Work from life or from photos?

[Mike McCarty]

My original complaint was this:

Mike wrote: What I find aggravating is that the argument always compares the best of the life painting experience with the very worst photo reference.

Marvin,
Once again you have described the best of the life painting experience while alluding to the worst photo experience.

Marvin wrote: I recently completed a portrait, done mostly from photos

You pick up at this point and describe how the benefit of those final hours helped make the painting come alive. I would just like to give a little respect to all that went before. It was your good judgment that brought the painting to that point. Your good judgment that took advantage of photography. I think that any reasonable person would conclude that your judgment was correct. Maybe your painting would have been better if painted totally from life. Maybe, maybe not, but for all the good and practical reasons, you chose not to.

Rarely a day goes by that someone on these boards doesn't slam the use of photographs.

[Jim Riley]

I have a great deal of difficulty with the anger and fear of photographic reference. I really don't care if others choose not to use it but find the world of digital info as a great aide to my portrait work. On rare occasions I have asked a subject to sit for some final touch up but otherwise shoot, compose, change heads, add backgrounds and show options to the client before the painting begins. Sitting is boring and it is sometimes difficult to not let it show.

I would not give up all the live training/study I have had and would not recommend learning to draw from photographs but find them very useful.

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Jim Riley

I have a great deal of difficulty with the anger and fear of photographic reference.

Everyone who has posted so far on this thread uses photos some/all/most of the time. The question (okay, my question) is whether it is "worth" the expense and incredibly time consuming "bother" of learning to paint from life. People who are teaching others how to do work from life (including me) have a strong interest in convincing others to answer "yes" to this question. But I'm open to hearing other sides to this issue.

Here's the side I want to hear speak: anyone who will say, "I can't work from life at all but I'm making a great living as a portrait artist and I think my work is excellent." Or how about some variation of: "I can't draw from life at all but my photographic references are so wonderful and I can use them so well that I feel it is not necessary for me to learn to work from life."

[Allan Rahbek]

Hi,
I believe that a photo reference can easily "lift" a painting to a certain level, just by tracing the lines and fill in some colors. But to create a really convincing image you have to know how the eye perceive the three dimentionally world.

If you focus on a person you won

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Holly Snyder

Geez, what happened while I was away?

Sorry Holly! These photograph/life debates come up every couple of months on the Forum. I personally like to see them run for a while because I think they are very important discussions and in fact go to the heart of why we should bother painting the portrait or the figure in an age when incredibly beautiful photographs are available (and are much less expensive than hiring a painter, need I add!).

I've asked Ilaria to start another thread with her new life portrait.

I agree with Michele; the way to learn to work from life is just to do it. Even putting a pile of fabric on a table to work from is hugely beneficial toward training your eye to see.