I find that whatever method I use, it is crucial that I be able to get back to a known point at any time in the process. For me, I have to continuously reestablish the critical measurements. I find that the corner of an eye, the corner of the mouth, will drift often, and substantially enough, from the initial drawing.

Rockwell used shellac
 

Mike:

I have a book about Norman Rockwell in which he is quoted as saying that he first did a drawing (in ink, I think, but maybe charcoal), and then preserved it with a coat of shellac (sp?). That way, he said, he could always wash a little spot and find his original drawing. Same idea as yours, it sounds like, to me.

Richard,

I don't think this would work for me. My oil painting method requires many layers of paint. At the end of each session I smooth the days work with a fan brush. Toward the end, when I am confident in my drawing, I begin not to smooth. Each layer is essential to the final outcome. If I had to dig through these layers looking for a drawing all would be lost.

I can, using the method I described above, quickly verify the critical points, right on top of my work.

I can also, by skewing the math, elongate or otherwise caricature the subject.

Mike,

If we put our heads together to make a bigger processor and combine all available techniques, I think we could manage to mark a certain point on a canvas.

The way of using the Photo Shop should be effective, (for those who got one).

But I came to think of a simple way of remembering the drawing.: When the drawing is laid, you place a transparent acrylic plate in front of your canvas and draw the main lines on it with a White board Pen. In that way you can always compare your actual drawing to the original one.

Just a thought.

Allan

I think one can be accurate and expressive.

I also think that the viewer will extend much latitude to the artists personal expression if they have first established their bona fides in the critical areas of the drawing.

For me, photographs offer the ability to capture a unique perspective. In addition, they give me the opportunity, if I develop my skill such, to capture a likeness through accurate measurement. Beyond that, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to give the client something more, something that conveys a since of art and wonderment that is personal and unique to me, the artist.

Allan,

I think that whatever method you are using, you should continue. I love your portraits.

When we see a quality work, all the techniques, gadgets, potions, pyramids and circuitry become irrelevant.

Right Mike,

But it is important to know how to put the one foot in front of the other. That means, no issues are too small or unimportant, until you know how to deal with them.

Allan

Im going to share my opinion - and I do not pretend to be an expert, but here it is anyway.

I feel that if you cannot draw well and get a likeness from life and from a photo - then your paintings will suffer. They may be exact because of measuring, but there is something missing. Painting well without being able to draw well is only half the of the finished product.

That being said - I use photos all the time and measure only occasionally when I need to. I plan to try and work more from life as I can afford to pay models, but for now that is where I am. I draw less and less as I paint more and this hurts my skills. If I went to strictly painting from a photo that I measured I think it would all become lifeless and stale. Just the other day I found a life drawing class that I have been invited to sit in on twice a week - I am thrilled. I used to be able to sit and get a likeness in minutes - now I am not as confident - so it will be good to get back into that.

Anyway - there are many ways to get from here to there, but sometimes you can tell from the freshness and vitality that something was started from life - just my opinion.

I personally am in the same boat as Kim, but agree with Sharon. I work from photographs because I have to. I also cannot afford to have a model sit hours for me, and I don't know many of them willing to do it from 11pm-2am, which are my working hours. I would like to do both. Start off with a photo and finish with live sitting, this way I can get certain aspects out of the way, and not have the model sit for so long.

When I do my drawings, I work by eye. The most I will do is proportional measuring with my pencil. I feel using a grid, I would lose spontaneity and the overall feel of my drawings. When I used to airbrush, I would do a drawing by eye on paper first, then project it to my board. One of the things I ended up hating about my work, is that many people thought it was a photo with a retouched background. I even had two computer online magazines ask for articles on how I manipulate my photos. I am not accusing anyone of trying for photorealism and exactness, just referring to Sharon's post.

When I finally learn how to paint, I plan to make the marks directly to canvas or board by eye. I apologize if this sounds like an attack on anyone using grids or projectors or whatever, it's just an opinion and my personal preference. I guess as long as the final product is good, and you're happy with it.

