What do you do w/all the photographs
 

Just wondering what others artists do with all of the photographs from a photo shoot. On the last two portraits that I did, I've had the client ask me for the photographs because they liked them so much. They actually told me they liked them better than ones they have had done by photographers (much to my surprise). Then to my surprise I discovered that they took them to have copies made and enlargements to send to friends and family.

I charge enough to cover the cost of the film and developing in the cost of the portrait, but I just feel funny about this. On the other hand, what do you do with all of those photos collecting dust. I do keep them all until the painting is finished. Just curious.

Since I do almost everything digitally, I burn the customer a CD of the pics and burn another for myself which goes into the file for that customer. I then delete the pics from my hard drive.

The few times I have used my 35mm, I give the customer a set of prints - to me, it's part of the service they are paying for.

The first thing I do after I get my photo's back is throw away about 1/2 of them. I usually do this before I leave the photo store. I then take the rest home and go through them again and throw away more. I might end up with what I consider to be the best 5. This could be 5 out of fifty. I don't want anyone seeing my bad or marginal photo's. I make the really hard judgements before the client ever sees them. From the small bunch that is left I usually make my choice based on my own prejudices and make my pitch with one or two photo's.

I make an 8x10 of the one I paint and then put that photo in a file with other photo's that made paintings. Any other hard copies, usually 4x6, I file with the client paperwork.

I keep the negatives of the good photos in a file. If somebody wants copies I don't mind making some extra copies. I sorta consider it as part of the package.

I have very mixed feelings about this issue. I've had clients ask me for copies, mentioning as an afterthought that they intended to use one for their Christmas card. This is offensive. I consider all my work to be copyrighted and moreover I am not a photographer, I am a portrait artist; the photographs are incidental to the finished painting. On the other hand, many of the photos I produce, even if they're not going to be used for the portrait itself, really capture some wonderful expressions, and especially if I've developed a relationship with the client it's hard for me not to want to share them with them. However I end up handling it, I always make it clear that I have a policy that nothing can be done with the reference photos for the actual painting; those are off-limits.

Before I began painting portraits I dabbled in portrait photography and my stuff is good. I'm aware of how much professional photographers charge, and don't want to give my work away. Also my fees are low to begin with and I don't care to offer two services for the price of one. So when the client/artist relationship is a formal one, I don't give them the photos. When the client is someone I know, I'm more likely to share them, with the above caveat.

Leslie,

I just this week had a client ask me if I would photograph her children for a Christmas card. I will be painting a portrait for her as my next job. I don't want to get into the photo business but I know her pretty well. Thing is, she could well afford to hire a professional photographer and I think she may be looking to save some money. I am sure whatever I charge her would be well below a photographer's charge.

Alicia, that sounds like a pretty slippery slope, to me. I wouldn't do it. I would explain that I am a portrait artist, not a photographer, and that I don't have the time or inclination to add another extraneous activity to my schedule. I would recommend, very sweetly, whatever professional photographers there are in the area. If you start doing straight photograpy you're going to be distracted by more and more requests for this sort of service and I think it will impact on your credibility as a portrait artist.

Thinking over my previous comments, I should probably have said that I don't give away photos, and I don't even make double copies of them, unless the client is a friend. That's a more business-like way of proceeding and it's what I was advised to do on another forum when this topic came up. It's a rule you can always break if the circumstances seem to warrant it, but otherwise I suspect you get a reputation for providing free photos along with the painting. This seems to trivialize the art, to some extent, and anyway that's not what I want to be known for.

And if you keep to that policy and only break it rarely you probably avoid situations like the one you're dealing with now. Photos should be viewed only as painting aids rather than as goods in and of themselves.

Alicia, I've seen your photographs and they're stunning.

I'm wondering if it's necessary AT ALL to show the client reference photographs. Why not show them reference drawings/thumbnails if they are going to be part of the decision-making process (regarding pose, color-schemes, etc.)?

Granted, I'm just starting out in this business, but I will say I haven't had to face this issue because the client never sees my reference photos. I don't show up at meetings with a stack of reference photos -- I show up with charcoal gesture drawings, some more tonally developed, and typically a couple of quick oil studies to show color schemes. By this time I've worked through issues with the image, and the client has always gone with my decision. More importantly, they're excited to see how the piece evolves. (Not to say I won't have tough ones coming up.)

If you let them see the photos, you're sort of presenting yourself as a portrait photographer. And the painting better be a replica of the photo that the client has chosen to fall in love with. As painters, we're not attempting a "photocopy" of one medium to the other (pixels to paint), so don't allow your client the opportunity to think that's what you do.

