Painting from photographs versus real life
Helen Lawler
pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
What do you think?
Alfred Glass
it is quite true.. i have also found myself "copying" the photo...
one thing i do is to make sure the photo is in black and white.. also, to
hold it a fair distance from the canvas..i mean like a 3min walk..
means you dont look back and forth, back and forth..
Steve G
Dikkers
Sometimes a photo can capture a look you want, and serve as a good model for a
painting. To interpret a person's character in a drawing or painting, though,
live modeling is better. It's more of a challenge for the artist, but once you
learn to capture a person's character, it is better than copying their shape.
As a space artist, interpreting the subject in detail depends on photography.
It wasn't until I could see the stars, planets and galaxies with my own aided
eyes, in 3-D, however, that I could interpret the subtleties of space on
canvas. Until the mid to late '90's, the galaxies weren't photographed with
subtlety in mind. Overexposure was the standard.
________________________________________________________
http://www.spacestar.net/users/adikkers/spaceart.htm
___________________________________________________________
Bob C
>
> I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
> pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>
> One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
> get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
>
> What do you think?
I paint landscapes working from photographs, but I almost always do
several studies from the photograph - watercolor sketches, large acrylic
drawings, small oil paintings. I don't worry too much about realism or
detail in the studies, instead focusing on trying to capture my memories
of the actual scene (I only work from photos which I have taken,
although I will occasionally use other reference photos to add specific
details). When working on the final painting, I use both the studies and
the photograph to work from.
I have tried doing field studies on a few occasions, but I clearly need
much more practice at it - the ones I do now aren't much help in making
a finished painting. But I do find it helpful to take notes and make a
quick sketch outlining the relationships of the main objects. It can be
amazing sometimes how a photograph actually hides details. You will look
at some small section of the photograph and realize that you simply
can't figure out what's going on there. So my biggest problem with
photographs is that sometimes the details I want simply aren't there.
- Bob C
zi...@interport.net
I believe I answered this one before you asked the question. I was
quoting a nineteenth century writer on watercolor painting [English
Circa 1863] who was telling his readers why it was better to go out
with a paintbox thanwith a camera.
In my opinion it is possible to use photographs as aids of some sort,
if you are a fully accomplished figurative painter, have studied th
motifs for quite a few years with black and white and various colored
techniques. So you know how to look and for what and how to form and
why. Then it is possible to use a camera as a memory aid or for people
making violent poses which your models [you think] couldn't keep.
But if you are not a fully formed painter, Etc. there will be all
sorts of problems. Now, the American painter, very well thought of in
the USA by many people [and unknown outside], Thomas Eakins, often
painted from photographs, of his own making. As a result, you will
find that there are accidental photographic distortions [spatially] in
many of them. Now, as a student of Gerome, he should have known
better, right? And as a kind of provincial genius -so many Americans
take him to be -he should have been able to avoid that-well if you
look closely at any of his out door genre paintings [not the people in
the sculls on schuylkill] there are the distortions.
Delacroix could do it, so even Cezanne, but it is not just hard to
keep out detail, it is hard to get living breathing forms and get them
to move properly in space. And if you don;t automatically form [and
your comment seems to mean that you don't], ratherthan being a help,
photographs will be a hindrance.
The Pop painters and post pop painters who used photographs were
interested in the banal. At making fun of our art and our advertising
art. They were not serious about the images except in so far as they
banalized, trivialized or destroyed them. If that is what you want to
do as the child of the Duchamp they made up, well then photos are an
easyway to get going. Chuck Close is our most available painter.
Realists see realism, abstractionists see abstraction, and those who
want the new see the new. But if that isnot your goal photography
canbe a killer. Pace all the animaliers in the country, go and look at
their work and compare it with the work of, say, Rosa Bonheur.
There was a teacher in the nineteenth century, LeCoq de Boisbaudran.
who wrote a book on his method. It was called [in Eng;lish] "Training
the Memory in Art." His students were tested by members of the Academy
because the members couldn't believe that anyone could draw that well
from memory only. He had two very famous [then] students the more
famous was Rodin, I am not getting the name of the other, He was
famous then, but no so much now. Also a sculptor. Ther is a nice
porrtraitbust by him in the Museum of the Legion of Honorin SF, but
not not much else in the USA. Anyhow, take a look at that book. If you
need to be a realist and use detail, why not learnhow to see it in
your mind's eye rather than through the camera's.
