Life vs Photo
 

Assuming that a portrait created from photo reference is intrinsically inferior to one painted from life is putting the responsibility on the process rather than the artist. If only it were that simple. You can paint from life until the next millennium and never do anything worthwhile.

I've seen incredible paintings done from life and beautiful paintings done from photos too. However, the vast majority of portraits I've seen are poorly thought out and ineptly handled regardless of whether from life or photo reference.

I believe that injecting the quality of life into a painting comes from the artist's heart, intent, knowledge and talent. Painting from life involves knowing what to look for in order to bring it to life.

I work from a combination of photos and life sittings. I say, why not get the best of both worlds.

Thank you Marvin for pointing that photography is just a tool.

Personnaly, I like good paintings whether it's done from photo, life or imagination, and a bad work from life will always be inferior for me to a good work from photo...

The big problem with the use of photography comes from the lack of competence : people don't realise that if they want to use this tool, they have to master it : it means to have a PROFESSIONAL level in photography, not only in painting. It means spending hours and hours of practice... It' a huge amount of time and efforts to be able to reach a professional level in both jobs : painter and photographer. There is no shortcuts.

If you don't want to spend hours working on your photographic skills, it would then be better to work only from life.( and there's nothing wrong with this choice)

Hi Marina,

I couldn't agree more. Mastery of all of one's available tools is an obvious goal if one aspires to be a master. Of course mastery of the tools is merely a step in the right direction. Becoming the artist we dream to be takes far more than just mastery of tools, but the foundation must be strong for the structure to fully manifest.

I've spent many years developing my photography skills (pun intended) as well as my computer skills. I try to use everything I know to my best advantage. I see two glaring weaknesses in most portrait art. Bad reference photography and poor drawing skills. The painting workshops I lead are in great demand but my drawing and digital photography workshops don't attract nearly as many. This amazes me because I believe both are at least as important, if not more so.

I think that if the old masters were alive today they would absolutely take full advantage of todays technology and couple it with their extraordinary knowledge. Great artists are always looking to utilize whatever will make themselves more effective. Vermeer used optical devices. Bouguereau and Gerome both took full advantage of photography and look how they raised the bar.

The biggest problems with photography (inaccurate values and colors, and visual distortion) can easily be avoided if one knows what one is doing. Coupled with working from life, an artist can play from a real position of strength.

Why try to replicate the efforts of the past, regardless of how great they were? Why not aspire to create the greatest work ever produced?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!!

Thanks again for responding.

Using Photos vs copying photos
 

Oh yes marvin I feel right at home It's been two years since I have been active and this topic is still being debated.

I think you are correct a well taken photo can be a great tool and I still have reference photos. I used them so I could continue to work when my live reference was not available. Or in the case of illustration work when live reference was impractical. But I would warn against just copying reference.

I have seen good artists paint very nice images from a combination of some very poor photos (by poor in the sense that they were nothing special as a photo) And I have seen artists produce very weak paintings from excellent photos.

In this thread:
Go for excellence in portraiture
http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...hlight=William
I do not feel bill meant to imply artist never use photos it was how the photos were being used he objected to. After all he admits to painting from photo reference himself.

You also have the skills so you can use photos and not fall into the trap that many artist do when painting from photos.

I may not have the same ability that you have but I feel my drawing ability is better then most (when I have been drawing regularly) but when I was under pressure to produce work to pay bills I took commissions to paint from photos supplied by the client that I knew were not good enough or were far from what I felt would make a good painting. But I did it for the money. I struggled for hours and days trying to paint from these bad images only to produce a painting that was junk. The client liked it but I would not even sign my name to it.

But I have produced some very nice paintings using a combination of live sittings and photo reference I took myself .
If you your studio has proper lighting the photos will be very usefully but if you have no idea how to light your subject even painting that subject live will not be any better and the photos will be of little use.

So yes painting from life alone is not going to make your painting any better then one painted from a photo. But copying a photo even a great photo is not going to produce a great painting ether unless you know what to do with the information in your photo and just what makes a good painting. And you also must know how to produce a better image then the photo.
I see a lot of work that I would rather hang the original photo on my wall then the painting done from it.

Jack Martin said it best to me this way when critiquing one of my illustrations: He said, "You have to bring more to this then you did you have to do what photoshop can not do." I felt I had a great painting but when I looked at it that way I knew although It was very accurate It could have been done it in the computer I simply had very nicely painted copies of my reference.

