Are we painters or photographers?

[Stanka Kordic]

My studio is strewn with books open to pages created by my 'teachers': Sorolla, Cassatt, Sargent, Rembrandt, whomever it takes to help me resolve the technical problems I run into.

My photos are never ever perfect. My memory is never, ever perfect. I don't want a perfect painting. But it is my best at the time, as imperfect as I always am.

[Michael Georges]

Mike M: Of all the people on this Forum, you are IMO, the best photographer. But, while this is a great photograph, you have lost about half of the visual information you had when she was right there in front of you.

This photo contains too dark shadows, too light lights, the depth is flattened, and colors are somewhat washed and probably not accurate. You have lost much of the variance of color and tone in the skin - the warm/cool variations that are important to making not just a nice painting, but a great painting.

Now, that said, can you create a nice painting from it - you bet! BUT, if you have extensive experience drawing and painting from LIFE under NATURAL NORTH LIGHTING, then you will do a much better job of it - because you will understand the differences between photos and life and you will better approach life in your painting.

It is important to understand that the focus of portraiture is not to copy a photo as close as you can, but to approach life itself. The fact that photography and photo evaluation gets so much focus on SOG points to a systemic problem with drawing and painting skills among participants. Painting is hard stuff, no doubt! I, too, need more time painting and drawing from life - I am not nearly good enough at it.

It is much easier to be a good photographer than a great painter, and it appears to me, that SOG is too focused on the easy road. One distinctly gets the impression that copying a photograph is the goal and is what folks believe portraiture is all about.

Look at the work of Marvin Mattelson, Bill Whitaker, Daniel Greene, and Burt Silverman. Different styles, but these people all blow our socks off. Why? Because they paint from life - a lot. Their work approaches life because of that experience. They "see" like most of us currently do not - myself included.

We all use photo reference. The difference comes in those who understand the ultimate goal of portraiture is not to copy the photo, but to approach life itself.

Paint and draw from life under natural light.

[Michael Fournier]

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.

[Mike McCarty]

But, while this is a great photograph, you have lost about half of the visual information you had when she was right there in front of you.

While she was right there in front of me, she would collect a half dozen mosquitos on her bare skin. Most of the photos from this session were discarded for that reason. I would swat them away and click, swat and click. We walked a quarter mile to get to this place through a muddied field.

All this effort while you guys were wasting your time painting from life. Just kidding, just kidding, just kidding!

[Mike McCarty]

Paint and draw from life under natural light.

Michael G.

Maybe you could take just a few more minutes and clarify for me your position. It seems that you have concluded one of the following:

1. My subject(s) and I should remain on location while I do drawings and color studies. Never rely on photos.

-or-

2. These types of difficult location/dance recital/playground children-type paintings should not be attempted.

-or-

3. Studio/non studio/any type painting when done from photo resources, should only be done from the very best of photo resources.

[Michael Fournier]

Mike M.,

I know that you were asking Mike G. here, but I would like to say that by no means was I intending to say that you should not use photo reference. Nor did I intend that the only paintings you should ever paint should be done in a studio under the light of a north-facing window.

I often am struck by paintings, huge works of art with complex composition, multiple figures in action, that obviously the artists did not have models hold while they painted and placed in a location that the artist was not in front of at the time they painted it.

They did this work before the invention of color photography or even before cameras were advanced enough to capture moving subjects at all. Yet they were able to paint these beautiful paintings. You say photographs are needed. Sure they help, but maybe we need them because we relied on them too much to begin with.

These artists could paint a figure from memory because they had done it so many times and they knew it so well that they could do it again from their mind alone (and with the help of sketches and studies).

Now, I am no master and to do a detailed portrait I need reference, or a person to sit in front of me as I work. But even I, after drawing my wife in what must be maybe over 100 different sketches and 20 or so paintings, can draw her from memory and you would be able to know it was her. Why? Because I have drawn her so many times that I know her face, her mannerisms and how she has changed over the years.

I could paint her today as she looked when we first dated and in using a photo taken today as reference, make her look as I remember her. Or I could take an old photograph of her and make her appear as she does today.

Now, we do not have years to study every person we are to paint so that we know them so well that we could paint them from memory. That would be impossible. But we should be able to draw a figure convincingly enough from memory that we can work out a composition in our mind alone.

If you have painted 20 or 30 paintings of men in a business suit, should you not be able, from memory, to change the position of fold or slightly change the position of a hand from memory? I mean one suit folds over an arm about the same as any other arm and the fabric folds about the same.

Paintings from life are painted from more than a single sitting, and each time the subject gets up and sits back down the folds of the fabric change slightly or they are not in exactly the same position, but that does not matter. We are going to make those folds to create the best composition in the painting, regardless of how the really look.

You want them to be convincing and that can only be done if you have taken the time to know how clothing drapes on a figure. You can only change the position or pose of a hand if you have drawn enough hands that you can make the change convincingly. There is no better way to learn than from life.

