bag of sea monkeys too. 😀

[@saturnday160]

This feels like a very useful way to get the proportions down quickly, even if you're not going for realism.

[@matthewlawton9241]

So long as you focus in. Like the video said, the image is going to be squashed or elongated as you move from the central focal point, dependent on the angle the camera lucida is oriented at. You would need very special lenses milled for use at specific angles to avoid this.

[@dodgygoose3054]

Totally agree.

[@IRMacGuyver]

Well you're wrong. Using a prism distorts the proportions due to the angles involved. You would need a complex lens in line with the prism to focus the image in a way to remove the distortion.

[@sergioreyes298]

I have been a photographer for many years, and it's incredible that I had never heard of this device. It's also wonderful to learn about it.

[@Joe-lb8qn]

There's a (huge) book by David Hockney about its use (and similar optical devices). He contends (persuasively to me) that many famous artists used such tools going back several hundred years (much older than the device in this video)

[@sergioreyes298]

@@Joe-lb8qn Thank you!

[@itsgonnabeanaurfromme]

Not really. This isn't part of basic photography

[@kfdaddy]

I purchased the NEOLUCIDA through the Kickstarter campaign back in September of 2014. Haven't used it recently but I keep it safely tucked away with the pouch and original box. I'll have to dig it out and freshen my skills with it. I am no great artist but I did take oil painting lessons from the woman who lived upstairs from us. Along the same lines, I saved my allowance when I was a kid to buy a wooden pantograph made just for tracing images at different scales. It was probably around $3.00 and my allowance was 25¢ a week. I used it to trace photographs of different things including photos of my family. Sixty odd years later I still have that pantograph. Don't know how I managed to keep it these many years but I'm glad I did.

[@jordanhedington2421]

Is the neolucida worth buying? Is it good quality?

[@agranero6]

I bought one too. But I never used it much. Like those exercise props which being foldable is the best quality, so you can store them easily. I think you can't buy talent.

[@jamesslick4790]

Using this device CERTAINLY does NOT take away the "art" of..art. It's a tool. (and a damn cool one at that). You STILL need talent and skill to draw even when using it. Does ANYONE think architects are NOT artists if the use a scale or compass? It's gear. I have several Nikon DSLR bodies and lenses. THIS ALONE does not make me a "photographer".

[@melody3741]

YES PLEASE!!!!!

[@andresguillen6750]

@@melody3741 art is whatever you get away with - andy warhol

[@RSpracticalshooting]

Art is the human expression of skill and imagination. Whatever tools needed go fulfill that goal are fine. As soon as you take the human element out I no longer consider it art, but this is not removing the artist from the process.

[@zarblitz]

No kidding. This device won't give you a steady hand. It won't make you perfectly follow a curve. It won't teach you color theory. It won't teach you how to represent different materials in whatever your chosen medium. It doesn't make you an artist purely through use.

[@GregConquest]

It does eliminate the practice of "seeing" a scene, reproducing it in your mind, and then drawing out that image from your mind onto paper. This is certainly one of the fundamental practices of art. The artist using a camera lucida is "drawing blind"/tracing. It may still be art, but it is less so. FWIW, you could also take a photo and project it onto paper or just display on a tablet that comes with a stylus -- and trace it. The reduction in the human element in all of these is undeniable.

[@zacmumblethunder7466]

In the middle ages artists used a version of a pinhole camera. The subject would sit outside in bright sunlight and the artist inside in virtual darkness with a tiny hole projecting the image onto canvass. This was demonstrated very well in "The Tudor Monastery Farm" TV series.

[@deemushroomguy]

If I remember this would flip the image upside down. This phenomenon is called camera obscura.

[@zacmumblethunder7466]

@@deemushroomguy You're right X 2. I forgot about the upside down part.

[@CineSoar]

Many years ago, I volunteered at a haunted house. One of the rooms was built inside an old semi trailer. As an effect, I placed colored lights outside, pointed at 1/4” holes I had drilled into a wall. Theatrical fog made virtual laser beams inside. During the day, multiple, crystal clear images of the outdoors were projected inside. If the camera obscura hadn’t already existed, I would have discovered it then, as the effect was startling and the potential uses were just as clear. But, my university already had an updated device, which with the addition of a lens, was essentially an opaque projector, with an easel.

[@RCAvhstape]

@@CineSoar If you are ever in Los Angeles, Griffith Observatory has an awesome camera obscura that projects the image via a mirror down onto a big white round table in a dark room. The mirror slowly rotates, giving you a panoramic view of the city below the hill.

[@tupactheory3739]

camera lucidas are also very effective when only used partially - sketch a shape and shade then fill in your own color ideas, try hatching and cross hatching, try improvising certain parts using outside realism skills, etc. there are so many opportunities!

[@d.rabbitwhite]

People often misunderstand that a tool like this is still just a tool and that it will not make everyone have the same abilities. Back when doing graphic design before the aid of computers, people used a projector attached to a wall that would raise up and down to give a huge range of size reproduction. Good,skilled, AND talented artists could do wondrous things with this tool, while others who relied only on the tool did work of much less quality and skill. Being an artist, it is good to understand that using a tool is a skill in itself.

[@acoffeewithsatan]

I'd compare it to a musical instrument. It's also a tool, and one that would certainly "aid" the musician in their craft - giving its player easily visible and reachable notes that (for many instruments, most notably excluding the family of fiddles) automatically play in tune, as long as the instrument is serviced. That doesn't make a musician any less talented than an opera singer, for instance.

[@liammcooper]

100%

[@eiosti]

I am the most pure form of the "artist". I use zero tools and resources, and I create using my mind and my mind alone with zero training. I have created marvelous works such as, "incomplete mess", "not what I wanted", "total disappointment", and "literally does not exist" using the techniques generated in my mind. It is almost as if art is as much about communal creation, communication, and transformation of existing works as it is about "creating from nothing". It's ALMOST as if "creating from nothing" is a myth.