One more thing. If you prefer to work without a motif as most artist
did before th 1820s, most of the time [except for still life painters]
the other route is to study with drawings and work up your painting
from a composition you make up without any reference to nature, only
to your drawings of nature. There isno reason why photography is an
issue of any sort, except in terms of speed of production. But do we
really need to be that fast?
Remember that there also is an East Asiantradition in which the artist
paints without reference to a motif. The artist begins to work by
thinking through the entire image in his mind and then merely realizes
it on the canvas. Some of those artists used little brush strokes and
lots of detail, others did the opposite. Both were working without a
motif. In fact, the Japanese had to make up a new word for working
from a motif at the turn of the 18th century when Matsumura Goshun,
the founder of the Shijo school of artists who worked in the brush
stroke style of the east, but from nature, started doiung them. Until
that time in 8 or 900 hundred years of known Japanese painting, noone
had found it necessary to look at nature while painting.
Sincerely,
Gabriel
GoGen
>I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
>pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
>get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
Directly copying a photograph isn't painting in it's true and original
meaning any more.
Looking at the photo, though, is something else. If you find yourself
on a nice scene, but can't stay and draw it, I guess it's OK to take a
photo and remind yourself later about how things looked like.
What I'd like to ask now is how you feel about making a drawing or a
sketch for a painting using a computer (for more realistic artworks,
not impressions, of course)?
You know, you draw a tree, scan it and simply position it on the
screen, duplicating it, stretching, whatever. At last you get a
perfect composition, print out the "sketch" and use it to make a
painting.
Goran Generalic
-----
"Gallery J. Generalic" - Croatian Naive Art
www.generalic.com
-----
Larry Seiler
> pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>
> One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy
to
> get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
For nearly 20 years I worked my way into becoming known as a wildlife
artist. Competitively I've done well. Sketch books, working from mounts,
observing real life situations, video, and photography were all important
elements. Photographs became necessary to finish off the detail demanded
by the market...as a kinder way than say shooting everything first!
But...then, I just decided I really wanted to experience painting afresh as
"painting"...and began doing some landscape paintings. At first...I did
some in my studio from photographs. I made a little game for myself, and a
definite parameter of self-permission was necessary. I would say....given
what I know I can do.....what might I be able to do "IF" I gave myself only
2 hours? One hour? Thirty minutes?
I then began to judge the work within that time construct.....giving myself
some grace.
I would do about 60-70% of the work with a palette knife...blocking in and
refining as much as was possible....and finish off with one or two smaller
brushes, a flat and round...painting in sky and negative space to create
the illusion of detail.
Having done perhaps a couple dozen such pieces.....I gained the confidence
to go and paint outdoors. I knew that the light outdoors would be a
constant kaleidascope of light and shadows....and that perhaps whatever had
caught my eye to suggest a good painting opportunity to begin with would
per chance exist for maybe 20 minutes at best.
Now....I will tell you....you don't have a sense of that with photographs.
There is no threat that lighting conditions will change. Yet....if you can
make a game with yourself concerning your photographs...giving yourself
only 30 minutes..you can capture a sense of spontaneity.
The other problem is.....calling the element that says we simply must paint
what we saw or experienced as the "ah-hah!" is not always capturable with a
camera. Perhaps it was the cool colors contrasting with the warm
light....but, film chemistry may not develop to show adequately both the
cool colors and the warm. More than likely it will favor greens at the
sake of reds....etc; So...it is more difficult to get the energy from a
photograph that really fuels or ignites the excitement a good artist needs
to follow his/her creative integrity.
On the other hand.....if you paint from life frequently....and do so not
easily letting go of the "ah-hah!"......you can fool the viewer to think
indeed that your use of photographic references did not exist. You develop
from experience a knowing of what would happen to color relationships
"if".... what detail says nothing about what it is you wish to say...etc;
In sum.....I would say photographs paralize many. One thing to possess the
gift, but another when the gift possesses them. Their inexperience doesn't
ring out the alarm when their undeveloped instincts slip into neutral and
before the artist knows it....they've simply copied everything! Painting
from photographs is dangerous, yet....can also be advantageous....a good
reference.