I suspect most of the pros on this site work this way. Anyone?

Slippery slope
 

In this day and age, there seems to be a natural tendency for portrait photography and portrait painting to merge. I deal with this all the time. I have tried to develop myself as a portrait photographer for the reasons that I have stated before. The problem that I encounter is that the general public is not keenly aware of my goals and my purposes. They see, and they interpret for their own agenda. And so situations arise which blur and confound.

What I do is try and keep a keen eye on my purpose. I then make a judgement on whether some activity will ultimately support my purpose.

I doubt that Tom Hanks would say yes to doing a cheesy sitcom these days. But there was a time when it seemed like the right thing to do. The more successful one becomes, the more rules you are able to adhere to. Until then you have to think on your feet.

Mari, I share the photos with the client because he or she is the only one who knows what aspect of the subject, in terms of expressions and poses, he or she wants to memorialize. Often enough the expression I prefer is not what the client was interested in; to him or her, knowing the subject so much better than I do, the expression I liked meant something different to them: the child being shy with a stranger, the adolescent putting on a harder persona for effect, and so forth.

The client also knows that I don't just "copy" the photos; I make it clear that the actual painting will probably have elements from several reference pictures. The hair is often from one and the hands from another while the pose might be from a third. Once I block the picture in I try to let the client see it so that he or she will know roughly what the finished portrait will look like in terms of composition and subject position. I don't do preliminary sketches because I find that I dislike creating the same image twice, even when the medium is different. But everyone needs to find his own best way of working; that happens to be mine.

Mari, I think that has to do more with setting client expecations. I purposefully tell my client that we are creating a painting and not just a copy of a photo - thereby, I may change lighting, form, pose, color, or any other thing as it suits the composition and the work itself. While I do provide the client with a photo, I let them know that our purpose is not to just copy the photo, but to create a new artistic work using the photo as a reference tool.

Further, if you want to paint portraits from photos, then you will need to develop the skill of a portrait photographer as well - you are taking the photos, they are part of the artistic process. You might as well give the client the benefit of the photo session as well - my opinion. Maybe you could charge them for it, but to me, it's part of the service I provide.

I've done some further research on this Forum about how the pros approach this topic and they ALL seem to mirror your responses, Michael, Leslie, Mike and Alicia.

I'm curious what Cynthia's opinion is, as she has seen this business as an art consultant/agent, as well as some of the other pros out there. Marvin? Karin Wells? John de la Vega (you're one of my favorites!) William Whitaker? And other names that we don't normally see on this forum??

I guess I see the camera as one of many tools to explore the subject; but the results of a photoshoot can take over the whole medium, to the degree that the client has to have a piece of the exploration process.

I'm a chef, and trust me, the restaurant guest does not thankfully have any idea of the process. In truth, the best food is nowhere near "Emeril Live" or its nemesis, "Kitchen Confidential." If the food works, the process has transcended the raw ingredients, the chef's technical skills, the waiter's mood, the general manager's profit & loss statement. Does anyone see the point I'm trying to make?

In art, something elemental and great happens despite all the hands that have to touch the product to get it to the point where it peaks. I think the bond between the artist and the client has to be built on trust and an open communication of goals, of course. I think this should have more to do with the artist's portfolio of similar paintings, exploratory tonal drawings and color oil sketches -- in other words, a small body of exploration -- than with the client picking a particular photographic reference.

I'll go back to hiding under my rock, now...

Robert Schoeller was dead against letting the client have any of the photos. It's been too many years to remember a lot of details, but I do remember that he didn't want the client sitting looking at a photo and comparing it to the painting.

Cynthia, that's an excellent argument against allowing them to keep the photos, although if you're really taking different elements from different photos it does mitigate somewhat against comparisons. But you're right, it's a good idea to retain possession of them. That helps me to firm up my own resolve!

And Mari, I see your analogy regarding chefs and food preparation, but it's not quite the same situation; the chef isn't attempting to capture the essential quality of a particular lamb known in every possible variation of winsome caper and nuzzle and loved by the diner. He can simply treat it as a generic cut of meat and do his magic on that blank canvas. Portraiture is different. As I mentioned, often the expression I would choose because I think it's the most attractive and flattering to the subject means something much less appealing to the client. Since I seem to specialize in expressions, my own choice of the proper reference photos without client input could result in a work that the client is vaguely dissatisfied with without being certain why. But again, everyone has his or her own way of working; that's what works for me.

A couple of thoughts...
 