After art school I did Illustration work and most of it was so formulaic that I just did that very thing I used Adobe Illustrator and photoshop and scanned in my reference and manipulated it in the computer. Why bother painting a copy of the reference in paint when I could achieve a better copy faster in the computer (notice I did not say a better painting I said better copy)

But I no longer have any desire to produce copies I want to produce original creations. I do not care if the painting is a accurate copy as long as it is accurately drawn the way I intended. I am not saying to except bad drawing and when working on draw well accuracy is the goal once you can achieve that goal that is when the fun starts. Sometimes not coping the reference as it is can produce a more convincing and more interesting image then an exactly accurate copy. But If you start out using photos alone and even going so far as to trace photos you simply can't get more then what is in the photo.

Now that said I have seen many paintings that the artist was not even able to get a accurate copy of a photo never mind go beyond that.
So as a tool to train your eye I see no difference in copying a photo vs copying a old masters drawing except by copying the drawing you also learn line work and technique buy copying their technique.

I often pull out old reference photos and do detail drawings from them it is a great tool but when I was a actively working artist I would spend 3 mornings every week at a open studio life drawing session and I find that there is no substitute to drawing from life.

After three M's with previous posts, my M is in hiding:
Vermeer set a good example of using tool but not limited by it..

Michael, I agree totally that copying a photo will not make a great painting, but neither will copying from life. It is the understanding that the artist brings to his work that makes it something more. How to strategize the construction of a painting is the commonality I believe that distinguishes the work of all great artists.

SB, Look deep. I'm sure you can find your inner M.

First it was your nice post Marvin that sucked me in to this thread to begin with I feel you are correct that a painting done from life is not better just because it was not painted from a photo. And it was not my intention to say it was.

I did not post to counter your point just to add a caution to those that might use photos as a shortcut. Never mind that they are missing out on one of the greatest experiences in art if you ask me. I Love the interaction between model (or portrait subject) and the artist it just adds something to the experience that painting from a photo will never have.

Now when I am working on details or backgrounds it is great to have a photo that never moves never complains about posing for too long. The lighting in a photo never changes with the weather or time of day. A fleeting expression can be frozen and the sun never sets in a photo. There are many advantages a photo can have over live subjects so if used in combination you are correct you can have the best of both worlds.

So can we agree the debate it is not photo vs life but a debate between; uninspired, poorly executed and poorly plained vs inspiration, a mastery of your tools and great plaining.

Marvin,
Thank you for your post It helps us students a great deal to read your posts. You create for us hope that we can learn to paint beautiufl portraits, as we envision them; ie the personality, the life, the spirt, mannerism unique to each person. I understand that a painting is successful, also, if you can grasp that we live in atmosphere and one of the largest goals of a student is to study masters' works to see how that atmosphere is created.

When using the photo reference one must have acute recall of the sitter. The more time you spend with the subject, interacting, the easier that recall becomes. I believe a great master portrait artist has a special ability to absorb the personality/spirt of their clients. When I paint/draw my subject I spend allot of time thinking about that person and I have been complimented time and again for my abiity to capture essence.

In conclusion, I do not believe it is wrong for students to use photography, however one must remember it is a tool, just like calipers are a tool. And I am convinced the great inventor Leonardo, would use photography as well. He did use cadavers, didn't he!!

I hope I speak for students who need encouragement every step of the way, that painting portraits is not completely mystical, but that there is a way to learn to SEE, to ABSORB, to RECALL, and then naturlaly to accurately DRAW. If you cannot draw/paint from life you must spend time with your subject...

May today be a day with paint under your fingernails...

Here is what Harold Speed was writing about his own experience in 1917 :

"It was not until some time after having passed through the course of training in two of our chief schools of art that the author got the idea of what drawing really meant. What was taught was the faithful copying of a series of objects, beginning with the simplest forms, such as cubes, cones cylinders, &c. ( an excellent system to begin with at present in danger of some neglect) ,after which more complicated objects in plaster of Paris were attempted, and finally copies of the human head and figure posed in supended animation and supported by blocks, &c. In so far as this was accurately done, all this mechanical training of the head and hand was excellent; but it was not enough. And when with an eye trained to the closest mechanical accuracy the author visited the galleries of the Continent and studied the drawings of the old masters, it soon became apparent that either his or their ideas of drawing were all wrong. Very few drawings could be found sufficiently "like the model" to obtain the prize at either of the great schools he had attended."

