Are we painters or photographers?
 

Administrator's Note: This was split off from another topic that was discussing technical aspects of photograpy.

Hmmm. What's wrong with just setting up a studio with good north light and sitting your model (person or subject) in that natural light? Set up your easel with that natural light over your shoulder and paint.

If you need reference to work from when the model is not there, then use your camera and a tripod and take some shots in the natural available light. No flash, strobes or hot photo lamps needed. If you bracket, you will get reference that will have both detail in the light areas and the shadows. Maybe not all in one image, but it is reference. You do not need to work from one single image. And as for color in photos, forget it, it is not what we see in life anyway. You are better off with B/W values and painting the color from memory and experience from painting from life.

I find all this discussion on getting that one perfect reference photo absurd. It just seems unnecessary - we are painters, not photographers. Many of the most beautiful portraits ever painted both by living artists painting today and those of artists of the past were done using natural light. No elaborate lighting or professional photo sessions needed.

Now, I am not trying to say I have more experience than those who have posted on this topic before or after me. And I have a long way to go in my own work before I would consider myself a master. It just seems to me that all this time spent learning to be a portrait photographer could be better spent learning to be a portrait painter. All you need is a canvas, your paint, your eyes and a subject lit by natural light. And, of course, many hours of practice.

Michael,

I respect your point of view. I think you have described a method which is ideal. But how would you respond to the question that my attached photo asks? How do we capture in a painting, that moment which exists outside of our studio?

I don't offer this as a great photo but just one that might illustrate my point.

Ah Michael!
 

Michael,

I was just about to contact you. I had just read your photo suggestions. I can see you are a very passionate upholder of the great traditions of figurative art.

I do paint from life. All my photos are reference shots taken in the same lighting as I paint my subject, which I place next to them. I have a south light studio, very warm light. As I take 3 months to do a painting, the photo helps me correct my drawing when the model is unavailable. It is especially helpful when the light is poor.

I like photos for many reasons - they may capture an expression that is sometimes unavailable in a bored model. They give you the luxury of doing a correct drawing when the model is not there, and then just use her for color when she is. I am now doing paintings on dance and it is impossible for models to hold some of the poses.

I freehand draw from large photo blow-ups and models and use an 8 head format. I never use photographic proportions.

I am now doing life-sized figurative pastels. One of them is posted in my 'introduce yourself' thread. Since you are in Mass., I have another one hanging at the Vose on Newbury St. in Boston until Oct 19, 2002, that you could visit if you are so inclined.

I never worry how an artist gets somewhere. Van Gogh was unskilled, yet his paintings stop my soul. It is the point of view that is the most important.

I would like to see some work of yours. Where is it posted or where can it be viewed?

First off, I did not mean that we should paint only from life and I know at times it is necessary or preferred to work from photos for many reasons. And of course a certain amount of photographic competency is required to take reference photos. But I just can't see going to the extremes of setting up a portrait photography studio in order to get reference photos. I do not hold anything against artists who work from photos. In fact, one of the artists whose work I love and whom I actually went to visit recently is Zhuo S. Liang http://www.liangstudio.com/index.html He works from photos for his portrait work and I feel he is a fabulous artist. But he did spend many years painting from life as well.

As for my own work, a link to my web site is listed in my profile if you want to see it. I have only a small sample of my work there now and most of my most recent work is not yet online but will be soon. Also, the address and directions to my studio are listed there as well.

I am not sure if the inquiry as to where my work could be seen was a challenge to my competency as an artist or my knowledge. But the link to my site has been in my profile since I first became a member of this site.

Here is an excerpt from my previous post.
My intention was only to add another viewpoint without making any assertions that anyone else was wrong or that I had the only or better way.

Michael, as to your inquiry "How do we capture in a painting, that moment which exists outside of our studio?"

Well, photo reference is one way. Also sketches is another and a good memory combined with the other two is yet another. And in the end it is by combining all these with years of experience and many hours of drawing and painting and then, hopefully, we can create just such a painting as you describe.

