How do you get from photo to canvas?
 

I'm curious how you get your work from photo to canvas. A method used by painters of old was to do a sketch, and use a method called "squaring up" to transfer it from sketch pad to canvas.

Squaring up (it may have other names) is a process of drawing a grid across the sketch and drawing a larger (but same proportion) grid on the canvas, and then drawing in each square on the canvas the thing that is in that square on the sketch. (Fear I haven't said that well. Is everyone confused?)

When working from photos, this is a method I often use. I was wondering if anyone has a better system.

There are four methods I know of.

One is to freehand draw it. Another method is to use a grid like you were describing. A third method involves using an opaque projector. A fourth method involves putting thin paint on the back of the photo and tracing through it onto the canvas.

I have often wondered about this, I have done it three of the ways Michelle describes and flip flop between the methods depending on my mood.

I have noticed that people seem to frown upon the use of projectors and I understand the reasons why, however, what I don't understand is why that would be any different from using the grid method or that last method Michelle mentioned. They are all forms of tracing.

Maybe I am mistaken and more people use projectors than I thought?
I have found that my projector stinks and distorts things,probably because is it a cheap piece of junk. I do use it to help me decide how big to make an image on the canvas, then I will take a pencil and mark spots with dots to help me with easy placement, then sketch from there which saves me a lot of time. Is this considered "cheating"?

I think that's why many people don't like to use projectors.

I have a large sheet of home made carbon paper, I use over and over. It's a sheet of tracing paper rubbed over with a conte crayon; occasionally it needs renewing. Over this I position a photo reference printed on very thin paper, over the photo I place a very thin sheet of acetate to protect the photo reference, and through all this I trace with a glass pen for sharp clean gray lines. This process works best on an oil primed canvas, as the lines need no fixing whatsoever.

The main downside I find for myself is if I draw in too much minute detail, it tends to hamper being able to paint broadly at first because I am worried about losing/hiding all the traced lines.

Another approach which seems to avoid this problem is the technique Thomas Eakins apparently used. He simply placed a small dash or line to mark an edge, corner, or peak of a curve, and connected all the dots as he painted. This way you can paint broadly at first, and hone in on the detail by eye later.

Another method if you don't wish to eat up printer ink is to trace off your computer monitor (Carefully! You don't want to damage that flat screen surface). Scale the image on the monitor to 100% of the scale of your painting. The way I do this is to scale the reference image file to the same dimensions as the painting in Photoshop/ Image/ Image Size: Set the Resolution to 96 Pixels/Inch, then set the width or height to match your painting size; press OK. Now when you set the image scale on the Navigator menu to 100%, it should be in the same scale as your painting.

NOTE: This may need tweaking to the particular monitor reolution you are using. I am using 1280 x 1024 pixels monitor resolution (17 inch Apple Studio Display flatscreen LCD), and this recipe should work for this size monitor and resolution setting.

Overlay a sheet of tracing paper, trace what you need. Remove the tracing and lay the drawn side face down and go over every line with a soft pastel. Then lay the sheet over the desired part of the painting, with the pastel side to the canvas, and trace the lines again to transfer the pastel. It looks like a snapped chalkline. If the positioning or registration is wrong, wipe it off and tranfer again.

Let's say you have a photo which is 8" x 10", a size large enough to read and commonly printed by photo processors or on your home printer. Let's say then that you want your painting to be 20" x 25". Your painting in this case is 2.5 times the size of your reference. The photo could be any size large enough to read and the painting, theoretically, could be any size up or down from that.

Pick a point on your reference, say the inside corner of the right eye, measure the distance in from the left side of the edge of the photo. Multiply that distance by 2.5 times and make an approximate (up or down) "light" mark on your canvas at that point. Then measure from the top of the photo again to the inside corner of the right eye. Multiply that measure by 2.5 then make that mark in conjunction with the previous light mark. You now know precisely where the corner of the right eye will be on your expanded (whatever sized) canvas.

You make a few more marks, edge of the mouth, tip of the nose etc, etc., and before long you have enough to sketch the balance.

Good thing is, no matter how much paint you put on the canvas, you can always get back to that perfect spot which is the inside corner of the right eye, or, the outside edge of the left cheek, or, whatever.

I think you could go from an 8x8, 8x10, 8x12, whatever your composition may be, as long as it's large enough to easily read and handle, to a billboard using this method.

Mike, That's an excellent technique.

Here is another Photoshop variation I use:

First scale the reference image file in Photoshop to the same dimensions as your painting (in whatever units of measurement you prefer). In the top menu under View, select to view Rulers,which gives you a ruler scale on the left and top of your image window. Wherever you place the cursor you will see its measured position in the scales to the edge.