Often now...I will paint a smaller 8"x 10" of a scene on location.....and
take a photograph of the scene at the beginning of my session. Back at
home...I will use the painting (plein air) sketch to remind me of the true
sense of atmospheric color relationships....and the photograph, to do a
larger gallery version in studio.
Sometimes I will do 2-4 smaller paintings until I get a real sense of the
spirit of what it is that captures my artist's eye....and a real sense of
brushstroke rythym before doing the final large piece. A sample of that is
on my artist's site, in my landscape portfolio. There is a smaller one
done first called, "Pike River Pool" and then the larger one ( 24" x 48" )
done for a gallery in Minnesota called "Pike River Sancturary."
Also...as I do a successive piece..I will give myself less time....trusting
my instincts to have picked up on the spirit of the scene, I will use thick
paint, think economy of brushstrokes..and I think I do not lose spontaneity
such way.
Just some thoughts!
--
Larry Seiler
my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"Art attacks can skill!"
CROCUSDES
>my instincts to have picked up on the spirit of the scene, I will use thick
>paint, think economy of brushstrokes..and I think I do not lose spontaneity
>such way.
>Just some thoughts!
Thanks for sharing some insight into the way you work Larry, it's very
informative and your approach seems like the right thing for you to do.
Whew! I sure wish there was as little pretension as Larry expresses about his
work here on this list but I guess that's just the way it is. Nevertheless,
it's refreshing to read what an honest painter has to say about his work.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://www.chrisray.com
studi...@my-dejanews.com
>> I've found painting from a photograph distracts from the natural spontaneity of my medium...watercolors. Also, photo's don't seem to capture the human form nor spirit that I seek in my subjects. However, if for example, I need to paint an animal or something architectural, I do use photo references. I must admit there was a time when I was depending far too heavily on photographs for inspiration and it was only when I toted my buldging files to the garage that I really feel I grew as an artist. Remember too, that printed images can so easily be skewed and often times, artists who are basically copying from photo's are easily spotted, especially in juried shows or galleries. This is an interesting topic and rarely discussed honestly amongst artists, thanks...erw
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
staats fasoldt
February 20,27 1999
with
Staats Fasoldt
at
The Woodstock School of Art
PO Box 338
Woodstock, N.Y. 12498
(914) 679-2388
Woodstock School of Art
http://www.bearsystems.com/wsa/wsa1998.html
Staats Fasoldt
http://www.ulster.net/~staats/
sta...@ulster.net
http://fasoldt.net/staats
peter nelson
Helen Lawler wrote in message <3684c...@139.134.5.33>...
>I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
>pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>
>One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
>get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
>
As a beginning figure-and-portrait-drawing-student, one BIG
advantage of photographs is that I live in the boonies at
least an hour drive from any place where I can take a
class with a live model and since my instructors tell me that
"PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE" is the key to
success, working from photographs is the only practical
answer.
---peter
Helen Fleischer
>But...then, I just decided I really wanted to experience painting afresh as
>"painting"...and began doing some landscape paintings. At first...I did
>some in my studio from photographs. I made a little game for myself, and a
>definite parameter of self-permission was necessary. I would say....given
>what I know I can do.....what might I be able to do "IF" I gave myself only
>2 hours? One hour? Thirty minutes?
A fascinating post! You really make me eager to try this myself once the
weather here warms up a little. Somehow I don't think it would be wise
to try this with a head cold and snow on the ground, but then I've been
cursing this cold for nearly a week, for making my head thick and
dulling my creative energies.
I do work heavily from photographs, as my audience of science fiction
and fantasy fans always wants detail -- more than I'm willing to give
them for the small sums they're willing to part with, most of the time.
It's the way I was taught, but then I run into a tricky situation as to
balancing the look of the more fantastic elements against the ones drawn
from photos. One has to match detail levels and lighting pretty well
or you get a pasted together look that doesn't sit well with the artist
or the fans.
I suspect what I paint en plein air would be done strictly for myself or
an entirely different audience, but I'm certain I would relish the
challenge. Until now the only outdoor painting I've done was to work on
a purely fantastic piece while camping. The only new challenge there was
to keep the acrylics from drying too quickly on the palette. My usual
tricks could not quite keep up with a steady breeze. I blessed my mister
that day!
he...@min.net http://www.min.net/~helen
Helen "Halla" Fleischer,
Fantasy & Fiber Artist in Fairland, MD USA
Larry Seiler
> to keep the acrylics from drying too quickly on the palette. My usual
> tricks could not quite keep up with a steady breeze. I blessed my mister
> that day!