I doubt that you would get that one single photo that captures exactly the composition, lighting and pose you want. And most certainly knowledge of portrait photography involving back and fill lighting, strobes, umbrella flash units and reflectors would be of little use in capturing reference that is fleeting. But most certainly good drawing skills, sketches and a thorough knowledge of anatomy and composition would be indispensable.

I believe this thread is primarly about the technical aspects of photography in relation to portrait painting. It's not about the philosophy of whether photos should be used or not. (And, by the way, I'm totally neutral on that). That should be started in a new topic if you want to discuss that please.

Administrator's Note: The above was relevant before this topic was split off from another topic.

Sorry, Cynthia, I did not mean that the topic was absurd or anyone else's view point was. I only meant that I felt that for portrait painters to try and also be expert photographers was asking a lot of oneself and that it was not necessary to get that perfect portrait photo with the exact pose, lighting and exposure and then copy that single image for a painting.

I never intended to offend anyone.

Michael:

I agree with you. You get a better portrait every time if you paint it from life in natural light. However, even though all should, not all have the skills they should have if they want to really paint people professionally.

It is an evolving skill in many, and others don't even know they need it. Even though, IMO, there is nothing more important to a portrait artist than being able to draw and paint from life and do it well. If you can paint from life, then when you paint from photos, your paintings will be better for knowing what a well-lit actual human being really looks like. Take a picture, and you reduce life by 50% - there is a lot of work to bring the painting up to par with what you would get from a live subject sitting right there in front of you in beautiful light that models their form perfectly.

We don't paint things, but the light on things. If the light is artificial, then chances are, it is too bright and too warm, then we will paint it that way - unless we have seen and understand the differences between a live subject and a photograph of same.

Also, certain subjects don't lend themselves to being painted from life - children for example. Thereby, there is some merit in learning photography and doing it well in addition to learning to paint from life and doing it well.

You are correct, however, that the balance on this forum is greatly skewed towards photography and that needs to be reversed - again, IMO.

Exposing the truth
 

Being a representational artist requires mastery of a great many skills. Being able to draw and paint are certainly of vast importance and working from life is the best training to that end. My teaching is based on direct observation of the model coupled with the understanding of the principles of picture making.

This being said, the ability to paint from life is merely a part of becoming a superior artist. The advantage of working directly from the model is that you have an abundance of information with which to edit and decipher to create your picture.

Unfortunately, sometimes information is not readily available or convenient to your studio. A prime example of this is the work of Gerome, whose subject matter was thousands of miles from his studio so he was forced to incorporate photos into his process. The intricacy of his backgrounds would have made sketching extraordinarily time consuming and certainly not practical.

It is my belief that an artist acquires as many skills as necessary to develop the reference material needed to fulfill his artistic vision. In the case of Gerome it also meant developing his skills as a sculptor, as a colorist, as a costumer, as a perspectivist and as an anatomist in addition to learning photography. I don

It seems that people place the most value on that which they know most about. If my specialty is sauces then it is sauces that make the meal.

Who can argue that a person should never paint or draw from life? As your subject is carefully draped with light which steadily, gradually, predictably passes across the subject with hand to chin? I love these paintings! I would also concede that having a model sit could only improve your chances for success.

What of the rest of the world? What about light that gets reflected from five directions and from multiple color sources? What about the six year old boy on a swing? Am I to memorize that moment, that light, that expression? I confess that I am not that good. Should these moments, these paintings, be a mere subcategory to the studio portrait?

If my painting done from a photo reference is a bad painting then it will be judged bad. If my painting done from life is bad, then it is just as bad. There are no points given for method, no points deducted. It's either good or bad, my choices, my risks.

In the photo which follows who can explain to me which half was left out? And if I were so skilled as to paint this scene exactly as it is witnessed in this photograph what a happy Irishman I would be. I hope this is not taken as a cheap shot, I'm merely trying to make my point as best I can.

Maybe it shows that I am passionate about this issue. I was fortunate that I was able to find within myself an angle into portraiture. If this angle proves to be false then so be it. It has yet to be proven to me. I'm ready to listen.