Actually, I do prefer to paint from life and paint that way whenever possible. The question asked in the topic had not been whether it is better to paint from life than from a photograph, but rather, given that one is painting from a photograph, what methods do people use to get the image on the canvas?

Once I have begun putting paint on the canvas, the drawing is quickly obliterated, and I am working by eye from then on. So I don't spend a lot of effort in making a finished drawing, but rather work on locating landmarks accurately on the canvas, to begin from.

Jimmy, I know this is off topic but I just wanted to comment on this phrase in your last post.

I have such a great admiration for your determination, tenacity and self discipline. No one should ever use the excuse that they "don't have time to paint" or are "too busy" to improve their skills, once they read that phrase.

I know, Jimmy, that you have a wife, a young daughter and a full time job. Yet you make the time to devote to your artwork. Makes me want to renew my efforts to use every hour of my week more effectively, too.

I agree wholeheartedly with Kim. We had this conversation many times with our Art guild. I have to admit I was surprised at all the different ways folks use to transfer images onto the canvas described here. I was taught first by my mother and she used her eye, the end of her brush and her thumb and that's the school that I come from. Granted, my paintings don't compare to the work represented here. But I also am of the belief that it is the journey that matters, and not the destination. I find satisfaction if I can finally look at something either from life or a photo and coordinate my mind and my hand to place those lines, color and forms onto the canvas accurately. I don't always as some of you already know, but sometimes I do and there is great satisfaction in that. Along the way, as Kim also mentioned, there's a little bit of life, movement, and character that gets transfered too.

For the last three years I have found that plein air painting has helped my portrait painting because not only do I have to work quickly, but I have learned to see color and light in a different way-a way that photographs do not record. Its helped me tremendously.

Dianne

I agree..
 

Hello, I agree 100%. To my surprise I am not the only one working on paintings at wee hours! Whenever I have a project that I need to accomplish I work at midnight 2:00 am to 5:00 am as I work full time job and as a housewife I can not get "uninterrupted" time for my painting work.

Michele Rushworth, I am really impressed with details and expressions in your work. I am trying to achieve more perfection in my work, you have inspired me. Thanks.

I am going to submit more of my work for friendly critical suggestions.
Meera Bakshi

Since I'm the guy who started this post, I thought I'd put in another couple of cents worth.

I agree with almost everything said here, especially that we should all work from life when possible.

To that end, I have begun going to my local library (we live in a wee town in OK) where I con nice little lkids (from age 10 and up) to sit for me for a few minutes. I do a quick "life" sketch of them, and give them the sketch when I'm finished. I've had mom's with kids in tow waiting for me on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons when I get there.

I will also do parents of the children if they will sit for me.

The point is, I have found a way to satisfy my need and desire to work from life a couple of times a week, and, as a result, when I find a cute or interesting head, I snap a picture of him or her, and turn it into a little 12X16 oil sketch which is hung is the library. I call the series "library kids."

But back to the original thought behind this thread, it has been great reading all the different ways poeple find to get from this point (sketch/photo/whatever) to the canvas.

Good inspiring idea.
 

Hello Richard Budig,

Thanks for the inspiring idea.

Meera Bakshi

Richard,
What a great idea! Could you post some of your library sketches? I would love to see them!

Patricia:

I would like to post some, here, but . . .

First, I don't yet know how to upload. Don't know how set up my computer for the proper pixel setting. I'm an old guy. I pre-date computers. I was one of those who actually thought this computer curse would go away one day. HA! I have read through some of the posting instructions, here, but the part about setting my pixels is beyond me. I'll bet it's easy, but not until you've done it a time or two.

Second, I give the sketches to the kids for being my "victims." I do the sketches quickly -- usually 3 to 5 minutes each. Usually near the end of the sitting, I remark to the kid, "Sitting still is a lot harder than you thgoutht, isn't it?" They always say yes.