Say you need to know the position of the inside corner of the right eye. The cursor, placed over that point indicates perhaps 10.75 inches down from the top, and 16.25 inches horizontal from the left side. All you need to do is copy those measurements with a tape measure on the canvas to mark the point down from the top and from the left, and there's the precise spot for that inside corner of the right eye.

This is the same principal as Mike's photo scaling above, except that you always have the convenience of a 1:1 scale ratio.

I`ve always used Mike

I have done some very complex drawings in this fashion, including hands and difficult perspective renderings.

One thing that helps me a great deal in this regard is the ruler that I use. It is a 16 inch ruler measured in tenths of an inch. Along with each tenth being indicated with numbers up to 160. I will typically measure to within a half (20th of an inch) of the indicated marks.

I will also create a spread sheet with the calculations to the scale I am working on with a precision to a twentieth of an inch. So as I make my measurement on the photo, I can glance over at my printed spread sheet and quickly get the translated equivilent. If I'm working from an 8x10 to a 16x20 I can do the math in my head but if I am going up by 2.37, well, my mind just isn't that quick.

Within an hour or so I can complete a drawing and be very confident of the accuracy. But, as mentioned above, the drawing gets screwed up, and this is where this method comes in handy. You can be as bold as you want with your paint onto the original drawing knowing that you can get back to any point with confidence.

Instead of creating a spreadsheet for scaling up from your reference you can get what is called a "proportion wheel". It does the calculations for you and has been used by illustrators for decades.

Another useful measuring device is a pair of calipers. This is especially helpful if you blow your reference up to painting size. You can measure the distance between the eyes on the reference and then move the calipers over to the painting. You don't even have to make a mental note that it's 17/20ths of an inch or anything like that.

I use basically the same method as Mike. As a drafter and designer of ductwork (haha) and boiler systems I easily think and draw to scale. But I only mark the most important landmarks and use a very rough sketch, and I still screw up all the time.

Jean

One of the easiest/best methods on the transfer of larger images comes from the training I got as a sign painter. It's the method, I understand, that came by way of Michaelangelo as recorded in his procedures of transferring images for the work at the Sistine Chapel. It's called a Pounce Pattern.

A pounce pattern is when you make perforations in paper by pressing into the paper a small pointed wheel (or an "Electro-pounce" which burns tiny holes in the paper) around the outlines of your image. You then take the paper image full of tiny holes and tape it to your substrate and bounce and rub powdered charcoal in a cloth bag, through the holes onto the area. You take the paper away....voila!....nice dotted outlines for you to spray fixative or redraw in permanent sepia pen. You can make registration marks from where you taped the paper and go back and re-pounce if necessary.

To make the best undistorted pouce patterns on the planet...is to print them out on your printer. You can blow up your image to any size you want....even a billboard size.....and "tile" the pages together and your in business.

Dick Blick, whom we all know and love, has been an excellent provider of sign making materials since day one.

Here's there page on pounce wheels.....http://www.dickblick.com/zz289/11/pr...m=0&ig_id=2724

And pounce powder and a nifty pad they sell. (in lieu of just wadding up a pile of powder in a rag and tying it off) http://www.dickblick.com/zz289/10/pr...m=0&ig_id=2720

Blick used to sell the Electro Pounce...but I couldn't find it on their site....so here's what it looks like - http://www.pacificcoastsignsupply.com/catalog/pg_75.htm

-Gear

Michele,

I don't understand how that works. If you are creating a canvas 2.5 times the size of your reference, how does the caliper know that.

With the method I use I only make measurements from the edge of the reference, I would rarely take internal measurements like between the eyes.

BTW - If I need a spreadsheet, because of some odd ratio of say 2.35, I only change that one determining factor in my spreedsheet then print it out.

Proportional Dividers
 

Mike,

I use a measuring tool that is called proportional dividers. You simply check your reference with one end of the dividers and make your mark on your canvas or paper using the opposite. The center screw can be adjusted to what ever ratio you desire. Attached is a commercial set. I use a set that I made. I typically mark a vertical and horizontal line across the center of my reference and then do the same on my canvas. I then measure everything from the center of the two "cross-hairs" and transfer the measurements over. You just simply use the opposite end of the dividers that you are measuring with to make your mark on the canvas. The accuracy is dead on.

I can see benefit to this cross hair method.

Also, I can see that your method could give you a true "distance," but, how does it give you direction?

It's true I have to take two measurements for each point but this gives me both distance and direction to a specific point. Triangulation, I think it would be called.

I only have one thing to add to this discussion:

Beware of WalMart yardsticks. I measured with one for a couple of paintings and could not figure out why they seemed a bit off. I ended up making adjustments free-hand. Turns out the yardstick was off almost a quarter inch.

I try to always draw free-hand first. Then I figure in my head how much I enlarged the photo and make measurements with a little pink ruler my daughter gave me. High-tech I am not.

Hi Mike.

I believe this is "The Tool".