Michael,

If the orientation of this Forum tends to be more towards photography than not, I think it's simply because more artists use photography than don't. The Forum itself has no bias one way or the other.

My studio is strewn with books open to pages created by my 'teachers': Sorolla, Cassatt, Sargent, Rembrandt, whomever it takes to help me resolve the technical problems I run into.

My photos are never ever perfect. My memory is never, ever perfect. I don't want a perfect painting. But it is my best at the time, as imperfect as I always am. :)

Mike M: Of all the people on this Forum, you are IMO, the best photographer. But, while this is a great photograph, you have lost about half of the visual information you had when she was right there in front of you.

This photo contains too dark shadows, too light lights, the depth is flattened, and colors are somewhat washed and probably not accurate. You have lost much of the variance of color and tone in the skin - the warm/cool variations that are important to making not just a nice painting, but a great painting.

Now, that said, can you create a nice painting from it - you bet! BUT, if you have extensive experience drawing and painting from LIFE under NATURAL NORTH LIGHTING, then you will do a much better job of it - because you will understand the differences between photos and life and you will better approach life in your painting.

It is important to understand that the focus of portraiture is not to copy a photo as close as you can, but to approach life itself. The fact that photography and photo evaluation gets so much focus on SOG points to a systemic problem with drawing and painting skills among participants. Painting is hard stuff, no doubt! I, too, need more time painting and drawing from life - I am not nearly good enough at it.

It is much easier to be a good photographer than a great painter, and it appears to me, that SOG is too focused on the easy road. One distinctly gets the impression that copying a photograph is the goal and is what folks believe portraiture is all about.

Look at the work of Marvin Mattelson, Bill Whitaker, Daniel Greene, and Burt Silverman. Different styles, but these people all blow our socks off. Why? Because they paint from life - a lot. Their work approaches life because of that experience. They "see" like most of us currently do not - myself included.

We all use photo reference. The difference comes in those who understand the ultimate goal of portraiture is not to copy the photo, but to approach life itself.

Paint and draw from life under natural light.

Wow! I did not mean to blast anyone for their way of working. If you read the procedures page on my site you will see I also take reference photos. So, I by no means feel that you should not use photos. But I also feel that one hour painting from a live model sitting in front of me does more to improve my skill as a artist than do days copying photos. (Even really good photos.)

First off skin is not orange (this might be one of Bill Whitaker's pet peeves) I even find the camera has a hard time capturing the subtle color of skin when I try and photograph my paintings.

So I feel even the images on my web site do not show an accurate example of the flesh tones as they appear on my paintings. Besides, I still have a long way to go, anyway.

I would like to mention the work of Nelson Shanks as an example of what can be done only from life alone. You will see you can get extremely detailed paintings even with no photo reference.

Well, I can only take the word of the artist that he does not use photos. He said in an interview that he prefers to work only from life.)

Even if he does use photos on occasion he did not learn to paint nor could he achieve the realism he gets in his work painting from photos alone.

Marvin, I understand the importance of good photo reference when the real thing is not available. But a good reference photo and a good portrait photograph are not the same thing.

As for depth of field and strobes, you know better than I, since I have never felt the need to spend the money to buy a studio strobe unit. Since I do not have one I don't need to know how to use one.

But, what is wrong with taking more than one photo and combining the information? Also, IMO, one of the biggest problems with paintings from photos is that everything is in sharp focus.

Our eyes do not have depth of field as wide as a camera with the lens closed down. Yes, our eyes can refocus so fast that we can take in detail as our eye moves around a room but we do not see it all at once as the camera does.

By the way, I have taken photography courses at the Art Institute so I am not without some knowledge of photography and taking reference photos.

Due to the public nature of this forum I do not feel that this is the place to discuss the art of others in a negative manner even if it is only our opinions. A certain amount of professional courtesy should be observed here. After all, would you want potential clients reading that your style or procedure of painting is less than desirable?

So, I feel I have said enough, maybe too much, already. Some of you might look at my work and say, "Who is he to talk? His client list and body of work certainly is not that impressive".

To that I say, "My work is only at the beginning of where I intend to take it and I feel the only way it will go farther is to look at how those who truly are masters learned."