I highly recommend doing this, or something like it, for anyone who does not have the resources to hire models. But, as I said, you have to be quick, and you will find that you must limit the lower ages to about 10. Twelve is better, and occasionally, you will find an eight year old who can sit still for three minutes, but not often.

Still, it is very good training. Knowing the little beggers can't sit that long forces you to get on with it and not to niggle it to death. Sometimes, my work is bang on, and sometimes, I'm almost ashamed to hand it over. But, I tell them that is a QUICK sketch, and that's all it is. I'll often invite them to come back as often as they like, and some do come back for several sittings -- and new sketches, of course.

Some parents ask why I do this, and I tell them, honestly, that it saves me having hire models. They get a chuckle out of it, and many say they're glad to have the sketch. Many tell me they have them framed.

But, bottom line is, I give them away, so I have none to share, but thanks for asking.

I liked the Library idea very much Richard.
Maybe I'll start visiting places like this not only to do researches, but to have a different fun time.

Claudemir:

I think you'll enjoy it. I would get in touch with the library's director/manager and explain what you have in mind. I think one of the things that swung it for me was that I made it clear that I was going to GIVE the sketches to the kids, and there they were FREE.

In fact, I made a plain little sign on my computer that says something likd: FREE -- Pencil Sketches -- Mini Portraits -- something like that.

I also made (I'm cheap, you understand) something that looks like one of the life drawing class donkey things that you can sit or stand at to draw. I take it with me, open it, and place a chair in the middle of the room.

I have an age limit of 12, which I sometimes ignore if the child seems like he or she can sit still (not often, sadly). El;even to twelve seems to be the youngest who can manage to sit for three to five minutes. Also, I'll often shoo away buddies/girlfriends who want to sit and make the "victim" laugh, which, of course, won't work very well for you. If you're tactful, you can get them to go read a book for a few minutes.

I go twice a week, tuesday and thursday, from around 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., but that's up to you an the local library boss.

If you keep the sessions short, the kids will have fun, and you'll get to do up to half a dozen or more for your two to three hour stay.

It really will help your eye/hand thing, too.

Thanks Richard for those tips, I really enjoy working from life, I just don't have as much free time as I wanted to do such nice activities like this.

Claudemire

Well, I'm retired. Put myself out to pasture. Sold my businesses, and my home in Omaha and headed for Mexico. I was going to a place called Real de Catorce (Road #14). Strange name for a town. Never been there, but I figured it would take most of the rest of my life to paint everyone in that town, including the church and church mouse. However, I stopped off in Tulsa to see a girl I had dated back in the mid '50's. I made it to Mexico, but kept coming back to Tulsa. We got married a couple of years ago.

So, I have plenty of time to go hang out at the library. We live on 5 acres, keep a few hereford calves, and have a bass pond 200 yards behind the house. I had my faithful killin' dog, Spike, (a blond peekapoo) but he passed a few months ago. We eat fresh bass, fried taters, and watch the sun go down.

Right now, I'm painting a couple more soldiers who died in the Iraq conflict for a project called Faces of the Fallen. Makes me realize how good life is.

I occassionally use the grid method and I find that I often, ironically, have to correct my grid drawing quite a bit by freehand. Go figure.

I have used tracings also for a quick placement of the features. I then still draw the features freehand. The exception is complicated fabric folds or patterns. I don't feel bad at all tracing this. (I get lost trying to grid fabric folds and everything is in the wrong square, so I trace this.) And even when I trace, I have to adjust the fabric folds because I'll end up with a weird little shape or the folds are too even or I have to simplify it anyway.

I am not good at gridding and tracing drives me crazy because something always moves and the tracing is off so I have to correct that. My eyes get tired using the brush or pencil to measure. (I wonder if this is because I wear contacts?) So because I am lazy, I try as much as possible to just draw what I see and measure in my mind. I do scan and enlarge the photo to get at least the head the same size as I want it on my canvas even if I am freehanding it. This makes it easier to just draw freehand without worrying about scaling. Often this means printing out the head by itself. Often this is the only thing I print out.