[@BuzzingGoober]

It's cheating, plain and simple.

[@bloodyhell8201]

​@@BuzzingGoober you think artists sneeze onto a page and it comes to life, mate?

[@john_hunter_]

They should have these in art class for kids. I feel like it would be really motivating to create something that looks good.

[@user-og6hl6lv7p]

Photopea (free photoshop) + Drawing tablet.

[@greengamerguy623]

Copying is not creating you're obviously not an artist I am

[@basmatine]

No. If you have these in classrooms then the kids have no incentive to learn how to draw or embrace the fundamentals.

[@lamontcranston3177]

What would it motivate them to do? Cheat? Learn nothing? There's always tracing paper over photographs if you really want to give up.

[@___xyz___]

I'm throughly impressed by the amount of negative feedback this comment received. It fascinates me that there are so many artists who struggle this hard, as to become butthurt other the availablity of tools which would have improved their artistry, broadened their perspective and slashed their learning curve. Things they didn't have, didn't do or simply didn't care enough about to explore and reap benefits of. Hands-on enhancement tools make artists learn quicker with a very few exceptions: notably the fundamentals of the primary utensils, the brush and the pencil, straight lines and proportions. All graphical arts people worth their salt will tell you to just draw. Who or what you draw, and why, matter nothing in comparison to the difference between actually putting down color on a blank paper and not. Tracing, no matter how silly, will teach you valuable skills about attention to detail, stroke response, fine motor skills, appreciation and taste in styles. Our minds are inspired by the world we live in. Make it your own. Successfully eternalising impressions from one's natural environment by sheer effort is guaranteed to motivate even the most pessimitic of students.

[@footrotdog]

There was a Kickstarter for the NeoLucida a few years back. I totally forgot I'd bought one. I should go find it. :) Thanks for the inspiration!

[@E-Kat]

Omg! Have you found it?

[@agranero6]

I bought one too and never used it. Good idea.

[@danmagoo]

What is being overlooked here, including comments that suggest tracing a photograph as an alternative, is that making a good drawing requires skills that tracing cannot replace. Tracing may let you get the general shapes, proportions, composition and perspective right, but the result is still going to look pretty bad if you don't have good drawing technique, and an understanding of how to capture the feel as well as the look of the subject and scene. This is especially true of drawing faces.

[@sushi_donut]

1:39 - I love this perspective. I think non-artists and new artists seem to only see the 'magic' (or the results) of the work; perhaps it's more fun to think about someone having this innate talent or quality to produce beautiful things, instead of the lifetime of commitment to the medium. IMO the artist should use most anything (ON TOP of the lifetime of commitment), to actualize the images in their minds. Regardless of the tool, it's the artist that brought life to it. ☺

[@Gilotopia]

Just like text to image AIs today. They're just tools.

[@fireaza]

You see this a LOT with the "CGI BAD! PRACTICAL GOOD!" clowns. A good artist knows which tool is right for the job. They don't exclude themselves from using particular tools because this will somehow make the work more "pure".

[@sushi_donut]

@@fireaza Also, no one criticizes good CGI because they can't tell it's "CGI" to begin with 😅 Not to be too black & white, but it seems like it's a lot of naysayers who like to sit on concepts/beliefs vs. artists who make, create (and move on!) using whatever that brings life to their work.

[@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking]

Is this device how the sidewalk chalk perspective wizards do their magic?

[@Armendicus]

Speed and work flow lead to more industrious results. Tools combined with skills means faster output. Which meant more $.

[@justaminute3111]

Thanks for this. I knew about the use of the Camera Lucida technique for drawing scientific specimens for taxonomy purposes, but that uses a dissecting microscope. This doesn’t work with architectural sketches, so I couldn’t figure that out. There was a huge jump in the accuracy of landscape and architecture depiction in the 19th century. I knew about the grid system, like van Gough used, I also knew that once photography was created, a light table could be used but one was too crude and the other too late. I work with kids and have had discussions about drawing because it can be really disheartening to them to compare their work with professionals. It is good to know about the tools that professionals use. As I point out, using tools isn’t cheating if everyone knows. Also, as with van Gough, those tools can be used to train our brain to draw better free-hand.

[@cvcoco]

Amazed that Ive been drawing for 30 years and dont remember ever hearing of this. At first it seems like cheating but if you think it is, you can try an easy test. Tear out a page from a magazine containing a figure and tape it to a glass window with sun shining behind it. Now tape a page of copy machine paper to that and start drawing. I bet it will look pretty much like crap even though you had the means to perfectly trace. Tools like the lucida are extremely helpful to get proportion, size, perspective quickly but its not art yet, thats all inside you and how you interpret it. Im not sure but my thinking is that if you already draw completely freehand, this might screw you up and be very hard to get used to but id love to try it.

[@davidroddick91]

An artist draws what he sees; whether he sees it in front of him or on the paper, he's still an artist.

[@grumpiesngiggles4581]

I'm an artist and I use projectors and tracing boards all the time. The goal is to make a beautiful photo drawing. I'm not being tested with each work I do. People don't care how it's made. They just want a beautiful art piece. Every single artist I know uses a projector. And all the tiktoks where people seem to be freehanding...look close. You'll see the think light pencil lines from them projecting or tracing the image first.

[@K3Flyguy]

Excellent point! Also most people want beautiful art very cheap.

[@HOAXTelevision]

You used a pencil to draw that picture, pfft. Draw me a picture without tools like pencils or pens or brushes, that will be pure art and really show your skills.

[@ferretyluv]

Artists back in the day used projectors and tracing too. They just used a camera obscura.

[@rexmundi5180]

@@ferretyluv not all of them, many just had skill.

[@ferretyluv]

@@rexmundi5180 Oh by no means, not all of them. But many did for stuff like landscapes.

