Photo or life?

[Dan Landrie]

I really didn't have a point to this thread.
I've worked as an illustrator and in doing so became proficient at working from photos.
I was curious as to weather the artist on this forum could tell the difference between my work from life and that from photos. I actually thought it would be a fun diversion.
I also thought it would be a good way to display some of my works.
I didn't realize what I was getting into when Alexandra suggested I move the thread to this section.
I respect you all to much to ever revel whose right or wrong, so have fun and guess away.
by the way the celebrity post where done from photos, you'll have to guess the rest.
These next few will be my last post but feel free to post some of your own.

[Richard Bingham]

Gosh, Dan . . . I didn't think comments in this thread communicated "touchiness" on the subject.. I for one am not at all offended, and I'm grateful for the look at your work. Great stuff, I especially like the Letterman caricature.

To be sure, unless you have some incredible connections or opportunities, celebrity subjects would have to be from photo references.

I think some discussion topics get re-visited perennially because the exchanges often provide the participants with fresh insight even though there can never be resolution (like "What is art?"). Obviously I think this is one of 'em, or I wouldn't have posted. I also hope no one's upset or offended . . . it's sure not my intention to offend.

[Steven Sweeney]

We're getting lines crossed here -- this is to Richard's earlier post --

I don

[Steven Sweeney]

And Dan, none of this should have discouraged you. This should have energized you. You might actually, with a slightly different perspective, feel exhilarated by the possibility of an additional way of "seeing."

If your originally posted drawing was from a photo and you're discouraged by the unanimous vote that it was in fact from a photo, you have nothing but opportunity in front of you to learn the "why" of that perception in the minds of others and -- if you choose -- spend some time on those elements.

Hey, it's all free, and it's fun, too. If you search for "photo life" in this Forum, you'll find many threads over many years in which this issue has been hashed out. It's nothing personal. Everyone's trying to help, to move the discussion and the process forward.

[Dan Landrie]

Stephen
Your last comment reminded me of an article I red once on email and how hard it is do determine the emotion behind the message. The difficulty arises when the human is separated from the words, the facial contortions, the gestures, and tone of voice, visual clues that aid us to determine what a person is trying to convey.

How appropriate this is to the subject at hand life vs the photo, or dare I say artist vs camera.
A well trained artist ( see Whitaker's threads on what it takes to be a well trained artist) can process information much more efficiently than a camera ( apologizes to you photographers ) Just as talking to another human is far more superior to typing them a message.

In conclusion: In order to paint a portrait that's true to the subject you have to meet and get to know that individual, see them, hear them ,study them in their environment, note their unique features and habits and then process and incorporate all that information into your portrait, all things a camera can not do.

So you see stephen I have been encouraged and energized by this discussion.