I am working on one too. Since you have made one yourself I would like to ask what size you think is the optimal. The length of the legs ????
I have measured on my model, and think that about 15" is close to what I need.

Allan

Curious question, in the middle of all of this wonderful information on tranferring images, why is it that no matter what "tool" we use, even when it's not strictly "tracing" anything (which, I know is a WHOLE other debate) do people STILL think that it's "cheating"?

I mean, I just heard from two friends that were over in my studio today who said that "even taking measurements is cheating - not that it's bad - it's still not FREEHAND." OK., dumb statement, sure...but WHY, WHY, WHY does this exist in our society at all?!!

Were there THAT many kids who got their knuckles rapped, or at least, embarrassed in front of the whole class for putting a piece of paper in front of a picture to trace the image on? I mean, REALLY? We all know, that you can take 24 people, any age, and give them tracing paper, a picture and pencils/paint, and you will end up with 20 - 23 pieces that will be barely recognizable as the original image. Am I right about it?!

Gear

Hi Gear,

I admit ! I cheat !!

I use all my knowledge whenever I can. But for most of the times it is not enough.

When I am out in nature, making watercolors I measure with my brush and thumb, and in happy moments I can measure using only my eyes, simply by staring for a long time and then seeing the figure on my paper in reversed colors, but in the right, sight size, scale. Is that cheating?

When I do a complicated likeness from a small photo, I take measures to get the right proportions. OK I cheat, but only for a start.

I have never finished a painting only by cheating. I always have to get into the scene and live by the figure, understand it and feel it, before I can do anything of interest.

If cheating is all, I wonder why so few come up with results !

Gear, this is not meant for you, but you inspired me to do this conclusion.

Thanks Allan.

Allan,

12"-15" sounds like a pretty optimal size to me. Mine are 8" and works great for taking an 8 x 10 up to a 16 x 20. As I mentioned earlier, I use center line cross hairs for reference so I don't need, say for example, a full 10" to draw a full size head. 5" on the large end would be enough. The 8" set I have will open comfortably to 10-3/8" on the largest end. I'll try to post a picture of the set I made tonight to give you an idea. I made mine out of hardwood dowels.

No, no, no....no worries Alan. LOL.....I am TOTALLY feelin ya man. Keep it up, dude!

If Michelangelo had to use pounce patterns.....then dang it......I'm gonna use pouce patterns!

:thumbsup: :exclamati :o :D

-geeDub

I've moved this thread to the "Methods of seing", as it seemed better placed here.

My Proportional Dividers
 

These are my 8" homemade dividers. They are made from hardwood dowels. The inside portions that make contact with each other are sanded flat.

" The Tool"
 

I have made my Proportional Dividers from two flat beech sticks ( for stirring paint ) .1" wide x 3/16" thick x 12" long. Total length, including the iron nails, is 13".

7 different positions for the axis, to measure from 1" : 1 3/16" to 1" : 3 1/2"
Hole NR. 4 measures 1" : 2" and it will reach 15" with the long legs.

Allan

Sculpture proportional dividers
 

Hi Mike and Allan,

I thought I'd add my 2 cents worth. Here are a pair of dividers I made specifically to copy from fired clay scale to wet clay scale, about 12.5%. They will take inside and outside measurements. The wood is basswood model making stock from an art supply store. Length: 23 inches. Maximum measurement: 23.5 inches.

Same principal as your divider examples, just larger and for 3-D work.

Conceivably, although I have not tried this yet, these dividers could be used for painting from a live model/sitter, either to copy in direct scale, or 112.5%, or 88.8%.

Garth

Hi,

I work both from life and photos.

I use the grid method for photos as I like to elongate my figures, especially the standing ones. I use an 8 head reference as opposed to a 7.5 head measurement.

I use the head length as my basic unit of measurement and create grids relating to that size. The head is one grid unit, the armpits two, the waist three, the crotch four, mid-thigh five, kneecap bottom six, mid-calf seven, weight-bearing heel eight. I extend the grid horizontally as well.

This way of measurement is usefull for standing figures from life as well. For figures that are seated, I use the sight-size method. I find photos really distort seated figures, even with good portrait lenses.

I do my initial drawing smaller than the painting I intend to do as I work rather large. I do an accurate outline of my study, and have what is known as a "shaco" made. It is a linear enlargement, it is what architechs use. It is not a blueprint, but a nice black and white outline on paper. They can print it on transparent vellum as well. I then trace this to my canvas or panel.

I hope this helps.

Grid method
 

"I use the grid method for photos as I like to elongate my figures, especially the standing ones."


Sharon, what do you mean by elongating the figure? Do you mean the height proportion is exaggerated? Hmm, this is an interesting if I understand your meaning correctly. Thank you for that bit of information.

Joan

Joan,

I have actually addressed these proportions on another thread and being computer illiterate, it would be hard for me to find them.