[@hal_aetus]

OMG, I love what you and the interviewee in the video say: An artist uses the tools available at the time. I am an exclusively digital artist and I always sense the devaluing of what I do, simply because I use a digital pad to pass my stylus over in my painting. Like somehow the computer is doing all the work. My response is always to ask them what a classical artist would have done if they had access to digital technologies. I can't help but think that they would have been elated to use something that expanded their abilities. Thanks for the great video. I may have to try one of these for my plein air sketching!

[@anthonyjackson280]

It would be the same as criticising an artist for not grinding lapis lazuli to make pigment and skinning their own egg yolks for tempura paint. Imagine Leonardo da Vinci having access to a 3D solid body modelling CAD system, or Blender - would he refuse to use them?? Of course not. They are tools that remove the drudgery of creativity.

[@jimjam6327]

The sense of devaluing should tell you something, but don't let it stop you if you are enjoying yourself.

[@prosie8080]

They wouldnt use graphic tablets beacouse they are not real matter. You are drawing jpgs, paint is a thing that you can own and touch, thats also why paintings survive the time, a png or whatever gets lost in a folder and even if not and you make prints you are making exact and unlimited copies, a painting is always unique. Don't worry, I had the same problem when I started with digital, now I do use it to sketch some times but just from time to time. Read, study and practice and if it is just for fun at least you know what you are doing and what to expect.

[@DarkAngelEU]

Hockney made an entire series of iPad paintings, but he still makes oil paintings as well, because he sees the value of them that makes them superior to digital paintings. After watching them being exposed, I have to agree. The comparison was very interesting though, and I can see merit in both of them. It would be very interesting to see the digital paintings being translated to physical paintings by a 3D-printer of some sorts.

[@hal_aetus]

@@prosie8080 Digital art needn't be lost. It is, though, as you say, impossible to limit to only one copy and, as such, I can understand why it ultimately carries less value than an original painting. But it has nothing to do with digital art being trivial or requiring less skill. It's just the nature of the media. I did traditional art previously and picked up digital later. I really enjoy that you can create any brush, brush effect, or paint effect that you want. It's a learning curve to get fast at such modifications, but you can play with it without committing to new paints, physical brushes, or substrates. No mess and it doesn't require much space. As far as storage, I created my own database file server for that, although there are commercial products available too. And someday when I'm gone, my art will live on in the online galleries I've posted it to.

[@ty_teynium]

Really interesting. However in that interview the guy mentions that the proportions in that sketch were slightly off, so I'm not entirely sold on whether this would work or help to improve on perspectives and proportions. Also I've made these same types of mistakes numerous times but it was because of my posture and the angle from which I'm seated at while drawing. If you hunch over you are focused but it'll hurt like he'll when you get back up, but if you sit back straight, your drawing will be slanted since the paper is laid flat before you rather than on a raised surface like a draftsman table or Professional animators desk.

[@unusualcomment9731]

It's the same with picture, the lens changes the proportion of what you really see. It's much more visible with wide angle lenses and when you have objects in different planes (foreground and background)

[@jorriffhdhtrsegg]

But it made me think whether a modern version could have a corrective lense, similar to a tilt shift camera

[@drakefallentine8351]

I wondered if the woman being sketched might have moved slightly during the rendition. I'm sure it takes time to trace such a detailed image. That would likely affect the proportions.

[@widam]

pretty interesting, I hope they sell a modern version of it, could be a very good gift for somebody that is learning to draw.

[@sushi_donut]

It's linked in the description.

[@snerttt]

@@science830 that's such a rip off 😂 I had a toy version of one of these as a kid but I forgot the name ..

[@twocsies]

There's a modern version called the ipad. Just take a photo and trace over everything with the stylus.

[@XMarkxyz]

Most of all I hope that they can manage to optically improve on the old design, which should be a given but too much in modern day quality looses against price, for a good optical glass piece I would spend a right amount instead I wouldn't even consider a plastic thing

[@lkahfi]

I think about camera and projector

[@knoptop]

the glass optics and brass construction makes tracing classy! :D

[@evilAshTheDog]

Yeah, but it's not as functional as the Camera Lucida app! Well, I'm biased. Dave, if you want to do a comparison, I'll send you my NeoLucida or something!

[@KitKatToeBeans]

I’ve had a Lucy stored safely in its shipping box since December of 2019, untouched. I just dusted it off and I’m excited to get over my fears of jumping into drawing again, after so many years. Thanks for this video!

[@TraitorFelon.14.3]

Here’s an idea for a novel way to draw… Take a photo. Reverse it to be a negative. Print it in the size you want. Lay a blank piece on top of it. If you have a light source underneath you can use a soft pencil and gently make the whole picture the same shade of grey. In other words, you push slightly harder on the pencil over light areas and less over dark areas.

[@mari0n333]

Just tried this-- I tested it on that meme picture of the terrible craft clay pikachu with the thousand yard stare and bloodshot eyes, since it had a lot of complex shading. It worked 100% flawlessly and I was able to make an exact copy in 5 minutes.

[@Hypnotically_Caucasian]

Based pfp

[@TraitorFelon.14.3]

@@Hypnotically_Caucasian Give it a try. Wouldn’t logic tell you that it works?

[@eh1702]

There is a giant, table (or room) sized camera lucida known as the “camera obscura” in Edinburgh, built in 1835. A purpose-built tower on the sixth floor houses the lens. It projects a living view of Edinburgh city centre in a big circle. You can still go and see it today.

[@ferretyluv]

I’ve been there. There’s tons of camera obscurae of that size all over the world. But you don’t need a room size to get the effect. A big one like that just lets you see the city. You can have one in your bedroom with just a slit in the curtains with the sun just at the right angle. Back in the day, they just had tents with tiny holes in them.