No Smoke and Mirrors
Portraiture is a business and portrait artists are skilled artisans. There are no smoke and mirrors, nor IMO, should we be presenting portraiture as "some magical thing". No rabbits, no hats, no going behind the curtain. I want my client to be completely happy with their portrait, so I share exactly what I am doing with them - I take them with me through the process. They see sketches, value studies, the underpainting, and the final - with the ability to give me input at any time. They know exactly what they are getting and they feel like they are part of the process - it makes for a happier client.

Better than the Photos
I strive always to make my paintings better than the photo reference I use. Thereby, I have not yet had a problem letting my client see the pics we took because the final painting, again IMO, had better be more lifelike and luminous than any reference photo could ever hope to be.

To me, it's all about setting expectations of yourself and your client.

Here, here, Michael! I agree completely. ;)

Hi Mari, thank you for appreciating my opinions. In regard to showing the client photos or other material we use to produce the portrait, I always think of John Howard Sanden's story:

Client: "Mr. Sanden, remember those photographs you took to do the portrait?
Sanden (hand on chin): "Photographs? Hmm! What photographs?"

Even though I wouldn't say NEVER show the client any sources, particularly photographs, used for our work, my extensive experience has shown me that in most cases it is counterproductive. The reason is simple: the ONLY image the client is REALLY interested in is the finished (and I mean FINISHED) painting. Particular perceptions and expectations planted in the client's mind at any time of the process will color and most definitely affect, positively or negatively, the way they see the finished product. We ought not to take any chances. Bringing the client 'into' what we're doing, even if in some cases it may reassure or placate an impatient individual, or make them feel they're sharing in our creation, rarely, if ever, in my experience, contributes to a better result (needless to say, that's what we're talking about here). There other ways to share and 'educate' the client or the public, and making them feel a part of what we do (no condescension here whatsoever).

The only thing I show the client are studies in oils (usually done on canvas board, 14"X18") to decide pose, colors, background, etc. In these studies the face has no detail at all, but I make sure I capture the look, attitude or 'spirit' of the subject as best I can. In many cases (in most, as a matter of fact) the client only sees PHOTOGRAPHS of these studies, and because of their loose or sketchy nature, comparison with the finished product will inevitably work in our favor.

If all this sounds like we should surround ourselves in mystery and secrecy, that's absolutely right! Not because as artists we should feed some sort of aura or 'mystique', but because, as artists, we are sensitive and work in unique conditions, and we are VERY vulnerable to extraneous influences. Very rarely the client, no matter how much of an admirer of what we do or how well disposed to accept the product of our labor, is fully attuned to our 'vibrational level' (there are, of course, exceptionally aware and knowledgeable clients).

Yes, Mari, I feel what we do IS magical and mysterious. I am constantly amazed, baffled, and humbled by the process myself, knowing it often to be too fragile and delicate to jeopardize its harmony and beauty with a colored perception. Once that beauty sees the full light of day, then and only then, I feel, it is ready to take on the world, which will then treat it, hopefully, with the understanding and reverence it deserves.

Here's my process and it seems to work for me. I take a hundred or so photos, digitally. (It's great to know on the spot how the poses and lighting look. I don't let the client look at the digital camera screen to give me their opinion, though. They get into micro management, too often. )

I spend the next day or so reviewing the photos, deciding which ones I like and which face will go with which body because of the lighting/pose, etc. I may combine them in Photoshop to be sure.

I choose three or so compositions and make very simple sketches of those overall images, on paper, in pencil. I show these sketches to the client along with prints of the original source photos (the possible faces, the possible body poses they might go with, these flowers for the background, etc.) I don't show the Photoshop composites. I show the clients the face photos because I want to know what expression the client is expecting.

I don't delete or throw out any of the photos. There have been many times while I'm painting that I discover a problem I need to solve and find that some other photo in the group has just the right reference I need to paint the shirt collar the way I want it, or whatever.

I let the client choose which one overall composition to go with. I ask him or her to initial the sketch and the source photos they have chosen so there's no mistake later.

And here is the key: the client never sees those photos again! I don't want them comparing the photos to the finished painting -- it invites nitpicking -- and I also feel that giving out free snapshots diminishes the value of the painting.

This is just my methodology and other approaches may work better for other artists.

I always had two copies of the photos made. One for the client and one for me. I always gave all the photos and the negatives (their set only) to the client. That was before I switched to a digital camera. I kept my set of photos and the possibility that I can get figurative paintings, to sell, from my set of the photos. I treat every commission as if they are modeling for me. I take some photos for me and some for the client. They get free photos and I get free models. They pay for the portrait. I have done hundreds of these portraits and never had a problem with the client comparing the photo to the drawing. The drawing is always better than the photo.