You can do whatever you want and I don't care if you listen to my rants or not. But at least look at the work of those like Nelson Shanks or if you prefer a more painterly style look at Burton Silverman or Everett Raymond Kinstler or J.S. Sargent. Then ask yourself your work measures up. These are artists that worked from life even if they later used photo reference.

I still feel that there is enough to learn about painting from life alone to last a lifetime. It is not laziness or fear of learning something hard that makes me choose to concentrate on painting from life. On the contrary, it is my lack of fear of learning something hard that keeps me learning.

While she was right there in front of me, she would collect a half dozen mosquitos on her bare skin. Most of the photos from this session were discarded for that reason. I would swat them away and click, swat and click. We walked a quarter mile to get to this place through a muddied field.

All this effort while you guys were wasting your time painting from life. Just kidding, just kidding, just kidding!

Michael G.

Maybe you could take just a few more minutes and clarify for me your position. It seems that you have concluded one of the following:

1. My subject(s) and I should remain on location while I do drawings and color studies. Never rely on photos.

-or-

2. These types of difficult location/dance recital/playground children-type paintings should not be attempted.

-or-

3. Studio/non studio/any type painting when done from photo resources, should only be done from the very best of photo resources.

Mike M.,

I know that you were asking Mike G. here, but I would like to say that by no means was I intending to say that you should not use photo reference. Nor did I intend that the only paintings you should ever paint should be done in a studio under the light of a north-facing window.

I often am struck by paintings, huge works of art with complex composition, multiple figures in action, that obviously the artists did not have models hold while they painted and placed in a location that the artist was not in front of at the time they painted it.

They did this work before the invention of color photography or even before cameras were advanced enough to capture moving subjects at all. Yet they were able to paint these beautiful paintings. You say photographs are needed. Sure they help, but maybe we need them because we relied on them too much to begin with.

These artists could paint a figure from memory because they had done it so many times and they knew it so well that they could do it again from their mind alone (and with the help of sketches and studies).

Now, I am no master and to do a detailed portrait I need reference, or a person to sit in front of me as I work. But even I, after drawing my wife in what must be maybe over 100 different sketches and 20 or so paintings, can draw her from memory and you would be able to know it was her. Why? Because I have drawn her so many times that I know her face, her mannerisms and how she has changed over the years.

I could paint her today as she looked when we first dated and in using a photo taken today as reference, make her look as I remember her. Or I could take an old photograph of her and make her appear as she does today.

Now, we do not have years to study every person we are to paint so that we know them so well that we could paint them from memory. That would be impossible. But we should be able to draw a figure convincingly enough from memory that we can work out a composition in our mind alone.

If you have painted 20 or 30 paintings of men in a business suit, should you not be able, from memory, to change the position of fold or slightly change the position of a hand from memory? I mean one suit folds over an arm about the same as any other arm and the fabric folds about the same.

Paintings from life are painted from more than a single sitting, and each time the subject gets up and sits back down the folds of the fabric change slightly or they are not in exactly the same position, but that does not matter. We are going to make those folds to create the best composition in the painting, regardless of how the really look.

You want them to be convincing and that can only be done if you have taken the time to know how clothing drapes on a figure. You can only change the position or pose of a hand if you have drawn enough hands that you can make the change convincingly. There is no better way to learn than from life.

I often hear the statement that I just can't get people to pose, or kids just won't sit long enough for me to paint them. I want to say up front that no one is going to sit perfectly still for hours as you paint. That is why reference photos can help.

But I have painted my daughter and her dog from life. The painting is on my web site. My daughter was 10 years old and the Jack Russell terrier in the painting was only a year old and very rambunctious.

How did I do it? I had her sit first holding a stuffed toy dog. I then had her sit with the real dog for about 5 minutes. The dog was never in the same position for more than 10 seconds at a time.

Then I painted from memory, and then she sat again. I am sure some could have done better but I am very proud of that painting. I would like to use it as an example that you can paint even children and pets from life.

A lot of the dog was painted from memory. Also the dog would sit in my studio on a chair from time to time and I would just look over at the dog.