I often hear the statement that I just can't get people to pose, or kids just won't sit long enough for me to paint them. I want to say up front that no one is going to sit perfectly still for hours as you paint. That is why reference photos can help.

But I have painted my daughter and her dog from life. The painting is on my web site. My daughter was 10 years old and the Jack Russell terrier in the painting was only a year old and very rambunctious.

How did I do it? I had her sit first holding a stuffed toy dog. I then had her sit with the real dog for about 5 minutes. The dog was never in the same position for more than 10 seconds at a time.

Then I painted from memory, and then she sat again. I am sure some could have done better but I am very proud of that painting. I would like to use it as an example that you can paint even children and pets from life.

A lot of the dog was painted from memory. Also the dog would sit in my studio on a chair from time to time and I would just look over at the dog.

[Michael Georges]

Mike:

Let's remember the subject of this topic.

My position is that this Forum is too focused on photography as the primary source for portraiture and for learning portraiture.

While I too use photos, I believe that as we have many students and beginners on this board, the message we are sending is the wrong one - that painting from photos is how portraiture is learned and done.

The best and most successful portrait artists learned from life and it is telling that most often they don't use photos to paint portraits.

I believe that portraiture is best when done from life. Further, students should learn to paint from life under natural lighting conditions and learn to "see" before they dive into complex photos with varying lighting, depth, color, and edge problems.

They will only end up replicating these problems in their work if they don't have the experience painting from life to distinguish the problems with each piece of photo reference and remediate the problems to bring the painting closer to life than photo.

Trust me, painting from photos only is how I started and the problems still show in my work. I am still learning to "see" and will be for years.

I am not saying that we should not use photos to paint from. I am saying that the emphasis of this Forum is too skewed towards photos, with almost no reference to drawing and painting from life as the best way to learn and perfect your craft. The message here at SOG is learn from copying photos, and the message is wrong.

If you want to produce paintings that are closer to life than photo, then learn to paint and draw from life first. Then you can use whatever you like as your reference.

[Mike McCarty]

Michael F.

That's a really nice portrait. I too have done a lot of pieces of my daughter, though maybe not as many as you have done of your wife. I don't think I could do one from memory. I think that I could do a generic girl but that's about it. Although I have not really tried to do one from memory, I might surprise myself. I appeciate your comments and will re-read them. Like you, my journey has not ended.

Michael G.

For the record, I am not really a Michael posing as a Mike. My birth certificate indicates only Mike. My middle initial is O for O'Neal. With a quick calculation you can see that I am indeed a "MOM". What does this have to do with the subject, you might ask? I don't know, I would answer.

I am saying that the emphasis of this forum is too skewed towards photos with almost no reference to drawing and painting from life as the best way to learn and perfect your craft. The message here at SOG is learn from copying photos, and the message is wrong.

I think I became a member of this forum late last year. Like many I just watched and listened for a good while. Finally I got the nerve to pipe in on some innocuous subject. Since then I have ranged from being helpful to showing my full backside.

In the process I have tried to be giving of what I know. More than that, I hope that I have not tried to hide or be coy about what I did not know. I always figured that people would accept or reject my postings as they wished. I think that I would be flattering myself if I thought that I was offering a "direction" or "path" to be followed.

After a time I found that I could contribute what I knew about taking portrait photos. If I wanted information on a three figure composition (or portrait photography for that matter) I might give Peggy B. a shout. If I needed help on pastel flesh tones I think Chris S. would rush to help. Michael F. has much knowledge regarding design and composition. I think that by definition, any forum is going to be an organic, shifting body. People come and go, their needs come and go.

If you have a particular point of view, or a talent that you wish to share, then you should pick your spot and express it. As far as shifting/changing the direction of the forum, I say giddy-up. Jump in there and state your points of view. People will accept or reject them as they see fit.

If you choose you may have the last word. I think I'll go and harass some other subject for a while.

P.S. I think Stanka gets the prize for saying the most with the least amount of words.

[ReNae Stueve]

Well,

I've read all of the posts here thus far. Mike O., I'm with you on Stanka's thoughts. The mention of how we poor aspiring artists might pick up bad habits by using photos is what has moved me to express myself.

I use photo aids. I have never considered this "copying" the photo. I'm not a xerox machine. I'm rendering life. The photo is a drafting aid. No more.

The fact that I see things in a different way than one who is not prone to our craft is what makes me...prone to my craft. Does that make sense?

Much of my work is done completely without models. My angel series is a good example. But I did take various fabrics and drape them in order to get a realistic rendering of how that particular fabric reflects light, etc.

There is no end to the resource material in National Geographic (more photos). Portraiture, (although I've only done 4 to date) is the same. I use a photo as a reference and paint the living person. Anyway, I can go on.

[Alicia Kornick]

Mike,

Where do you find these ravishing women? As far as my untrained eye can see, nothing was left out of this photo (or this woman for that matter). Who would not want to paint this?