I'm not all that great at drawing a likeness freehand. I usually have to correct everything at least once, but I'm good at catching the errors if I step back and look a bit. It also has taught me to make the first lines very light, and this way, I still am free to use quality of line as expression later on in the drawing once I have things in the right place. I don't do very very detailed drawings for paintings, but I do draw outside of painting because drawing is my first language. Painting is still a foreign language to me.

I am lucky and go to a studio with a live model every Friday. I usually try to just "sight" it and only measure for the initial placement of the figure. Then when I come back after the break I can look and see where I went wrong and correct it. (More about this later). If I get completely lost I'll measure. I find that if I draw a line along the nose (between the eyes down to the middle of the lips), that keeps the angle of the head good.

I like the proportion calipers described above by some of you. This may be handy for me when drawing from life.

But the reason I'm posting this in the first place is my gripe. I love drawing or painting from life but the model never NEVER ever gets back in the exact same position after a break. It could drive me insane if I let it. I have tried getting the face down as quick as possible in the first 20 minutes so I don't have to worry about getting the model back in the exact same position. This is bad because there are details I need to reference later and of course they are all different because the head is an inch more angled or whatever. So I've tried waiting to do details in the face and then I have the same problem and it's worse because the model has shifted slightly at every break and so the neck is now wrong for the head and I still only have twenty minutes to get it right. I've tried taking a photo of the model home with me to correct features at my leisure but I look at the photo and it is not what I saw in person. due to camera distortion and limitations.

This is traveling from the original subject of the thread but ...

How do others deal with the slight shifting problem in models from life?? Or am I the only one bugged by this?

Brenda:

That part about the model moving: I used to study with this old guy in Colorado. He would assing to one of the members of the class the task of keeping the model on pose. Thus, after every break, or at the beginning of the new day, the appointed person would allign the model according to HIS/HER canvas. It worked pretty well. This task fell to me a couple of times, and I noticed that it kept me a little sharper since I felt the responsibility of all the others who were painting. It solves the problem of having "too many cooks in the kitchen," so to speak. Actually, no one ever complained that the person in charge of the model's pose got it wrong.

As for folds of clothing: Andrew Loomis, a now deceased, but one of the best illustrators in the world, says that folds of cloth should further the story, and that there is no need to slavisly reproduce all the folds and wrinkles you see.

I have studied with several portrait painters, and all of them have said much the same thing -- Measure, measure, measure, and simplify, simplify, simplify.

Thank you, Richard and Sharon.
I think I will look for a transparent ruler; that sounds like a good idea..much better than a pencil or brush handle.
I will have to be more assertive about getting the model back in the proper position. I often feel like I'd be nitpicking if I tried to get her/his head back in the exact position. But I will be a little more assertive. Usually the other artists do whole body paintings or drawings and I'm the only one who tends to focus on just the head or head and torso, so i guess that makes me the "pose monitor" if I want the head to be in the same position!
Thank you both for the good advice and wise words. Measure measure measure. And simplify those baroque, intestinally twisted folds of fabric!

I have long used a gridded transparent ruler, but because it lets me see past the plumb line. That would be LITERALLY so.

The grid marks help in evaluating both horizontal and veritcal plumb lines. There is, however, a HUGE downside - because there is a tendency for students to want to use the numerical measurement on the ruler. Unfortunately this causes them to sometimes get sidetracked in minutia.

It's not the number, its the relationship.

Brenda:

Another thing this Colorado guy used to do was to either put a piece of tape on a wall where the sitter had chosen to "look" during his/her pose, or he would tell them to pick a spot, a thing, or something through a window (not a car that could move) to fix their gaze on. This would help the model find his spot.

I think the thing is that it is important for artists, who are usually paying good money for this, to get their money's worth, and that no one should be offended if someone says something in the beginning of the session that sets out a few guidelines. Not about the money, but about the importance of an unchanging pose, and that so-and-so has been appointed the "pose monitor" for this sit.