Mike:

Let's remember the subject of this topic.

My position is that this Forum is too focused on photography as the primary source for portraiture and for learning portraiture.

While I too use photos, I believe that as we have many students and beginners on this board, the message we are sending is the wrong one - that painting from photos is how portraiture is learned and done.

The best and most successful portrait artists learned from life and it is telling that most often they don't use photos to paint portraits.

I believe that portraiture is best when done from life. Further, students should learn to paint from life under natural lighting conditions and learn to "see" before they dive into complex photos with varying lighting, depth, color, and edge problems.

They will only end up replicating these problems in their work if they don't have the experience painting from life to distinguish the problems with each piece of photo reference and remediate the problems to bring the painting closer to life than photo.

Trust me, painting from photos only is how I started and the problems still show in my work. I am still learning to "see" and will be for years.

I am not saying that we should not use photos to paint from. I am saying that the emphasis of this Forum is too skewed towards photos, with almost no reference to drawing and painting from life as the best way to learn and perfect your craft. The message here at SOG is learn from copying photos, and the message is wrong.

If you want to produce paintings that are closer to life than photo, then learn to paint and draw from life first. Then you can use whatever you like as your reference.

Michael F.

That's a really nice portrait. I too have done a lot of pieces of my daughter, though maybe not as many as you have done of your wife. I don't think I could do one from memory. I think that I could do a generic girl but that's about it. Although I have not really tried to do one from memory, I might surprise myself. I appeciate your comments and will re-read them. Like you, my journey has not ended.

Michael G.

For the record, I am not really a Michael posing as a Mike. My birth certificate indicates only Mike. My middle initial is O for O'Neal. With a quick calculation you can see that I am indeed a "MOM". What does this have to do with the subject, you might ask? I don't know, I would answer.

I think I became a member of this forum late last year. Like many I just watched and listened for a good while. Finally I got the nerve to pipe in on some innocuous subject. Since then I have ranged from being helpful to showing my full backside.

In the process I have tried to be giving of what I know. More than that, I hope that I have not tried to hide or be coy about what I did not know. I always figured that people would accept or reject my postings as they wished. I think that I would be flattering myself if I thought that I was offering a "direction" or "path" to be followed.

After a time I found that I could contribute what I knew about taking portrait photos. If I wanted information on a three figure composition (or portrait photography for that matter) I might give Peggy B. a shout. If I needed help on pastel flesh tones I think Chris S. would rush to help. Michael F. has much knowledge regarding design and composition. I think that by definition, any forum is going to be an organic, shifting body. People come and go, their needs come and go.

If you have a particular point of view, or a talent that you wish to share, then you should pick your spot and express it. As far as shifting/changing the direction of the forum, I say giddy-up. Jump in there and state your points of view. People will accept or reject them as they see fit.

If you choose you may have the last word. I think I'll go and harass some other subject for a while.

P.S. I think Stanka gets the prize for saying the most with the least amount of words.

From the peanut gallery
 

Well,

I've read all of the posts here thus far. Mike O., I'm with you on Stanka's thoughts. The mention of how we poor aspiring artists might pick up bad habits by using photos is what has moved me to express myself.

I use photo aids. I have never considered this "copying" the photo. I'm not a xerox machine. I'm rendering life. The photo is a drafting aid. No more.

The fact that I see things in a different way than one who is not prone to our craft is what makes me...prone to my craft. Does that make sense?

Much of my work is done completely without models. My angel series is a good example. But I did take various fabrics and drape them in order to get a realistic rendering of how that particular fabric reflects light, etc.

There is no end to the resource material in National Geographic (more photos). Portraiture, (although I've only done 4 to date) is the same. I use a photo as a reference and paint the living person. Anyway, I can go on.

Mike,

Where do you find these ravishing women? As far as my untrained eye can see, nothing was left out of this photo (or this woman for that matter). Who would not want to paint this?

Mike and All:
 

Thanks for letting me have my say and considering my position. :)

Alicia,

I am a babe magnet.