Vermeer in hiding:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maggiesworld/1839233133/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50487705@N00/1151419/

Marina,

Harold Speed's are the only ones I'll recommend when somebody asks for technique books. I've drawn the same conclusion as dear old Harold by studying the paintings at the Met and at Sothebys and Christies auction previews. When I take my students to the Met I focus on the way the great painters manipulated reality, not copied it.


Michael,

I never thought you were contradicting anything I said. I agree that painting from life is the most fun anyone could ever have.


Patty,

Obviously,as you well know, I place a strong emphasis on working from the live model. That's the way I run my classes and workshops. I just think there is so much more to it than that. I just think that people put the onus of creating great art based on merely copying from life.

You can paint from life until you're blue in the face. If you're not properly guided you'll never have the foggiest idea what you're actually looking at.

Marvin,
I agree totally. It seems easier to me to paint from life. The paintings I have begun in your classes are always better than anything I have done from a photograph. But I can't imagine painting these restless 7/9yr olds from life. They would look miserable! I have convinced mom and dad to let me to color studies early on and then at the end though.

Patty, I agree with you (cue music: we belong to a mutual

I can certainly agree with all of that!

Patty, painting from life is definitely easier. I am always astonished to see how fast a painting done from a life sitting is finished vs one done from a reference.

But I have to admit I love the idea that my work has made it as far as Pakistan. The internet has changed the way we do business and artists are working on a more global base now. Clients are no longer in our neighborhoods, but scattered all over the world. We have to make a choice if we want to work only with those who are willing to fly us out to paint on location or limit ourselves to those who live close to our studios.

I consider myself an artist without borders and have chosen to stay busy. I am working very hard at overcoming the obstacles photos represent and try to find ways to infuse each painting with s.th that is truthfully a touch of artistic insight. It saddens me deeply when I see that some have to create such schism between what they think portrait painting should be...

Regardless if you paint from life or photo, you have to know what your weaknesses are and try to work at them. Just as Marvin said, if you don't know what to look for it will not make a difference if the client is in front of you or on a photo. Not every portrait will be an award winner, but working consistently and trying to aim for excellence is what sets good portraits apart.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...amera_04.shtml

What happens is that the lens spreads bright points of light into so-called circles of confusion. Such effects would not be seen by the naked eye. The art historian Charles Seymour and the photographer Henry Beville have tried to reproduce these effects, by photographing a similar decorative lion's head in a slightly unfocussed plate camera, with some convincing success. Several authors, including Seymour, have argued that Vermeer painted this and another tiny portrait, Girl with a Flute, using a box camera. The sizes of both pictures are of the order of size of a typical box camera's screen.

"You can paint from life until you're blue in the face. If you're not properly guided you'll never have the foggiest idea what you're actually looking at."

I tend to agree and would add that life is short and if one wishes to be a professional in this field then one should bite the bullet and get some training, a few years at least.

If one is not proficient in at least the basics of drawing should one be posting the work under "Unveilings, for the Seasoned Pro"?

Monkey-donkey-camera smoky
 

Thanks SB - that is a great fable and makes a great point!

To degrade another artist's work is definitely not a sign of professionalism and a practice that I refuse to participate in, no matter how low the blow.

The artist represented by 'A stroke of Genius' have to submit their work to be considered by Cynthia and definitely have to have attained certain standards to be considered for representation. To question the drawing ability of one of this organizations artist is equal to questioning Cynthia's experience in selecting of what caliber work she is representing on her site.

I think in all fairness that there should be a better distinction between the Unveiling sections. The Novice/student/emerging artist section is fine and well defined .

There should be a Professional Artist section, one for all those who are practicing professionally and are making a living selling portraiture.

Finally a Masters category (or Seasoned Pro), which is exclusively reserved for those who have received overall recognition within the field of portraiture.

I am sorry to have veered off track Marvin. Regardless of how we each work, each and everyone of us deserves to be treated with respect and I had to address this.