[@benruniko]

I wish i had known about this as a teen. I was desperate to improve at drawing but failed because my output never improved beyond a third grader’s level no matter how long i practiced. I gave up after ten years of trying classes, techniques and all kinds of things. If I had the chance to produce something that at least had proportions right, it would have inspired me to continue. Im buying one for my oldest daughter, who has talent way beyond what i had. She deserves more opportunity! Thank you!!!

[@Spamhard]

Big same. I really loved art but struggled with the process and the results, eventually giving up when i left school at 16. It didn't help that I was being told to focus on realism when cartoons and animation were what i preferred. Sucked all joy out of drawing things I love when being told what I loved drawing wasn't 'real' art. But I digress... As someone middle aged just getting back into drawing for the first time in over 20 years, I offer you this small bit of encouragement; if you EVER wanna try anything again, i recommend buying a cheap wacom tablet on ebay (they're like $20) and trying a free trial of a program like Clip Studio Paint. Digital art has really blown me away and sparked my interest again. Being able to place a photo down on a layer, and then trace of the photo in much the same manner as this camera, has helped so much with training my hands and brain, and give fun results too. There's no shame in something like tracing while practicing, imo, it's been a really encouraging process for me.

[@ichirofakename]

1. My position on drawing is that there are two places to put down your line: the right place, and the wrong place. When working realistically, this camera lucida is another tool for "finding" the right place. Except for the hyper-trained, trying to draw the right line free hand/by eye is generally a practice of trial and error. Some might prefer to draw the right line immediately, skipping the preliminary approximations, at one go. Like me. 2. My position on cheating is always cheat. Always. Make the best possible drawing you can. 3. Personally, when drawing larger than 8x10", in a realistic vein, I use the grid system to transfer and enlarge a photo shot specifically with the intent of making a drawing from it. When smaller, I print the photo on copy paper at the final size and transfer full size via carbon paper. 4. However, I rarely work in a realistic vein anymore, as I have developed grave aesthetic issues about the point of creating a drawing or painting that is effectively nothing more than a rendered photo. If I want a photo-like image, I try my best to be satisfied with an actual photo. But I reserve the right to "correct" the photo by drawing it.

[@RyanBrown-hp3sc]

I feel the same way. I like the idea of realism but creating something from the imagination is more interesting. I've always likened it to bullshitting my way into making art.

[@crusty21]

Artists either "Trace" ( like this ) or " Construct" who's results obviously depend on visual memory from years of practice and study . Personally I have found that once one masters a subject and it's construction, the freedom and satisfaction of results are amazing...but of course, expediency usually pays the bills.

[@jasonfyk]

wrong

[@jakesmerth1919]

Nobody asked

[@ty_teynium]

Omg so true. Unfortunately.

[@DrTheRich]

it's not just about expediency. It's about what skill you are mastering. A photographer masters a different skill than a painter. in the end if practically fully mastered, neither is more skillful than the other, because their skills are different. This is just a tool that puts you in between a photographer and a painter.

[@crusty21]

@@DrTheRich There is no comparison in effort between someone that trains for years to be a good painter and someone that takes a good picture, sorry. I don't subscribe to the modern standard that all can be called art especially when minimal effort and sacrifice is needed to produce it. This is the kind of thinking that induces the bland mediocrity of today....AI created art for example is not art IMO, it is actually another nail in the coffin of the true artist. Of all the muses human kind is naturally gifted to create , their art, their music, their poetry give them life...The moment these are completely in-organically created, is the moment life will mean nothing for us...because generating "art" will be as effortless as taking a dump. This of course is just MHO.

[@pipfox7834]

we had these in Botany Departments when i worked as a botanical illustrator in the 1980's. Made the job of drawing sometimes very small samples brought in from the field, very easy to draw. But the ones wee had were large and clunky compared to the neat small original one shown here. Thanks for uploading!

[@shisir_nayak2377]

You are a great artist even without the camera lucida. Keep up the good work.

[@MathieuStern]

Thank you so much 😀

[@theselectiveluddite]

I agree with Shisir :)

[@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking]

Yeah, you're humble babe, not a poor artist. :)

[@jaydubya3698]

I was going to say that your drawing skills weren't poor. Seems like you just didn't work at it enough. But the samples you provided were actually pretty good.

[@Reyoso]

Ohhh reminds me when i got started into drawing was (tracing paper). Then i used basically this similar thing but a cheaper version (Mirror Optical Drawing Board). Then i finally got off that, since i kept losing my viewing angle and things were definitely off. Overall, it helped very much to get my practice in!

[@randomsandwichian]

It would work astonishingly well if you could use it for distorted angles (ie. one drawing, but with gradually changing perspectives, like with a fisheye lens or mirrors), if you could connect the images together. Would look utterly surreal.

[@TraitorFelon.14.3]

A pretty neat instrument if you want to mark out on a canvas. Had one as a kid. It works absolutely fine.

[@shynebox]

Fascinating. I also agree with Hockney that the skill in any process is down to the artist's ability to use the available tools.

[@chrisgriffith1573]

I have one of these, its clumsy, and if you move or have an unstable base, it totally blown, as the alignment is almost impossible to realign. Move your head out of the specific distance to the prism, or take any break just to stretch or relieve the crick in your neck from sitting still for so long, and the drawing is pretty much done. The field of view is also relevant to the picture, the further out of the small prism zone you try to look, the more distortion there is. The different lenses help to a point, but they also have their own distortions.

[@thegrassyknoll7792]

What an incredible struck of luck to stumble over this video, im a hobby watchrepairer and i have a little vice that looks exactly like the vice on this tool, i have wondered why there are Sawmarks on my “vice” now i know, it belonged to a larger device and a watchmaker for some reason once sawed it off, to be reused in his shop 😃👍🏻

[@randomsandwichian]

This is another practical way to learn how to control the pencil than say tracing or using grids. All three have their plusses, but being able to see the example as though on the surface you are working on is a big one.

