Talk:Light painting

I wish to add to this page but I do not really know how to! Please can someone help add the following: - 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)John N. Cohen (talk) There is another unusual aspect of 'Light painting' that is referred to as 'Painting with Light'. This technique involves projecting transparencies but not always on to a screen!

The first time The London Trophy for artistic photography was ever awarded for a colour photograph was in 1967 for a photograph by John N. Cohen titled 'Spirit of Spring' that consisted of a colour portrait blended with a colour negative of a tulip, created by photographing these projected images. This was the first time a negative and a positive image appeared on the same emulsion. Other top award winning pictures were also created where a portrait was projected on to a butterfly wing, a feather, a shell, or on to textured fabric (not always flat). This way the projected image is then photographed so that the screen becomes part of the subject.

^[1] John N. Cohen (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC) 83.79.182.209 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, if you want to add this bit of information just find a reference where the award is mentioned. The paragraph is good enough as is, but you need a reference for the facts you present.--Thorseth (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

^[2] John N. Cohen (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is another unusual aspect of 'Light painting' that is referred to as 'Painting with Light'. This technique involves projecting transparencies but not always on to a screen!

The first time The London Trophy for artistic photography was ever awarded for a colour photograph was in 1967 for a photograph by John N. Cohen titled 'Spirit of Spring' that consisted of a colour portrait blended with a colour negative of a tulip, created by photographing these projected images. This was the first time a negative and a positive image appeared on the same emulsion. Other top award winning pictures were also created where a portrait was projected on to a butterfly wing, a feather, a shell, or on to textured fabric (not always flat). This way the projected image is then photographed so that the screen becomes part of the subject.

^[1] John N. Cohen (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The link I placed on the title 'Spirit of Spring' was to http://www.jncohen.net/Spirit_of_Spring.htmJohn N. Cohen (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To explain I own the copyright to 'Spirit of Spring' and other 'Painting with Light' pictures that are so very different in content and technique to the other pictures shown. I am not prepared to release the copyright but I would like readers to be able to see some of these examples. I also have a section on my own web that is free to the public and it fully describes how anyone can do this too. So I included a link to that section (in the page I linked to). Perhaps that is the reason that my links have been removed.

I would really value some help as I am not too familiar with all these rules imposed by wikipedia (although I am sure they are essential). But is there any way for readers of this entry to see what I believe is both relevant and likely to be of interest?

John N. Cohen (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hi John, please have a look at WP:LINKFARM. You ask how people can see your work - posting it on your website is the most appropriate way to achieve that, as you've done. If your goal is to use Wiki as a way of driving traffic to your site, please bear in mind that Wiki is an encyclopedia - not a repository of links. You can imagine that if everyone used Wiki to drive traffic to their sites, soon all the articles would be nothing but pages of links. You think that you have "something different in content and technique," and, presumably, of great interest to encyclopedia readers. OK, but, perhaps, you are not the most independent judge of that question. Rather that repeatedly inserting your link, the best approach (as you have taken now, thanks) is to post your info on the talk page and see if other editors agree, and then allow an independent editor to place the link. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  'The Photography and Photographic Technology Section' of The National Science and Media Museum based in Bradford is closed for redevelopment, but Claire Mayoh (the archive and library manager) has confirmed that a public reference has been added: -  

  NSMM Research Library Book database.

  Reference: 770.05.COH

  Author: Cohen, John Neville 

  Title: Painting With Light By Projection Photography: Pure Photography Using Light & Film.

  Description: Essay and references to the pioneering technique developed by John Neville Cohen, which enabled the creation of ‘Spirit of Spring’, the first ever Kodachrome transparency that had both a portrait and a negative image of a tulip, on the same emulsion. John Neville Cohen (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

OK Thanks for your information - I will leave it as is and see what happens.John N. Cohen (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is strangely worded, spammy, and gives off a creepy vibe. Why is this self-promotional stuff in the article? 70.74.188.103 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am very disturbed by this comment. The reason to insert the section about a very different form of 'Painting with Light' was to provide readers with information about this technique. The references I provided show that the technique was authenticated. But if the wording I have suggested is giving off a creepy vibe and is considered spammy I would accept an edited version.

