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.