[@Vhbaske]

Even with a camera lucida you must be an artist, because that is a skill you bring to life...

[@Ogsonofgroo]

We learned about these in art class (50 years ago for me) and I've always wanted to check one out, very cool device and thank you for making this video, well done and cheers from Canada! I have a feeling that using this device regularly as well as drawing without it would help improve you free-hand drawing, so students would benefit from it, even if its just learning to steady your hand and build muscle memory.

[@Jimjolnir]

I am amazed that I hadn't heard about this. This looks like a wonderful tool for the novice and the professional.

[@MrBarcode]

This is a good parallel to AI Art now. Everyone is shouting its the death of the artist but even back then they used tools to help create things. And even the camera spawned this same conversation

[@seedmole]

Exactly, same thing happened with digital image processing in the first place. It's funny how "digital painting" is such a mainstay now that a lot of people don't even realize that it once was the new controversial thing, and that they're now the ones making the cyclical argument.

[@Kittsuera]

@@seedmole the problem is photos are not allowed to be a substitute in a hand painting competition. basically, its not that its not art. or bad to choose that method but its not a fair metric in a competition. the digital art one may be "fair play" simply because there was no rule against it. but future comps will prob need to rule out computer AI being used or have separate categories similar to photography.

[@ErazerPT]

@@ericp3645 ML will never substitute humans, as it's just a tool. And there's a good reason i call it ML and not AI. Back when i did vector drawing, i couldn't use autotrace for most work i did because it didn't understand even simple concepts as line, vertical, horizontal or parallel. I can teach a ML model that. And ML's aren't creative either, even if they are sometimes "funky" due to errors (sounds human doesn't it...), they are just very consistent and better than 97% of humans at whatever they do. tldr: ML's are just tools you teach WHAT you want them to do (by example) and they learn HOW to do it. Presto, another tool in the toolbox.

[@Braham_the_Terror]

Yeah and camera ruined the career of many artists of the time. Though people like to bring it up in this conversation as if it didn't.

[@MrBarcode]

@@ericp3645 The idea shouldnt be I type in a sentence and get art. Look at someone like Scott Detweiler where he uses AI to enhance his photography. AI Art should not be the end product but a step in the process. 3D printing is a good example. It was supposed to be for rapid prototyping and not an end product that gets thrown on kickstarter. if used PROPERLY AI art is just a tool for the actual artist and should not be the end result. Im working on a game and dont have a concept artist. Ive ran my idea through midjorney a few times to make something I thought was cool and thrown it in a pureref board with other non AI art to help me create my end product. EDIT: and yes @Nuno Trancoso is correct this should be called Machine Learning not Artificial Intelligence

[@skyhightabby]

What a beautifully done video! I love all the information, i love the personal trial. When i was a kid I had a kids art projector, where it came with various slide reels of different themed images (basic clear plastic with black outlines of animals, flowers, etc) so you could put it in, turn on the light and it would put the shadow on the surface. I took it to school and charged kids a quarter each for gel pen tattoos.

[@markelsberry7472]

Fascinating. Vermere had the same concept. His work was priceless.

[@denkbrein]

Exactly the “I’ve never heard of” we want to get known of, thank you very much! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@MathieuStern]

Glad you liked it!

[@eldestmillennial3136]

I feel like I've been lied to my entire life. I always assumed that naturalists of every stripe were talented and skilled artists, hands down; it had never occurred to me that they might have a technology that helped with the images.

[@jamesslick4790]

Um..Artists use tools. Always have, Always will. I can't draw. Even IF I had this device, The drawing, shading, ETC still requires SKILL and TALENT. You can prove this yourself with a pencil and tracing paper.

[@davidegaruti2582]

@@jamesslick4790 honestly yeah , even just by using brushes and modern paint and pencils artists always use more advanced tools than cavemen that painted their hands in ocra and splattered them on cave walls , and even those cavemen used ocra ... so yeah saying this is cheating is wrong also this is infinatly cheaper and imo a lot more fun than a camera a printer and photoshop , it also trains your skill and makes you into a better painter

[@d.rabbitwhite]

@@jamesslick4790 Yes, spot on. Using a tool is still a skill.

[@E-Kat]

No, not all artists use tools like that! My brother used to draw without any devices; he'd draw from his memory too! Anything at all ! When we were kids, we'd ask him to draw something difficult, a crashed car, for example, expecting he'd decline, but he'd draw it so amazingly well! The car would look like a real car wreck! He drew animals, also without looking at one, streets full of houses , aeroplanes, tanks, missile launchers, rockets, guns of any make! He was brilliant at caricature and this was his favourite! But he was best at drawing machines with all the parts beautifully executed, looking like a blueprint! We couldn't understand how he knew where all the parts were, but to him it was easy-peasy , he'd say! He did mechanical engineering.

[@maximus9812]

I think it’s better to view those sort of drawings as proto-photography. Aesthetics and “authenticity” are not their primary goal. They were simply trying to portray subjects accurately and scientifically in an age before cameras.

[@raedwulf61]

This would be highly useful in archaeology as we have to draw our artifacts in addition to taking photographs.

[@blueviolets2022]

Yet, there ARE artists that can actually draw that well, which is hard for people to believe.

[@Kittsuera]

maybe because they have put enough skill points into the minds eye perk and the accompanying mental projection perk. extra skill points into memory holding also helps. basically, they replicate the same thing the device does simply by looking at the subject and then the paper.

[@ericinla65]

ANDY WARHOL - Used a similar projection technique to make his Soup Cans and all other paintings. I don't think Andy could draw. He was just good at publicizing his work.

[@ambsquared]

I do drawings using a camera lucida app on my iPad. You can get crazy detailed using it. I try to use it for outlines sometimes and fill in the rest freehand.

[@d.rabbitwhite]

Sounds like an excellent way to practice the feel of proportions.