You ask why this is included? The answer simply is that this is a technique that has been successfully used to produced award winning pictures. But also it provides a very exciting way of photographing light images by the use of projectors instead of just photographing moving lights. I really believe some reference should be included.

I am sorry if my entry appeared as 'self- promotional stuff' but this technique was my invention. I hope you will reconsider and help to provide the facts to all those interested. I will add a piece without making it self promotional. John N. Cohen (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Having just seen the reference 'Using Projectors' I am content to accept that. But I would have preferred that my term 'Painting with Light' had been included in the description. But if this is not allowed then so be it. John N. Cohen (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who edited the heading and shortened the section. I think the reason for people objecting to the entry was the way in which one example was made to look very important, with no mention of, for instance, the way this technique has been used elsewhere, like on buildings http://www.google.com/images?q=fete+de+lumiere or in general http://www.google.com/images?q=projection+art . You will of cause not be able to write that this was your invention without providing a independent reference which confirm this. If you would like to expand the section I suggest looking up "projection art", there is quite a large number of examples online, and a large collection of creative commons images available http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=projection+art&l=commderiv&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1#page=2 . If you are indeed a pioneer in this field, it would be much appreciated if you could help find the most significant "projection art" or "light paintings" that has been done. Thank you. --Thorseth (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Diluted self-promotion is still self-promotion. There are a few issues here. One: how relevant is this projection technique to the term "light painting"? Conceptually, and as described (IF it was notable enough) it fits in more accurately with any of a number of other techniques, for example several noted by Thorseth, or "Magic Lantern" or "Phantasmagoria". Why put this material here? It really looks like someone is trying to associate the term "light painting" with a brand, or a personal attempt at a brand, and was upset to see that dozens of active, producing artists were using his "key words" and defining their work without his input. Two: you just don't put yourself into articles. Not cool. This should not stand. Market yourself however you like, but -- man. This is underhanded, self-promotional, non-objective, and taints the information. Thorseth did a good job in reducing some of the creepy self-insertion vibe, but the material shouldn't be there at all. Three: even if one could find half a reason for a third party to include this stuff in this article, how is this one practitioner important enough to rate a mention? The "London Trophy"? Googling "London Trophy" photography or "London Salon Trophy" brings up pages and pages of nothing but astroturf from one individual. Guess who it is. Didn't anyone else ever get this award for anything else? Any cachet or significance of such an award is buried and made absolutely meaningless in this context. Why would winning this distinction warrant being mentioned in a WIkipedia article when even the award itself isn't notable enough for an article?* Is there even any independent evidence it exists or existed? (Maybe, but four search result pages stuffed full of self-promo was as deep as I wanted to wade.)

This individual makes claims to be the inventor of the technique of blending images by projecting transparencies onto surfaces that aren't a projector screen. This technique has been used for decades, for example in "magic lantern" shows and in phantasmagoria performances as well as the more recent examples Thorseth outlines above. If you want to restrict your definition to the production of static art pieces from the technique (which would help if you're scrambling for reasons why this person claims to be relevant as related to "light painting") well, how about the Victorian mourning photographs made by projecting images of a loved one into the background of a family portrait? Want contemporaries from London in the mid-sixties? How about Robert Freeman's cover for Rubber Soul? How about the Boyle Family light shows? The EPI? Their early shows in January of 1966 were already using projection.

Four: even if one agrees that all that is required to substantiate one's claims of notability is tenacious nagging and 44-year old newspaper clippings hosted on the person's own website (classic way to abuse the site to drive traffic!) how is this relevant to the vibrant and active people working right now in the genre of light painting (this article's subject) few of whom are listed by name on this page?