Memory as an alternative to photos
 

Painting from life is definitely best and after years of doing commissions from photos I can never say the word photograph without the words "soul sucking" in front of it. I have been painting plein air now for several years and find it is the best resource for developing artistic skills. I also find that it sharpens the visual memory allowing me to find what is essential in a scene and place those elements quickly. I have been using it for portrait as well and find I enjoy the process much more. I am currently working on a portrait of a Native American performer. He has been kind to sit for me and we spent much of the time talking while I paint. I did shoot photos but I find the portrait goes smoother when I put the photos away and trust what I know and what I remember. In this case the photographs become a distraction. Photographs freeze a moment in time but the memory is more fluid and I find better for remembering expression and personality. Memory also leaves out unimportant details that a photograph will accentuate. Developing visual memory has freed me from a bad habit of copying.

Photorealism
 

Vianna:
Very good point!
I've read your blog! I'll try that device.

Photorealism, a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperre...%28painting%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Close

Vianna,

On the subject of developing a visual memory here is what Robert Henri proposes to try out:

The Art Spirt is one of my favorite books, Enzie, and Henri is right on about using memory to paint what you know. This knowledge only comes from logging in a lot of easel hours painting from life. If you only work from photos you will be limited in your ability to portray edges and middle values correctly.

I have been using visual memory exercises with my students and have been astounded with the results. One of the exercises for sharpening drawing skills is where I have them draw an item quickly from life, and then remove the subject and have them repeat it. 90% of the time the memory drawing is stronger in shape and value pattern. When students are in front of a model I take them out of the room and have them describe to me what is important about the pose and do a quick value sketch conneting the light and shadow pattern as simply as possible. We also discuss the color of the light and shadow as well as how to mix it. Again, I find it amazing how much stronger this makes composition. I am not against photos but they offer too much information and allow the aritst too much time to dwell on unimportant aspects. In Plein air painting you have limited time to describe form and light and it strengthens your ability to portray scenes concisely. I find I now use the same approach to the model. It gives me more freedom to adjust to the models movements which can make the pose more dynamic.

Vianna,

Sorry but the whole point of this thread is to underscore the idea that working from photos is a valuable tool that when used correctly and this intelligent use can actually enhance the end result. If someone feels that working from a photo is "soul sucking" for them, that's fine. However it's not a logical indictment of the process for one and all, nor does it make a compelling argument for it's avoidance.

It's my experience that using photos doesn't have to be the equivalent of selling out. There are numerous posts, on this forum, bashing the use of photo reference. I chose not to interact on those threads and spoil the party by presenting a dissenting view. So therefore, I'm presenting my alternative point of view here.

The point of this thread is to present a rational discussion about the intelligent use of photo reference, and in particular to point up that good painting is a function of making appropriate decisions and utilizing well thought out strategies. The reason I started this thread is to go beyond the idea that any one particular methodology is "The Way".

I'm sure that working from memory has it's uses too, but it all comes back to purpose. Henri may have used it to his satisfaction (and yours) but for me personally, I much prefer to embrace the work of Henri's teacher Bouguereau. Bouguereau employed working from life, plein air studies, and using photo reference when appropriate. The key here is "when" appropriate.

If we look back through history we can find numerous examples of artists using every and anything at their disposal to advance their paintings to a higher order. I do believe that the idea of being a purist is much more of a modern rationale.

If I don't have that understanding of what I see and try to translate it into paint then I will have a painting that is poorly executed, no matter how faithfully I copy a photo.

I'm presently working from photos, and realizing once again the limitations. But without those photos, I would not be able to work at all, because the subject would never sit for me.

It's been an education, because I've been trying to analyze what I'm seeing from what I can best term a "sculptor" point of view. What part of the face/figure projects frontward most and now can I describe that information in terms of color intensity, edges, etc? From where is that light coming and on what portions of the face should the light be resting? What units of the face can I describe as belonging to the same area and what parts should I differentiate?

Marvin, much of what I am trying to do is a direct result of studying with you, so thank you. Thanks, too, to you SOG members, who faithfully give critiques to struggling artists. Sometimes I need to hear a message from multiple sources before I start seeing for myself.

I could work from life all day long, but without an understanding of what I'm seeing, I will not get far.

I could work from photos all day long, but without an understanding of what I'm seeing, I will not get far at all.

Marvin,
I want to thank you for your serious, balanced post on this controversial subject.

I, my self, use both photo references and work from life and find that the shift from one to the other adds to the whole.

The only interesting difference is between good and less good, but that might be a real taboo, I guess.

Thanks Alan and Julie for your input. It amazes me how passionately some artists are in lashing out at photography. As I've stated before, I find it very useful to incorporate photos with direct observation.