My Colorado guy made light of it. Not a joke at anyone's expense. Just that it was important to keep a pose, and that today, this or that person was responsible for keepint the model on point. It was always "light" in nature. Never had a snit or a rant.

Chris,
It seems to me I've seen transparent grids without numbers on them. Maybe I was dreaming. Even so, I will remember to focus on the relationships, not the numbers.

Richard,
The spot on the wall or wherever for the model to look at is a good idea. I will use that. Thank you!

A word of caution is in order regarding methods of transferring an image from photo to canvas. Do not proceed on the assumption that if it's true to the photo, it must therefore be also true to reality. That's a big fallacy. A lot of bad work is done because of that, with everything that is wrong with the photo being brought into the painting transfered verbatim, without being corrected. Cameras distort images, in addition to exaggerating value contrasts, missing important information, and giving too much detail where it isn't needed, among the many things an artist needs to understand about photography before it can be used to good effect as reference material. It takes a good eye to recognize photographic distortion, and the knowledge and the confidence to correct it and get it right come from much work from direct observation of the subject (not photos of the subject).

Virgil Elliott

Inexpensive proportional dividers
 

I'm experimenting using a proportional divider to check points on my drawing for accuracy. I've found using the device saves me time and I'm happier with the final results.

Drafting quality proportional dividers seem to cost around $150. I tried making my own tool, but found it to be inaccurate. However I found a person on ebay (search: "proportional divider") who seems to always have 9" metal ones on sale for about $25. I ordered one and found the accuracy to be right on. The only drawback I have found is that the screw needs to be tightened by pliers, because hand tightening allows it to slip. For the price savings, I've found it worth a little extra trouble. The sellers name is "tedamr"

April,
I have made a proportional divider and experienced the same problem. You can see my divider at reply # 25.
The problem was solved by putting an extra iron ring on the one side and placing a rubber ring between the two. When i tighten the screws the rubber ring will apply a constant soft pressure and keep the divider in place.
Allan

Don't laugh
 

Don't laugh, but here is what I use to transfer measurements from my reference photo (which is taped up next to my canvas) to my canvas. If the chin I'm painting is looking a little long, I'll use this to measure and make sure. Or this tells me exactly how far it is from the inside of an eye to the edge of a face.

If I don't have a photo the exact size as the face on my canvas, I go to Kinko's and make a black and white xerox the exact size I want to paint it.

This simple device (I think it's called a compass) costs about 99 cents at the art supply store. I actually went in search of a device to measure and they were all too expensive, I can't remember since it's been a few months, but they were all $40 or $50 or more. That's when I found this one and it's worked great so far.

Maybe this will be an easy and economical solution for someone.

Joan

Note: This isn't any good for reducing the size of anything proportionally, it's just good for transferring direct measurements.

Something that Bill Whitaker does -
he likes to draw small, so he does his drawing real small and works out all the issues and gets it just the way he wants it. Then he takes it to Kinko's and has it copied and blown up to the size for the painting (they can go HUGE), rubs graphite on the back and transfers it.

Richard, great topic, and one I am challenged with every time I try to paint an accurate likeness from photographs. The simplest and most direct approach for me is to use an opaque projector and using brush and pint trace the appropriate lines and Landmarks, let dry and then paint as desired never returning to the projector. I will use a 3.5 x 5.5 for the projector and keep an 8x10 clipped beside my support.

Also I will paint directly from my monitor first drawing with brush and paint, and just paint as if I was doing a session with a model.

The method I

Welcome David
 

Good post. I am fascinated by your tonal impressionism approach, which has the advantage of not leaving behind ghosts of drawing artifacts and a confusion of incongruent sharp edges, if I am to understand you correctly. I hope you will share an example of this type of painting development in a work in progress post at some point soon.