I paint in both acrylics and oils. Each has their own unique challenges.
However...I mix "gelex" with my acrylics to make them thicker....more
impasto-like to imitate oil. When the acrylic dries...so much water
content evaporated, they really flatten and look plastic like. The "gelex"
really gives them an oil appearance because it maintains more of the
texture from your palette knife or brush upon drying. I have a large piece
in one high gallery that I had to correct upon visiting it recently for
their having titled the piece as being an oil when in fact it was an
acrylic.
Part of the "game" aspect of course is to do get yourself to the point
where your laying on of paint moves much quicker than possibly it could
dry. I keep my palette simple with acrylics especially, one yellow, one
red, two blues (ultra and pthalo), titanium white...and though rarely used,
black. by having painted with such a limited palette for so many years, I
have developed a sense of color mixing that is nearly immediate, and is all
based around color temperature and value. This means I can keep my palette
limited, work fast, and not fear this drying out. In fact....transporting
work in and out with acrylics is an advantage because of its fast drying.
Experience will help you work in stages, two for me...and fresh paint each
time. The first blocking in....the second suggesting detail with negative
space. Squint your eyes.....and totally ignore ALL detail. See the
shapes, block them in. Squinting eliminates unnecessary detail. Blocking
in is haphazaard. It is wildly applying, smearing, pushing around,
blotting in.
With oils, I use a piece of rag, turps and wrapped around my finger dip the
turp filled tip into paint on my palette to get a wash consistency. I
essentially block in and have my painting half done with just the rag. The
turps dries really fast, or allows for the brush and knife to paint thickly
at ease.
Then...I squint my eyes to look at where the sky pokes through the trees.
It takes many years to become an expert of tree species....but if we only
respond as artists, it is nothing to simply imitate the shapes of the light
poking through. When we apply those shapes to the work....it almost like
magic creates trees, water patterns....etc; People see trees....I see
negative space.
The other key is.....use the largest brush possible that still allows you
to use an edge or corner of it to make a small mark. That will keep you
from unnecessary detail or losing focus.
hope you'll give it a try.....and have fun!
Larry
Larry Seiler
> class with a live model and since my instructors tell me that
> "PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE" is the key to
> success, working from photographs is the only practical
> answer.
>
> ---peter
so true....and as long as you don't get hung up on calling yourself an
artist ( I mean it took 20 years before I saw myself an artist and less the
student), then you can give yourself permission and leeway for whatever it
takes. Funny thing is, once you see yourself the "artist" you needs give
yourself permission to be the student!
After you have command of it...and understand anatomy, musculature,
lighting and atmosphere, you will not need the resouces nearly so much.
The secret to becoming a painter is to do 120 bad ones! To develop a
style, one simply needs to do 500 paintings without the consideration of
style...and you'll have a style. I'm sure you'd find the same about
drawing. You're much doing of it will free you eventually! Have fun....
peace...
Dan Fox
This is the kind of thoughtful, interesting response that makes groups
like this fun.
My two cents - I don't let my students work from photos because they
tend to copy (as other's responding to this post have indicated).
Experienced artists, however, can use a photo as a resource and create
something original from it. I'm an abstract painter, so it's not an
issue for me personally - although I know that some abstract painters
use photos to good advantage to suggest forms.
Dan
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
> > pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
> >
> > One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy
> to
> > get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
> <snip>
>
> For nearly 20 years I worked my way into becoming known as a wildlife
> artist. Competitively I've done well. Sketch books, working from mounts,
> observing real life situations, video, and photography were all important
> elements. Photographs became necessary to finish off the detail demanded
> by the market...as a kinder way than say shooting everything first!
>
> But...then, I just decided I really wanted to experience painting afresh as
> "painting"...and began doing some landscape paintings. At first...I did
> some in my studio from photographs. I made a little game for myself, and a
> definite parameter of self-permission was necessary. I would say....given
> what I know I can do.....what might I be able to do "IF" I gave myself only
> 2 hours? One hour? Thirty minutes?