I've got nothing against the guy, and his picture is very nice, I'm sure, but seriously. Personal glorification is not encyclopedia material, and this is not what Wikipedia is for. Keep it on Facebook. Oddly enough, that's EXACTLY what it is for.

70.74.188.103 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Didn't anyone else ever get this award for anything else?" In the 1960's the top award of 'The London Salon of Photography' was called the 'The London Salon Trophy' (Awarded at the discretion of the salon committeee for the most outstanding picture of the year. This bronze was especially designed and sculpted by T. B. Huxley-Jones F.R.B.S., A.R.C.A.). The Salon now awards 'medals', but Edwin L. Appleton received the monochrome Trophy in the same year. I am sure The London Salon has records of all those that have received past rewards. Please refer to this page to see some of the history listing other involved photographers http://www.londonsalon.org/#/history-of-the-salon/4539842551 John N. Cohen (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The various uses of projection described are so very different to the concept of making the screen the subject of the picture. I was the first to create for example a picture of a shell that also had an image (such as a portrait) included on it (using projection so that the portrait was influenced by the contours of the shell) this is a very different art form that I called 'Painting with Light', impossible to achieve prior to Photoshop and it is far removed from all the other techniques described.

I was also the first to combine a negative image (of a tulip) with a positive image (a portrait) on the same film emulsion (a Kodachrome transparency) that was awarded The London Salon Trophy in 1967 titled 'Spirit of Spring'. This page is about 'Light Painting' and as such I thought my technique should be relevant.John N. Cohen (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

On the wiki light painting page the Barbara Morgan link in the first paragraph links to the wrong women. It should be link to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Morgan_(photographer) not to the astronaut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.63.159 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is vague on the advent of the term 'light painting', apparently after 'light drawing' had been used for some time, and mentions little on 'painting with light' which may be older still (as described in Walker, Leslie C (1940), The technique of painting with light, The Nash-Jones publishing company, retrieved 21 September 2016 and Adams, Ansel (1956), Artificial-light photography, Brown and Co. For the New York Graphic Society, ISBN 978-0-8212-0720-8 {{citation}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)). Better referencing would sort this, as presently we have only the unreferenced statement 'In 1977 Dean Chamberlain gave birth to light painting' to account for the change in terminology. What Walker and Adams both describe are techniques of washing parts of an scene (usually architectural interiors) with light during long exposures; methods used for artistic purpose by the likes of Chamberlain etc., but not, in fact, 'giving birth' to the technique. Jamesmcardle^(talk) 12:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Light painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126215646/http://www.vpphotogallery.com/photog_mili_picasso.htm to http://www.vpphotogallery.com/photog_mili_picasso.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206034620/http://life.time.com/culture/pablo-picasso-draws-with-light-1949/ to http://life.time.com/culture/pablo-picasso-draws-with-light-1949
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002013634/http://psy.in/ to http://psy.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929104533/http://photo.net/learn/studio/primer to http://photo.net/learn/studio/primer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Light art performance photography and Light painting seems sufficiently similar to be best discussed on the same page. I therefore support this long-standing proposal. Klbrain (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of shifting the lengthy description of 'light art performance photography' from the introductory para. So often in photography claims to being the originator of a technique are made by practitioners with a poor knowledge of the history of photography. The claim that "The main difference...is the inclusion of the background in the photo" is where its description becomes unsupportable, since that is not an innovation; that is precisely what Mili and Picasso had already done. I'd like to see discussion of 'light art performance photography' edited to highlight its real distinction, which is the performative aspect of creating 'figures and structures only with light' facilitated through the use of newly invented light sources like the LED, iPads etc. Shall I carry out the edit? Do other editors support it?  Done Tokihiro Satō should be included in this section...a practitioner of 'light art performance photography' with a prior (1990s) claim on the technique over JanLeonardo. Done The Wissenschaftsfotografie is a prize for Scientific photography, not a specific prize for light painting - it should be removed from the article and the section removed until someone finds a prize specifically given for light painting imagery. --Jamesmcardle^(talk) 09:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cool lights on the road.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)