[@indiorodriguez6668]

Thank you enlightening me with the vid on Camera Lucida and the NeoLucida !🤓 As a child, I loved to draw. I remember a drawing tool made of lite plastic, that looked like a lattice, and you placed a drawing pencil on your side and the other end on the picture you wanted to copy, as you outline the picture you actually were drawing a copy on your side. This drawing thing came in a breakfast cereal box as a gift for kids. We luved it, it helped increase our drawing ability when we did free hand drawing !! 😃

[@keithkent6275]

That was a Pantograph 😁

[@marioquinoz7199]

I'm always astonished at the creativity and incredible tools they used 100* years ago

[@thesmokingburrito9097]

My brother drew realistic drawings that looked like a photo without any of that stuff. Just free hand. But looks like it might be cool.

[@thomaswilliams2273]

I once used an opaque projector to try and trace a photo. I still couldn't get the nose right.

[@X_Leonhart]

My father used this tool for years while working at the comic industry. I always thought that it was a beautiful piece of technology, even if I wasn’t gifted with any artistic talent.

[@Joe___R]

A camera lucida is a great tool that allows the user to more easily and accurately draw the real world. It still takes real skill to use it to create very good artwork. The modernized version you showed most likely wouldn't work as well simply because it most likely would be much easier to accidentally move the camera lucida lens slightly. If it gets moved at all it will change the relationship between what you drew previously and what you draw after that point. If you wish to document the work on an analog medium today a camera lucida is still a very good option.

[@dewinmoonl]

damn in the years without camera this really is the most mechanistic way of replicating a scene. would've been dead useful for all sorts of science edit: I just remembered when I was a kid taking biology class, I think it was grade 7. we were looking at some cells under the microscope and we had to draw them, and the teacher told us to "don't close any eyes, open BOTH eyes at the same time, and draw and observe at the same time.

[@aswaltan8962]

I'm watching

[@IHateThisHandleSystem]

0:06 While the item you bought and used is 120 years old, the technology is 215 years old, which makes it even more impressive.

[@Azmeaiel]

Thankyou for being one of the few people covering AI and technology in art and not dehumanising the artists behind the work, wonderful!.

[@AndSendMe]

Your video is well done, and fairly balanced in its approach. Nice production values and thoroughness. However, the camera lucida is no more a secret than is cast drawing or making your own oil paint. Also, I strongly object to any publicity being given to David Hockney who, because of his own demonstrable difficulties in drawing, has put feet of clay on virtually all the great artists of the past. This isn't just an error, this is deliberate envy-driven falsehood. It is terrible that he has gotten so much mainstream playtime with his unfounded claims and rationalizations. Many camera lucidas were made and sold. It is very likely that some artists used them on some occasions. But accuracy in drawing is not evidence of the use of a drawing tool. The ability to make accurate drawings without such tools is very clearly proved by students of classical academic drawing. That others were able to draw accurately without using the specific methods taught to tradesmen and design students in France in the era of the French Academy is not far afield from this demonstrated ability. In fact, the clearest hint that a drawing might have been done using a drawing device is not its accuracy, but signs within the drawing that the user couldn't draw, i.e. lack of eye-hand coordination, lack of subtlety in the line shapes, lack of things like varied line weights and other signs of training. Examples of these can be seen in Hockney's work. It is terribly important to recognize the deeper issues here. Despite the claims of people like Hockney that they do not intend to denigrate the abilities of great artists of the past, the fact is they are intentionally blurring the differences between themselves and past greats. Hockney can't draw, but he insists that with the tool he can draw just as well as the old masters. He wants you to believe that his personal vision is all that makes his art look so different from the trained masters of the past. Why does he want you to think he is the same? Those who try to tell you the old artists are nothing special are trying to protect their space in the current art world. They don't want you to see that they are frauds, and that their occupation of the space of 'art' in our culture keeps those who would continue in the manner of the great artists pushed out of that space. People who can draw like Michelangelo can't sell paintings to major museums because people like Hockney and his cohorts in the humanities are constantly working to justify modern art. One last point about drawing tools that is rarely discussed. It is true that there is no such thing as 'cheating' in art. Art is not a sport or athletic pursuit with rules to frame a competition in ability. The measure of an artist's ability is his work, not how he made it. But this does not mean that means don't matter. Each approach has benefits and costs. If you want the greatest possible freedom to create and stylize, you need to learn to draw well from observation. Not because it proves something, but because it gives you the skill in observation, in eye-hand coordination, and eventually in visualization that allows the aforementioned freedom.

[@DiodeMilliampere]

you could just say hockey is bad even with the tools, without making it some wierd cryptofascist referendum on "tHe HuMaNtiEs" and "moDeRn ArT."

[@AndSendMe]

@@DiodeMilliampere You're suffering from a category deficit.

[@DiodeMilliampere]

@@AndSendMe i bet you live your life in terror of "liberals" and any modicum of social progress that made it past feudalism. Even your spineless and pithy insults sound like they're from last century

[@DiodeMilliampere]

please show me where on the doll "the humanities" and "Modern Art" touched you

[@MathieuStern]

⭕ Your contributions make these videos happen! If you enjoyed this video, please consider making a small donation at tinyurl.com/4stmfpph

[@crowbirdryuell]

I dont think not knowing how to draw and just googling it with words on AI ganerated image web is considered an art

[@anlacombe]

I saw a documentary on science and knowledge in the 1970s, and in their minds, it was clear Gustave Caillebotte used a tool to draw "The Painter's Eye," and the documentary also showed how Renaissance painters used mathematics. I remember seeing a re-enactment of a painter looking through a frame with tight strings running vertically and horizontally in a grid pattern; the painter looked at the subject through the grid, which made it easier to make things look more realistic.