Mike,

I have no doubt! With your charm and wit, not to mention your talent and obvious good looks, you have them waiting in the aisle.

Life
 

Sargent worked from life, Eakins from photos. The method used is easy to tell from the end result. There's room for everyone. I prefer work done at least 1/2 from life. I want my work to look like life, not a photo. That's a personal call. We can all make those calls. Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same?

More research on Eakins suggested
 

Tim, again, how can you oversimplify Eakins as a painter of photographs? Look into his influence on life classes at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. Better yet, add to your research Thomas Eakins ed. by Darrel Sewell, Yale University Press. Go to page 54 and you will see a color oil sketch for "The Gross Clinic".

Eakins was an academic painter who struggled with the Pennsylvania Academy to allow life classes. I think you need to do more research on this important American painter. Yes, he used photography as a tool. But yes, he came from and continued a strongly academic painting history.

Images
 

I didn't get an image on that link. I know what I know and I'm telling ya, had you taken his camera away, he'd be out of work.

Helping students draw from life is not the same as making paintings. The difference is about edges in large part. Again the crooked eyes in half the Eakins portraits suggest not only a use of photos, but ill-use of photos.

Eakins Images
 

Try this for Eakins images:

[http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/e/E...mas/page1.html]

I work from photos sometimes and from life sometimes. I bet you can't tell the difference. On my web page there are two drawings that were done entirely from life, no photos taken, and the rest are done from photos. I bet you can't tell me which two were from life.

From Life?
 

Hi Linda,

Great idea! I admit I haven't the foggiest idea which two were entirely from life, but it's too tempting not to try to guess! Of the eighteen images I would guess No. 1, the landscape/architectural piece, and the un-numbered (self?) portrait that is your signature piece. I believe the odds of picking the correct two by chance are .0032679, or about one in 300. ;) :?

Well you have one right John. The self portrait was done from the mirror, but the other guess was wrong.

Number 11 was done from life. I just wanted to see if it made any difference. The only difference was that I had to guard the setup for several days until I finished it. I was a nervous wreck worrying that it would get disturbed and was constantly yelling "don't touch that" to everyone that passed through the room. I have difficulty even keeping a set up long enough to photograph it. In a busy household, "photos" are great. They allow me to draw small children, and to paint with north daylight at 10 PM.

I would be remiss not to add to this discussion an admission of my own surprise, over the year or so that I

First 5
 

Perfect on that ARC site, the first 5 Eakins posted (from the top) were painted from photos, I quarantee you!

The little color sketch of the girl may not have been, but the first page is enough to make my point and frankly, I think professional artists ought to be able to recognize that. We should be more observant and discerning than the masses.

Books
 

I don't have one, but most large books on Eakins include the very photos used in the paintings. But the point is that you can tell. Not all artists that use photos can you so easily tell. Zorn used photos -- not so easy to tell:

Linda,

Oops! I was off by a factor of 2 on the odds of guessing both correctly. It's really 1/153. The odds of getting one correct are 1/9. So I beat the odds, but I admit that I was purely guessing.

I considered #11, but reckoned that my wife was the only person in the universe who could get away with leaving that stuff on the dresser long enough for somebody to draw/paint it. My third choice would have been #2, the roses, followed by any of the still lives.

But I'm heartbroken that you spilled the beans right away. I was looking forward to lots of participants taking a shot at determining the souces, as a beautiful little experiment on the topic of this thread. Granted that we're looking at digitizations of photos or scans of these works, but we could have quantified how easy or difficult it is to identify source material in the finished work under these circumstances. It was fun anyway!

:)

A few miles from my house there is a church. (In Oklahoma I think it is an ordinance that there be a church every one and a half miles.)

On the sign outside this particular church it reads "Church of the ______ - a higher dimension." It's that last part that gets me, a "higher dimension."

There must have been a feeling of dulling sameness with the other church people in the community. How can we set ourselves apart from those who are already godly? We shall assign to ourselves a "higher dimension."

I now sense a kind of dimensional gap. All the other churches must now figure a way, not only to match the rogue dimension but to surpass it.