I feel that if artists can truly master the camera they would be amazed at how useful it could be. I believe that painting is a process of editing out impertinent information. We need to do this whether we work from life or from photos. The problem arises when the photos we use are of poor quality and we are forced into a situation where the choices are therefore made for us.

Criticizing photography is like criticizing the use of chopsticks. Once mastered either can offer a unique dining perspective.

Marvin's point is well made, but you REALLY have to hear what he's saying. The camera is just another tool. If you master it, it becomes as fluid a tool as your favorite brush, and the possibilities for creativity are no less than with any other approach. But you have to dedicate yourself to the same mastery of it as you seek with brushes and paint. The guiding principle is that you will only be as creative and visionary as your weakest link will allow.

Perfunctory work with a camera will result in a perfunctory painting. I've made this mistake often enough to know it's true. The camera won't tap you on the shoulder and tell you to look at something from a higher or lower angle, for instance. If you imbue the camera with a creative mind it doesn't have, you do indeed relinquish your responsibility and your soul as an artist.

I've seen truly stunning photographs that beat the artistic pants off of mediocre paintings. Tools are neutral, skills are not. And tools aren't skills--we shouldn't confuse the two. The heart isn't in the camera (or not), it's behind it.

Beautifully stated, Tom.

Well put, Tom!

(Chris, you and I must have been reading this post and typing the same thought at the same time. )

Sanity prevails
 

This thread is a breath of fresh air. Sanity prevails in the life vs. photo debate. Marvin, Tom and others have allowed reason to prevail.

Just a few days ago I was debating proposing a one year moratorium on the the photo vs. life discussion. The subject has been debated ad nausium and no real additonal benefit is being presented. Let this thread be the capstone of this topic.

So please everyone stow away your weapons of debate and let us get on with other worthy topics.

I agree with you, Marvin. Tom, Julie, Allan, Chris, Michele, et al. Well stated.

Questioning!
 

I'm happy to hear that there are others out there who agree that the way portraits are referenced is not necessarily so cut and dry. There is far more to it than: this is good and this is bad.

As human beings our natural tendency is always to compartmentalize things and then file them away, never to be questioned again. This is a function of our basic survival mechanism. We then label these ideas as beliefs, truths, rules, or whatever, and defend them staunchly. Unfortunately, this judgmental dogmatism engages a mechanicalness of approach, which, I believe, is an absolute death nell when it comes to creativity.

Yes, something may not work for me in my creative process, but can I categorically deny it's effectiveness across the board? And perhaps, there exists the remotest of possibilities that my original conclusion was a result of my lack of understanding or my shortcomings.

Is it possible that my deepest truths could indeed be myths?

Welcome to my wheelhouse!

Well put.


I think Tom got to the heart of the matter here.

A moratorium isn't a bad idea, but what would we do to while away those idle hours? (ha ha ha)

Certainly it's not an "either - or" proposition. Good thoughts, Marvin, on the subjectivity, and relativity of those things we like to latch onto.

I think bubbling enthusiasm for the very real benefits of working from the life led to a "compartmentalized" conclusion that photography has no place at all. It's even easier to bash photos when there seems to be such a dependence on them among painters . . . especially novices.

There are some really good thoughts voiced in this thread!

anatomy
 

No one ever mentions the study of anatomy during these photo vs. life debates, am I missing something? I was taught that a solid understanding of anatomy was the foundation of all good drawing weather from life or photo.

Dan, you should definitely start a new thread to discuss the topic of anatomy in portraiture, specifically. If you feel it's of great importance, instead of burying it here under the name of another subject where people wouldn't necessarily look, give it the prominence a specific title would insure.

That said, here's my take on the subject. If you've read everything I've written on this thread, you would know that my point here is that the worthiness of a painting has more to do with what the artist brings to the table as opposed to the source of the reference. To a large degree, this has to do with the level of understanding an artist possesses of both their subject and the craft of painting. One aspect of this is certainly anatomic knowledge, however knowing where all the bones and muscles are located plays but a small part in the making of a convincing illusionistic painting.

Proper anatomy doesn't necessarily insure that a painting will be a good. In fact, there are many great paintings done by artists whose anatomical prowess is considered sub-par (Vermeer and Raeburn). I've also seen paintings by anatomical masters that display a strong tendency to over-accentuate the anatomy, at the cost of depicting form in light (Michaelangelo). In my experience, anatomy is but one stone in the wall of painting aptitude, however, I don't know if it's the entire foundation.