|
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.
|