Are we painters or photographers?

[Michael Fournier]

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.