Maybe There's A Better Way To Use Photo References

Do you use photo references and wonder if you're getting it right?  Because there are wrong ways to use them.  In fact, I had some fun about this scandal involving photo references in a post from 2008 that still gets hits.   

The thing is, I've always thought the idea of using photo references has either been misunderstood or maligned by well intentioned artist/teachers.  As a student, we had assignments that included bringing in our 5 x 7 kodachrome photo reference; then we listened as those same photo references were labeled as a crutch to avoid drawing and blamed for all sorts of artistic errors. 

Confusing.

Except...there are paintings (we've all seen them - or done them) that demonstrate the worst use of the photo reference.

For instance...you can't see into the shadows, so those areas beneath the trees are just black spots (like in the photo). Or the space is flattened, with no real sense of perspective or "air" in the background (like in the photo). 

Loss of detail and lighting issues were more of a problem when we were limited to the 1 Hour Photo lab. But we have technology now, and there aren't many valid arguments against using digital photo references - if you actually use them as a reference.

Of course there are a few sticking points that will trip you up...

The camera captures everything, equally, but the artist must think about a single idea to express and arrange the elements accordingly.

The camera often produces terrific photographs, but the end product does not necessarily translate into a terrific painting - and maybe that's the secret behind successful photographers and successful painters - being able to see the difference.

There are still plenty of good reasons to use photo references. You don't have to deal with the weather - particularly in the winter - unless you want to. And you don't have to worry about the shadows - with digital images and a good software program like Photoshop Elements you can adjust the contrast to see the details.

You can load your image on a laptop set up beside your easel, and it's even better than standing in the open air because you can magnify the detail (Funny, this advantage only seems important to those of us over fifty.) 

What you can't do is clearly understand the spaces between objects as they recede back toward the horizon, so the artist must master an understanding of perspective. And I often look for similar elements to use as models - if I'm painting trees, I might use a photo reference for general information and look out my studio window at the trees across the street to study actual light effects. 

It comes down to this - no one ever created anything worthwhile that didn't have something of their own life force in the mix.  When you hesitate to edit what you see to better communicate what you think, you've lost the opportunity to create something really special. 

And someone else will say what you wish you had said.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Air Jordan 13]

TAKE ME TO YOUR HEART.....LISTENING TO YOUR HEART.....BRING ME FOR AWAY.....

[Betty Pieper]

What a thoughtful article. I started painting at the age of ten and my great love besides painting is my children. Only lately have I realized that I might like to paint children more often and that I can use photos. I've mostly painted out of my head because you can't stalk children with a camera or expect them to pose and sit still for long! Last fall I became fascinated by a photo of our granddaugher tired out after Trick or Treating and fast asleep in her Tinker Belle costume. I've had so many caveats about painting from photos...some of which you mention! So I started by blocking out large areas. (I almost always start abstractly.) But I could tell that the body relationships weren't 'right'. Then I thought maybe a grid, maybe if I measure, maybe a projector, et cetera. I wanted THIS painting to look like Allie, but finally I decided to trust my head and my hand. I went back to the larger brushes and my expressionistic mode and lo, it seemed OK. I recently put it on my website...and lo it has more visitors than anything else there! Allie rather thinks of it as being out in front...maybe as in a contest. If you want to take a look it's on betty-pieper.artistwebsites.com under Tinker Belle. I'd like to see more articles on this subject and will follow the comments. Thanks to all.

[sue smith]

Sari brings up an interesting argument. When using photo references - how much is too much? To what degree does using a photo reference "negate" the artist's work?

[Sari Grove]

All paintings that have been assisted by a camera or other machine should be credited as such in the media used section...ie: oil on canvas with digital photo reference...This will help collectors to distinguish & understand 'painted from life' from the others, & will help when evaluating correct pricing on both ends...(For those of us who do stand out in the cold of winter freezing our toes off)...

[sue smith]

Thank you, Paula and Kay - I agree with your insights. As artists, we eventually realize there's more to painting than simply reproducing what we see. Quang Ho calls this the difference between first level thinking and second level thinking, and I continue to recommend his DVD "Nuts and Bolts" as it is an excellent foundational source for artists of all levels.
There is much to learn and master in painting - there will always be new insights which change the way we approach the canvas. It's exciting, to realize progression even if the growth is a small step. It is the little shifts in awareness that become important.

[Kathleen Eaton]

This post really hit home for me! Thank you for your wonderful insights. And thank you Paula, for your perspective on it as well.

I studied for years with an excellent portrait artist until I realized my work was not my own. It looked like my teacher's work. I don't feel that the time was misspent as I learned a lot from the experience. But I knew I had to move on in order to develop my own style. I definitely agree that working from life creates a truer image than working from photos, although photo references are a great tool.

Thank you for the thought-provoking message!

Kay

[Mindful Drawing]

‘It comes down to this - no one ever created anything worthwhile that didn't have something of their own life force in the mix.  When you hesitate to edit what you see to better communicate what you think, you've lost the opportunity to create something really special’.

I fully agree with this. If you paint (copy) a photo, you do not develop a personal style or touch that is recognizable as a production by yourself to others. If we all start relying on digital help our art pieces become uniform.

I see so many pictures of art pieces on blogs that resemble photo’s. ‘A digital painting’, I name these productions. Often they look so smart and smooth, but I am sure I will never be able to discriminate between the makers, like I can distinguish between a Van Gogh and a Rembrandt.

My question isn’t if digital help prevents a personal artistic touch, but if it really leads to beauty.
Should paintings and drawings come so close to digital images or should they stay far away from digital pictures (as beautiful as these pictures can be).

Are our brains so digital by now that we get totally used to art looking digital instead of full with personal perspective and style?

I agree that in order to create something really special, painters should use the minimum of digital help. Just because computers are ahead of us, we shouldn’t adapt to their help automatically.

However, maybe digitalizing art isn’t preventable anymore. Maybe we just have to go through to this marriage between the camera, the computer and painting board. But just as the computer has changed the brain of our younger generation, it might change our artistic brain, and I think we have to think if that is for the better.

I have great doubts.

Paula