Linda, I did the two-copies procedure, also, but then I found myself resenting clients who wanted to use them as Christmas cards or enlarge them and give them for gifts or whatever. I felt that they should have recognized that my photos were copyrighted just as my paintings were, and that they were made only as a reference tool for the portrait.

If the client is a friend I'll usually make extras, but when it's purely a business contact I've stopped doing that. I'm not concerned about negative comparisons because the painting usually takes elements from several different photos and doesn't replicate any one, but I do want to be viewed as a painter, not a photographer, so making only one set of prints works better for me.

Leslie,

That's the problem I am running into. The clients are enlarging and duplicating the photos and sending them out to family and friends and I don't particularly like them doing that. I have decided that I will no longer give them the photos.
Alicia

I see what you mean. When I was doing portraits, 1965-1987, people didn't have computers, and couldn't do anything with the little set of prints. Nowadays they could publish the things and sell them. Good point! It's different world we live in.

I agree. They can also take them to Walmart and use the photocopy machine and very cheaply make as many as they want.

Photos and what I do with them
 

Well, I actually cover this in the model release form for non-portraits; for portraits, I have a section in the contract that deals with this.

For portraits, it states that the images will be used for no purpose other than to serve as reference for the painting commissioned. This protects the person from me using their likeness in anything other than the work agreed to. It also states that the images are my property and not theirs. I do not sell photographs nor do I intend to. Most of the time the person who commissions a portrait does not see the photos because I submit a sketch for approval, not the photos. Although I work from photos almost all the time to complete a painting, and take photos during the first sitting for my own reference, I work with the client as if I was working from life only. That way there is no issue of them wanting the photos. Also I have a section in the contract that covers me using the image of the finished painting for my own promotion. They may check a check box if they disagree with this use but most of my clients were more then happy to allow this.

As for photos I take of models for illustration, the model release form I use allows me to use their image for as many illustrations as I want, as well as for their likeness to be reproduced in whatever publication it may end up in. This is a necessity since the clients who buy the rights to reproduce my illustration do not want to further deal with model release forms.

Also as an illustrator, I have what is known as a morgue, which basically is a filing cabinet full of both original photo references I have taken, as well as photographic reference I have obtained the rights of reproduction on, and magazine clippings and all kinds of images I might use as a reference for an illustration. For images I don't have rights to, at first whenever needed, I would contact the publisher if, for example, it was originally a magazine clipping, to find out if my use is within fair usage. And if they or the photographer have the rights. Many times magazines either buy full rights or own the rights because the photographer was a salaried employee. Other times they do not like when a freelance photographer sold only first-time rights. Also photos of public figures like the President, or of landmarks can for the most part be used as reference without much issue but sometimes it is best to check first. Images shot of a person or persons at a public event or in a crowd may be used with out a model release form for the most part.

If you single out a person it is sometimes best to just ask their permission, and later if you use it, you at least have a verbal agreement. A lot of times I may use a photo for reference but have changed it so much and the final image so removed from the original, that reproduction rights are not a issue. For example, if I used an image of a piano as reference so I could draw one convincingly for a illustration, but the final image is of a piano from a different perspective and with different lighting, this would not be an issue. After all, the photographer does not own the rights to all pianos. Well, that covers how I handle reference photos of all kinds. Bottom line is your reference photos are just that - reference photos and are yours. You really don't want the person comparing your painting to the photo anyway and they will if you give them both. It is best for them to be looking at your painting as an image of the person and comparing it to them in life not an image from a camera. And if you did your job well, your clients will be happy with that.

As I have said in previous posts, although I may work from photos I never paint exactly what is in the photo. Your client may not understand that the finished portrait was never intended to look like the photo. Giving them the photo just complicates that.

I usually print the final composition on cheap copy machine paper and let the customer see the basics. After all,they have seen my work and have obviously approved of the final product that I am capable of. If asked, I explain to them that I may have had hands from one photo, a tree from another, feet from another. This is really helpful with more than one subject in the photo. It is virtually impossible to get each child perfect in one picture. One reference photo I posted recently had four children!

If I do print out a high quality print (which today's ink jet is very capable of doing) I may just add a subtle watermark that makes the copy worthless as portrait photography. When done subtly, it is barely noticable but is definitely there.

Michael,

Because of my commercial art background I too keep a morgue of old reference material. It has come in handy on many occations.

Rebecca