Photos vs art
 

Hi all, just my 2 cents. I'm one of the lucky ones who had extensive life drawing experiences. I miss that time in my life, with all the hard work and the fun of being an art student. I even spent a year modeling to supplement my education.

After my recent experiences with photos, I have made a pledge to myself that I will never completely trust what I see in them again.

As a newcomer to this forum (and returnee to art), I got the impression at first that photography was going to be a major part of my retraining. A necessary evil. I'm relieved to discover, that for myself it will only be a minor tool.

I draw from life 99% of the time, and prefer it that way. But how many artists find a customer who will pose for an oil portrait? If you pay a model, that is one thing. But my customers are never willing to pose for an oil. They would rather I use photos, either theirs or mine. In the old days, there was not much choice in the matter. But today, the average portrait consumer does not have the time or inclination to pose for an extended oil sitting.

I am not in the position to dictate to customers that they pose. You cannot be certain that a person would make a good live model anyway.

I am not sure that I would prefer oil painting from life even if I did get the opportunities. Drawing from life can be frustrating enough. Perhaps it would make me a better oil painter to work from life more often just for myself. But who has the time?

As I have said before, if most of your portraits are children, as mine are, then you would have to be very good indeed to get much information from your moving target.

John, I agree, I should not have revealed the truth right away.

Of course, if you use photos you must always keep in mind that what you are seeing is not exactly what is actually there. After many years of using them, I automatically compensate for the exagerated contrast that you find in photos.

In fact, I adjust all of my digitals by first using the "quick fix", which makes the digital look like a traditional photo.

Then I lower the contrast, raise the brightness, and raise the saturation. This seems to improve the image in most cases.

Well Lon, you're right most of the time. Portrait artists do use photos for that very reason.

Most would also prefer to paint from life and others prefer to paint only from photos. But the issue is not what a seasoned professional does to make money or to get a commission. The issue is what will make you a better painter.

Although many pros do use photos, the best portrait painters both alive today and of the past learned to paint from life. And they painted many, many, many, paintings before they ever attempted to sell one or take a commission.

Your drawing from life has the same effect as painting from life and your experience doing that has many of the same benefits. And yes, Lon, if you could find a way to paint more from life it would no doubt improve your painting and the paintings you did do from photographs would be all the better for it.

Also I will note here that it is not always necessary to paint a model to improve your painting from life. Painting a still life requires many of the same skills needed to paint a figure.

If it is your painting you need to work on, painting anything from life under natural light will help. Granted there is no substitute for painting skin tone from life except painting from a live model but not all your painting from life must be the figure or portraits to improve your painting skills.

Sargent said it best when he said:
[QUOTE]You say you are studying to become a portrait painter and I think you

I am both! First reply from new member!
 

Hi everyone!

My name is Patti Jo and I just stumbled onto this group tonight and promptly joined! This is the first topic that I followed through all the way, as it is a subject that hits close to home. I have done portraits from life, but now I use a lot of photos because of the subject matter that I specialize in, which is Native Americans.

I do not have the luxury of having my models for the extended periods of time required to paint from life. Also, I like that I can go through my photo files at any time down through the years, and pull out a moment frozen in time, and all the memory of the moment floods back to me as if it were this morning!

I smell the smells, hear the sounds, and remember the conversations and the mood. Of course, needless to say, this is working from "my own" photographs! Working from a photo provided by a client, on the other hand, poses all the problems that so many of you have already elaborated on! Having knowledge of how photos distort perspective, proportions and color is very helpful, which is one reason I dropped most of my art classes while in college, to pursue photography for a couple years (besides the fact that I wasn't getting the painting and drawing knowledge I craved in my art classes).

I have NEVER been sorry, and have considered it one of the smartest things I did, as its advantages have given me many painting opportunities not available working from life. Other than that...you all have pretty much covered it, and I agree with it all! I do need to paint more often from life, as I have fallen away from it.

P.S. If you can tell me how to put in my paragraphs, I will be happy to do it. I am new to this whole computer thing, and I can't find the "return" key! I am thrilled to have found you and look forward to meeting you all!

Thanks,
Patti Jo