Garth

David,

There is nothing more substantial than speculation connecting camera obscuras with Vermeer. There are no such "reports," but only conjecture proposed by people who were not born until Vermeer had been dead for nearly three hundred years, i.e., speculation and nothing more. His studio inventory does not mention any such device, nor does a single contemporary account. Furthermore, the perspective vanishing points in his paintings have pinholes in them, indicating his method of working out the perspective using pins and strings, which he would not have had to do if he were tracing projected images. Whereas many painters who use projectors love to point to the speculation over Vermeer's alleged use of a camera obscura as if it were fact, to justify their own use of projectors, there is not sufficient evidence to establish any factual basis for those contentions.

Virgil Elliott


[QUOTE=David Carroll]I haven

Hi Virgil,

The enigma about Vermeer to me is the way he almost foretold photography in his uniquely rendered highlights, diffused as though he were viewing his reference through some lens or camera obscura. Perhaps he was simply wearing some sort of ill fitted spectacle. But at any rate he had a unique, original way of representing luminosity in some of his paintings. This has nothing to do with perspective, however.....

Garth

I know this is now an old thread, but the new actvity finally brought it to my attention.

I'm trying to learn to paint, and I've watched my Morgan Weistling video about a hundred times now. Morgan made a point of mentioning many times that painting IS drawing. He stressed it quite a bit. He said that there is no point at which you stop drawing and start painting. Every time I lose sight of this, I ruin my painting.

How can you lose sight of your drawing when you take this approach?

Just a thought.

I am not sure how much of this thread I have read, but I know I should go back through anyway.

I am wondering, am I asking too much from myself when I think that I should be able to paint a figure from a photograph(s)? I feel like I have a much easier time working from life. I used to use a grid to plot out the larger drawing on a large canvas from a small photo, but I felt 'blind' doing this in comparison to working from life. Of course, painting after plotting it out went pretty smoothly.

Lately I've been trying to use my methods for painting/drawing from life when working from a photograph... I use a ruler to measure distances, multipy as needed, compare angles in my reference and on my canvas, etc. But, I always have a whole lot to correct all along the way and it is very frustrating. I have this problem mostly when doing a figure as opposed to a portrait.

Maybe some of the issue is that I am working from too small references? When working from life, I keep my drawing/painting the same size as the subject appears from where I am. Maybe I should try to blow up my references to life size. Ideally, I should get more real people in here to work from!

OK, sorry about the rant... I've been doing a lot of that lately. :bewildere

Lacey, I use those measuring techniques only when I can't resolve the measurements by eye. If you read Tony Ryder's book, the text gives a very convincing argument for measuring by eye alone. To be honest, I can't remember how he explained it, and I don't have the book handy, but I remember that he made a very good case for trusting (and training) your eye. My work improved as a result of studying his book.

There are two main approaches to catching a likeness. The Academic approach, with "sight-size" and strict measuring, can often result in a photographic likeness, even when working from life (sorry, Hockney). Then there's the approach that Sharon mentioned, which can capture the likeness in a more gestural manner. Both are valid. (See Peggy's drawing of her son, which was done from a photo. I love that drawing, and it in no way looks like a copied photo. )

As for working from photos, I'm considering photoshopping an image out of focus, as a kind of virtual squint, to force myself to ignore details. Then, when it's time to add details, I'll pull out the focused image (or not!)

Jeff, this is the way I work from life - I have to do a couple of plumb lines, but what I basically do is make a mark on the canvas, compare it with the figure, and if looks wrong to me I fix it. If you quickly move your eye back and forth from subject to canvas you can see a "jump" - the "jump" is your mistake on the canvas and that's what you fix.

I'm convinced that it is panic and fear that keep artists from working this way and if one can quell that panic one can go a long way toward being a better artist. I also think that overreliance on photos saps the confidence of artists - and that is a huge danger in using photos all the time. We have to let our eye/mind/hand measure without judgment of our abilties.

It takes lots of practice, but it's a eye/hand/brain skill, like shooting hoops, maybe. My head would explode if I had to use a ruler or grid working from life. Painting from photos, though, is a whole other story.