Are we painters or photographers?

[Steven Sweeney]

I would be remiss not to add to this discussion an admission of my own surprise, over the year or so that I

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Perfect on that ARC site, the first 5 Eakins posted (from the top) were painted from photos, I quarantee you!

The little color sketch of the girl may not have been, but the first page is enough to make my point and frankly, I think professional artists ought to be able to recognize that. We should be more observant and discerning than the masses.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

I don't have one, but most large books on Eakins include the very photos used in the paintings. But the point is that you can tell. Not all artists that use photos can you so easily tell. Zorn used photos -- not so easy to tell:

[John Zeissig]

Linda,

Oops! I was off by a factor of 2 on the odds of guessing both correctly. It's really 1/153. The odds of getting one correct are 1/9. So I beat the odds, but I admit that I was purely guessing.

I considered #11, but reckoned that my wife was the only person in the universe who could get away with leaving that stuff on the dresser long enough for somebody to draw/paint it. My third choice would have been #2, the roses, followed by any of the still lives.

But I'm heartbroken that you spilled the beans right away. I was looking forward to lots of participants taking a shot at determining the souces, as a beautiful little experiment on the topic of this thread. Granted that we're looking at digitizations of photos or scans of these works, but we could have quantified how easy or difficult it is to identify source material in the finished work under these circumstances. It was fun anyway!

[Mike McCarty]

A few miles from my house there is a church. (In Oklahoma I think it is an ordinance that there be a church every one and a half miles.)

On the sign outside this particular church it reads "Church of the ______ - a higher dimension." It's that last part that gets me, a "higher dimension."

There must have been a feeling of dulling sameness with the other church people in the community. How can we set ourselves apart from those who are already godly? We shall assign to ourselves a "higher dimension."

I now sense a kind of dimensional gap. All the other churches must now figure a way, not only to match the rogue dimension but to surpass it.

[Jean Kelly]

Hi all, just my 2 cents. I'm one of the lucky ones who had extensive life drawing experiences. I miss that time in my life, with all the hard work and the fun of being an art student. I even spent a year modeling to supplement my education.

After my recent experiences with photos, I have made a pledge to myself that I will never completely trust what I see in them again.

As a newcomer to this forum (and returnee to art), I got the impression at first that photography was going to be a major part of my retraining. A necessary evil. I'm relieved to discover, that for myself it will only be a minor tool.

[Lon Haverly]

I draw from life 99% of the time, and prefer it that way. But how many artists find a customer who will pose for an oil portrait? If you pay a model, that is one thing. But my customers are never willing to pose for an oil. They would rather I use photos, either theirs or mine. In the old days, there was not much choice in the matter. But today, the average portrait consumer does not have the time or inclination to pose for an extended oil sitting.

I am not in the position to dictate to customers that they pose. You cannot be certain that a person would make a good live model anyway.

I am not sure that I would prefer oil painting from life even if I did get the opportunities. Drawing from life can be frustrating enough. Perhaps it would make me a better oil painter to work from life more often just for myself. But who has the time?

[Linda Ciallelo]

As I have said before, if most of your portraits are children, as mine are, then you would have to be very good indeed to get much information from your moving target.

John, I agree, I should not have revealed the truth right away.

Of course, if you use photos you must always keep in mind that what you are seeing is not exactly what is actually there. After many years of using them, I automatically compensate for the exagerated contrast that you find in photos.

In fact, I adjust all of my digitals by first using the "quick fix", which makes the digital look like a traditional photo.

Then I lower the contrast, raise the brightness, and raise the saturation. This seems to improve the image in most cases.

[Michael Fournier]

Well Lon, you're right most of the time. Portrait artists do use photos for that very reason.

Most would also prefer to paint from life and others prefer to paint only from photos. But the issue is not what a seasoned professional does to make money or to get a commission. The issue is what will make you a better painter.

Although many pros do use photos, the best portrait painters both alive today and of the past learned to paint from life. And they painted many, many, many, paintings before they ever attempted to sell one or take a commission.

Your drawing from life has the same effect as painting from life and your experience doing that has many of the same benefits. And yes, Lon, if you could find a way to paint more from life it would no doubt improve your painting and the paintings you did do from photographs would be all the better for it.

Also I will note here that it is not always necessary to paint a model to improve your painting from life. Painting a still life requires many of the same skills needed to paint a figure.

If it is your painting you need to work on, painting anything from life under natural light will help. Granted there is no substitute for painting skin tone from life except painting from a live model but not all your painting from life must be the figure or portraits to improve your painting skills.

Sargent said it best when he said:
[QUOTE]You say you are studying to become a portrait painter and I think you

[Patti Jo Lemke]

Hi everyone!

My name is Patti Jo and I just stumbled onto this group tonight and promptly joined! This is the first topic that I followed through all the way, as it is a subject that hits close to home. I have done portraits from life, but now I use a lot of photos because of the subject matter that I specialize in, which is Native Americans.

I do not have the luxury of having my models for the extended periods of time required to paint from life. Also, I like that I can go through my photo files at any time down through the years, and pull out a moment frozen in time, and all the memory of the moment floods back to me as if it were this morning!

I smell the smells, hear the sounds, and remember the conversations and the mood. Of course, needless to say, this is working from "my own" photographs! Working from a photo provided by a client, on the other hand, poses all the problems that so many of you have already elaborated on! Having knowledge of how photos distort perspective, proportions and color is very helpful, which is one reason I dropped most of my art classes while in college, to pursue photography for a couple years (besides the fact that I wasn't getting the painting and drawing knowledge I craved in my art classes).

I have NEVER been sorry, and have considered it one of the smartest things I did, as its advantages have given me many painting opportunities not available working from life. Other than that...you all have pretty much covered it, and I agree with it all! I do need to paint more often from life, as I have fallen away from it.

P.S. If you can tell me how to put in my paragraphs, I will be happy to do it. I am new to this whole computer thing, and I can't find the "return" key! I am thrilled to have found you and look forward to meeting you all!

Thanks,
Patti Jo