If you measure the Sargent standing figures you will find that these proportons apply in most of them. They give a figure a more "elance" and elegant look. Great for slimming down subtly those of us who are a bit zaftig.

These are proportions used frequently in classic painting and sculpture. Sometimes regular proportions can make even a slim figure look squat in a painting or a picture, that is why they hire all those really skinny tall models!

The proportions are as follows:

Head one: the head, the neck is 1/3 the head length
Head two: to the armpits
Head three: to the waist
Head four: to the crotch
Head five: to the mid-thigh
Head six: to the bottom of the kneecap
Head seven: to mid-calf
Head eight: to the bottom of the weight bearing leg

Try it!

Sharon,

When I was 13 years old, I was planning on becoming a fashion designer and illustrator. I found a book on fashion illustrating that suggested what you talk about here. So I drew and drew, all my figures and designs were eight heads tall. When I got to college, my life drawing professor said, "Draw what you see, Jean! Is that model really that long???" Go figure.

Jean

RE: Grid Method
 

I would like to say that I use the grid method for initial proportion translation, however, I have an approach different from any I've seen here.

I use rubber bands on my photo and my canvas/board. The very first photo I used to do a portrait from, the client told me to guard it with my life. So, I placed it ( 8x10) on a clipboard and put rubber bands every 2 inches vert. and horiz. I then took larger rubber bands and put them on my canvas the same way, say at 5 inches apart. I then sketch into the squares.

Now, I will say the only time I use a "method" of scale transfer is when the reference is small and the painting is large. I still enjoy the fact that oils stay wet for a long time giving me time to make all the adjustments for the likeness.

Unfortunately as so many figurative artists have found, the instruction and knowledge of classic technique, in most art schools in the last two-thirds of the century was woefully inadequate. Most contemporary insructors are and were totally ignorant of them.

Yes Sharon, painting in particular. I learned the tecniques of building, stretching and sizing a canvas, then bought the required list of pigments and linseed oil, and just started painting. Nothing beyond that. Everything I've learned about paint has been here. I did learn how to draw what I saw though.

Jean

I will try that
 

Sharon,

Thank you for answering my question. I will try that. What an interesting concept, I'm glad to have that information, I don't know how I ever would have come across that without this forum.

Joan

Mike, That's new idea for me. I will give it a try. I am sure it will help me a lot. Thanks for the tip. I use grid method and quite a time I am confused with the proper size conversion on the canvas as far as eyes and lips are concerned.
Meera Bakshi

I have now started using newer technology to help transferring photo to canvas. Scan the photo and save on computer with a file name in "jpg" format. Using "Irfan view", I select that file and mark the area that is to be painted. Now from edit mode, select "crop the image" and than save as giving the file name again in "jpg" format. Print the newly saved image selecting margin (vertical and Horizontal 2.00 which leaves 1" margin on all four sides). It's easy to use that black and white image as a guide-line with square grid drawn with pencil. Image on the canvas can be multiplied as big as we need.
Meera Bakshi

I now use photoshop a lot, and it works great
 

I finally put photoshop in my computer. I also bought a printer/scanner/copier. I can scan photos into my computer, bring them up in photoshop, crop them to make a reasonable composition, and then resize them to match the canvas size I plan to use.

For example, if I'm planning a 20X24 inch canvas, I can resize my image to 20X24 centimeters. Then, you can mark off a grid in centimeters, which will square up easily to 20X24 inches. Doesn't matter what the units are -- cm's or inches -- so long as they are all square.

Just some more thinking on this subject.

Finally, someone was talking like they were feeling guilty for measuring and for using other lens-type equipment in transfering to the canvas. I once had an instructor who used to say a couple of things: There is no cheating, and "MEASURE, MEASURE, MEASURE."

I add the measure thing because I've read the alleged words of many fine painters who said the same thing -- MEASURE. My goodness, we're painting human faces, here. It's okay, in a landscape, to move a tree or a rock a little this way or that way, but if you move the nose an inch two this way or that way, it ain't gonna look like uncle Fred. We simply have to be as precise as possible when we're doing faces.

When working from a photo, I've simplified the grid method for me by printing out the image at exactly the size it will be on the canvas, even if it takes several sheets. After creating the grid, I cut the prints into long strips 3" wide running across the canvas. I lay each strip onto the canvas so I can see both the area I'm drawing and the same area on the print at the same time. Thie eliminates all the conversion of scale and the turning back and forth between canvas and print. This makes the actual drawing process go much faster and the drawing more accurate, more than making up for the extra preparation time.

Why not have your photo ink-jetted onto a canvas and retouch it?

A bit cranky, Sharon?
 

We all use one method or another. Gridding, or squaring up, has been used since art began. It is written about in regard to Da Vinci, Michealangelo, and all the other biggies. If it was okay for them, isn't is okay for us?