[@justin-hurd]

Imagine this combined with a VR headset. you could make a whole blueprint for a building and just throw it all up. it's like baritone for humans.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Having those three devices, cameras and drawing apparatus, sounds like a good idea, as a way of thinking about reality in 3D-T Perspective.., and then CAD.

[@MikePuorro]

"I went to art school when I was younger, but I wasn't that good." *Shows the most amazing sketches I have ever seen.*

[@WillN2Go1]

I read Hockney's book and although a lot of it has been updated/corrected since its publication, his basic premise is solid: Artists will use whatever helps them. At the time of publication the news was full of 'experts' saying 'great artists don't cheat.' These 'experts' were all art historians, not a single one was an artist. I've worked with a lot of artists, including David Hockney (I photographed one of his catalogues), they, we, will use anything we can get, whether it's a camera, or a computer. There's an interesting effect I notice in many portraits painted from the early 16th Century through Lucien Freud and Francis Bacon. If you place your eye in the same spot the artist had his/her dominant eye while making the work the proportions will look noticeably different than if you use the other eye. One way is three dimensionality, a real person suddenly appears, the other - the cheek looks a bit too wide. For Rembrandt and Bacon you use your right eye, they were right handed, for Rubens and Freud you use your left eye. (John Singer Sargent seems very 'left eye'd' but as far as I can tell he was right handed....so this needs some work.) It's an amazing effect, I don't think David Hockney is aware of it (somehow I thought that by now I'd have bumped into him in a museum... ) Anyway. Vermeer is absolutely flat, either eye his work is exactly the same, as are photographs. Optical device. This almost only works with portraits and then only from the distance an artist would be from the canvas holding a brush, so for Freud and Bacon you have to walk right up to the large canvases (the seemingly unfinished canvas of George Dyer in the Dublin City Museum works amazingly well.) Also as soon as there is a second person in a painting - the effect is not there. In the British National Gallery you can see the effect in two Ruben's portraits, and right next them them a double portrait - no effect. Ingres? Have I done this with Ingres? I'll have to check my notes. What I think is happening is 1. the 'effect' is not mechanically optical - notice it and no devices were used. 2. I think it's generally the result of very careful observation and constructing the portrait image on the canvas. 3. Likely it uses some slight difference between our two eyes (I hope it's just some common astigmatism I and these artist's happen to have) perhaps the Pulfrick Effect.

[@RebSike]

Something really cool that I realized about the camera lucida is that you could create stereoscopic images with it. make one drawing from left-eye pov, move it to the right eye pov, make a second drawing, and then scan the images and use X method to view them in stereo. Alternatively, you could do both drawings on one sheet and use red/cyan inks and glasses to view the image.

[@demej00]

Cool idea!

[@AerikArkadian]

Finally, something that might let me draw stuff for real!

[@fireaza]

4:04 Damn! The dude was so mad, that he invented photography!

[@carlcat]

I can understand someone like Vermeer using a similar device because his paintings had a photo realistic light to them and he wasn't known for his draftsmanship, rather his unique light and tonal qualities. However, I find it hard to believe someone like Ingres using such a device. Arguably one of the greatest draftsman to pick up a pencil I doubt he'd use or need a device. Especially because his lines varied in thickness in order to differentiate sharp or soft turns along the figure. He also distorted his image for aesthetic purposes and a device would not be helpful to him. I'm 74 and I still remember similar devices being advertised in comic books way back in the 50's and 60's. Being interested in art since a young boy I always wanted to buy one but could never come up with the money. Thanks for the interesting post.

[@strawberrymode]

Even not as in AI, I started drawing hard stuff through the screen or drawing over it - not as art to sell, but to help figure out how to place things and perspectives, where I don't have a trained enough eye yet. Or better yet, to learn to see lines in difficult objects

[@antmerritt]

Really loved Hockeneys assertion, “it didn’t make the marks, I made the marks.” That would silence any critic! 👏😁👊😎

[@xirogame]

It just feels like traspassing information from one place to the other. It's like you get the benefit of be absolutely precise but all of the fun goes away and it becomes simply a task.

[@techguy9023]

As a kid I would prop up a piece of glass from a photo frame with the subject on one side lit by a desk lamp. Kind of a beam splitter I think. Traced the image viewed through the glass.

[@lukestarkiller1470]

The way I would consider using this as an artist is to trace my own drawings in order to improve them, a lot of times I’ll mess up while inking in a drawing or color it in a way I don’t like and there’s no way to undo on paper, but with this I could just trace the drawing and try again or add to a drawing and try different things

[@charliepearce8767]

Remember seeing these for sale as children's toys in the 60s...great stuff !

[@WilliamParkerer]

We often forget that in the past when there's no camera devices available, people paint like we take photos, and they wanted photorealistic shots very badly. Now that we have cameras all over the place we're kind of spoiled to aspire for artistic images.

[@AudieHolland]

Getting the proportions and perspective correct is one thing. They're like the foundations upon which the artist builds the artwork. If you only get those first two correct, it will look like a computer drawn picture (no filters or other add ons). Also: during the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, artists had to be able to 'mass produce' paintings if they were popular. That is why all the great painters with exception of one or two, had workshops which were more like painting factories or probably paint sweatshops. Students would do the basics of any painting, or more if they were talented. The artist would finish the painting and put on his signature, so it could be sold as a true 'Rubens' or 'Rembrandt.' That is why so many Rembrandts have been revealed to be done by his students (Man with Helmet for instance). But Rembrandt seems to have disliked the workshop concept and became more and more focused on his own ideas, not on what his customers liked. And that is why he died in poverty. Rubens on the other hand was quite the succes story. He had perfected his school to such an extent that he had plenty of time left for his other profession: diplomat. He died at the ripe age of 62 due to heart failure, probably induced by gout (gout was a well-know rich man's disease, caused by an unhealthy diet of too much meat & wine).

[@thomaskirkpatrick4031]

I want one, as someone that always wanted to draw, but lacked the artistic talent, this is what I need.

