Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carol Norton
One student explained that she really thought her photos were good, but didn't know until yesterday that they wouldn't make good paintings.
|
This can be a most difficult bit of instruction to impart successfully -- that even what we generally accept as great photos may not be good reference sources for paintings. A candid assessment of the displayed photos in most professional studios would reveal that, however cute or gorgeous the subject, however accomplished the arrangement of reflectors and fill-flashes and the like, a painting based on the photo would be lacking.
I had the occasion of having to explain to a client the reasons why his favorite photograph of his young grandson would not be the best choice for a painting reference. I went through the whole value design philosophy. He essentially said that that was all very interesting, but he wanted the painting nonetheless. And he got the best little painting I could produce under those circumstances, and it paid two months' studio rent, so good came of it.
The caveat is this: It no doubt helped that I knew the way in which the photograph was "deficient," so that I could, first, make my case to the client, and then make necessary adjustments. If you have not learned to "see" the problems with your photo
as a reference, you won't be able to see them, either, as you very carefully transfer them to your canvas.
As a bonus, my photography results improved dramatically in every genre when I began looking through the viewfinder for the composition, value range and design, and color harmonies that I would expect to see in a painting. If I don't see those things, I don't take the picture. And when your photos do display those qualities, viewers very much notice the difference, even if they cannot quite articulate why the photos have something "extra." But you will know.