[@trublgrl]

Penn Gillette, of the Magic and Comedy team Penn & Teller, did a documentary on a similar theory on optical devices in the film "Tim's Vermeer." It simply starts with the premise that Vermeer's sense of value was so uncanny, so realistic, that it really has not been duplicated by traditional methods to this day. From there, they go down a rabbit hole, trying to determine how the "magic" was done. Well worth a watch.

[@Kopie0830]

I've seen people draw photo realistic pictures from memory only. They're here scattered in youtube. Imagine having that talent 1000 years ago and having the drawing tools necessary. We would have seen the true faces of monarchs and kings.

[@mikewilliams6739]

Many famous artists used this technique, including Norman Rockwell, Alphonse Mucha, Olivia DeBerardinis and many, many others. It is a tool that helps construct a scene. I bought a digital version of this a few years ago and have made quite a few sketches and drawings with it. It’s a lot of fun and has opened up a path for me to create the images I have in my minds eye. I also still draw and paint freehand, because there’s still nothing like your own imagination.

[@MrMZaccone]

Normal Rockwell, the famous artist of Americana and Saturday Evening Post covers, took photos of his subjects, projected them on his "canvas", and "copied" them to create his works. Some people would think of this as "cheating" until one compares the photos to the drawings and realizes how much of his own interpretation he injected into the work.

[@capttwitch]

I honestly think these should be readily available! Think of all the people that can't draw.i feel it would open up art and really helping people express what they imagine.

[@freakinccdevilleiv380]

Nothing wrong with using your finger or a pencil in front of you to measure, a camera oscura, or even a projector. There is still composition, light and color interpretation, medium considerations, and execution.

[@WhatDadIsUpTo]

I am a landscape artist and I have my own version of this tool. My version is called kinkos. 🤣 I take a picture of my subject matter, then take it to Kinko's and have them blow it up a little bigger than my canvas size. Next, I lay vellum over the blown-up picture and trace the sketch through it. After that, I take the vellum off and put carbon paper underneath it, lay the whole thing on the canvas squarely and then just retrace the sketch. This gives me an accurate sketch to which I then back color or under paint or block in or whatever you want to call it, the major color schemes and all that's left to do is add detail consisting of light and shadows and I'm done. To me, even though I have painted for well over 50 years, and accurate sketch is the hardest part. Doing what I have described here makes the sketch a cinch.

[@RealNobody0815]

In the mid 80‘s in germany was a kind of Comic/ Magazine that was called „Yps-Heft“ and i remember that there was a simple plastic version of it as a gimmick. I loved to use it and it was quite fun!

[@Norfolk250]

As a grouch, I am tossed betwixt the use of such devices. I have always had a love/hate relationship with tracing --- love that I got such good results in it, and hate that I was copying someone else's work. But, even using such to draw a landscape, I felt I needed to program my inner eye to do it all. I've seen at least one film that had an artist draw the manor, and of course they used some sort of prop to help keep scale and situation in focus. I've tried those things. In senior-high I was further taught to use them, but fought it.... even so far as to deny the use of my implement as a ruler! However, getting plants and zoology correct 'back in the day', if that's what they needed to succeed with, then I am all for it. If only I'd have that kind of leniency with myself. Thanks for the upload. I enjoyed it.

[@LarryTullisFlyFishing]

I used one version in my art class in the 70's. With only 1 in a class of 30+, I only tried it once but remember it well.

[@Chef42]

This reminds me a lot of using a Right Angle Glass when laying out non critical stuff doing Land Surveying.

[@pinklady7184]

If portraitists didn't use drawing aids centuries ago, their sitters might be disappointed if their facial proportions didn't seem right. Sitters were clients were conscious about their looks and they were very, very fussy. Believe it so. Before obscura cameras, there were Durer's grids, hence my favourite. At home, I have homemade Durer's grids of different sizes. Just wooden frames or cardboards and strings. After the obscura cameras, there are today projects available at many artstores. They are useful for scaling up your thumbnail sketches or photos and projecting images onto blank canvases or walls. Projectors cut out the labour of grid drawing and save time. Imagine using projectors for church stain glass windows and large murals.

[@finbarscanlonwolf]

So it's like an early overhead projector.Handy for forging paintings.

[@Rikisballs]

I don't think it's cheating. No matter how good I trace something it's still not gonna be good until I apply stuff I've learn such as composition, color theory, etc. It's really just a nifty thing to help sketch faster imo

[@teacupanimates]

as an artist, this seems really cool! would be great for constructing the primitive shapes of something, might buy one for studying references.

[@Jollyprez]

Penn & Teller did a movie called, "Tim's Vemeer" which showed how Vemeer possibly used a similar optical aid to paint realistic paintings in the 16th (?) century.

[@lalaLAX219]

You should watch the Teller-directed documentary Tim’s Vermeer. It’s about inventor Tim Jenison's efforts to duplicate the painting techniques of Johannes Vermeer in order to test his hypothesis that Vermeer painted with the help of optical devices. I found it fascinating!

[@markswishereatsstuff2500]

If I had access to this device in high school art class, my life would've taken a different path.

[@captchet4850]

Not being an artist type, I never knew something like this existed. Thanks for showing. I learn something new everyday.

[@karljay7473]

Or, you can just get an iPad and take a photo of somethings, trace it out, then delete the photo. I have GoodNotes and I do this all the time. I have pointing fingers, faces, cartoons, etc... 1. go on the web, find a pic/drawing of something. 2. paste that into Goodnotes 3. trace the image 4. delete the image... Now you have a great tracing of the image.

[@johnny5805]

They should totally make one that projects the image directly onto the page.

[@MrSmeeds]

6:17 watercolor is my favorite!

[@goatsandroses4258]

I've seen projectors used, but never this. It's very interesting. Thank you!