>
> Also...as I do a successive piece..I will give myself less time....trusting
> my instincts to have picked up on the spirit of the scene, I will use thick
> paint, think economy of brushstrokes..and I think I do not lose spontaneity
> such way.
> Just some thoughts!
> --
Larry Seiler
> This is the kind of thoughtful, interesting response that makes groups
> like this fun.
> I'm an abstract painter, so it's not an
> issue for me personally - although I know that some abstract painters
> use photos to good advantage to suggest forms.
>
> Dan
Thanks Dan.....I guess we all hope opportunity exists just around the next
corner, but being honest might make us seem a little less than "bigger"
than life! Life's too short....so, who is just that doggone important we
must impress them by lying or beating around the bush, or inflated
self-appraisal? I love to paint..to create...and maybe some here can help
me step up a level. Hope I can help a few others do the same....we just
got to shred the stuff that tends to intimidate, and move on to be about
our business. Nice talking with another painter! take care...
Larry
mdeli
>I paint landscapes working from photographs, but I almost always do
>several studies from the photograph - watercolor sketches, large acrylic
>drawings, small oil paintings. I don't worry too much about realism or
>detail in the studies,
Because you don't have the skill.
> instead focusing on trying to capture my memories
>of the actual scene (I only work from photos which I have taken,
>although I will occasionally use other reference photos to add specific
>details). When working on the final painting, I use both the studies and
>the photograph to work from.
In other words you use photographs..
>I have tried doing field studies on a few occasions, but I clearly need
>much more practice at it - the ones I do now aren't much help in making
>a finished painting. But I do find it helpful to take notes and make a
>quick sketch outlining the relationships of the main objects.
?
> It can be
>amazing sometimes how a photograph actually hides details.
> You will look
>at some small section of the photograph and realize that you simply
>can't figure out what's going on there. So my biggest problem with
>photographs is that sometimes the details I want simply aren't there.
...and you haven't the skill to create them.
Perhaps you're not a good photographer either.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
>Directly copying a photograph isn't painting in it's true and original
>meaning any more.
What's "true and original meaning,"
snip
>You know, you draw a tree, scan it and simply position it on the
>screen, duplicating it, stretching, whatever. At last you get a
>perfect composition, print out the "sketch" and use it to make a
>painting.
>
So if its a good painting tell us what's wrong with it.
mdeli
>
>>I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
>>pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>>One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
>>get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
>
>Directly copying a photograph isn't painting in it's true and original
>meaning any more.
>Looking at the photo, though, is something else. If you find yourself
>on a nice scene, but can't stay and draw it, I guess it's OK to take a
>photo and remind yourself later about how things looked like.
>
>What I'd like to ask now is how you feel about making a drawing or a
>sketch for a painting using a computer (for more realistic artworks,
>not impressions, of course)?
>You know, you draw a tree, scan it and simply position it on the
>screen, duplicating it, stretching, whatever. At last you get a
>perfect composition, print out the "sketch" and use it to make a
>painting.
Use any means possible. What counts is what you put on the wall.
mdeli
>I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
>pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>
>One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
>get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
>
>What do you think?
>
If you can't draw, a photograph won't be a big help. The average
incompetent art student today hardly has enough skill to trace a photo
and none to copy one.
mdeli
> Thomas Eakins, often
>painted from photographs, of his own making. As a result, you will
>find that there are accidental photographic distortions [spatially] in
>many of them. Now, as a student of Gerome, he should have known
>better, right? And as a kind of provincial genius -so many Americans
>take him to be -he should have been able to avoid that-well if you
>look closely at any of his out door genre paintings [not the people in
>the sculls on schuylkill] there are the distortions.
Its not "that he should have known better." Its because that was the
best he could do. He's no match for Gerome
>Delacroix could do it, so even Cezanne, but it is not just hard to
>keep out detail, it is hard to get living breathing forms and get them
>to move properly in space.
Delacrioix turned most everything into conventional academic brown
sauce. Cezanne couldn't do much of anything. Check out my analysis of
C's Great Bather's on my web page. As I said many times here, if you
can't draw a photo won't help. Nothing could help Cezanne.
> And if you don;t automatically form [and
>your comment seems to mean that you don't], ratherthan being a help,
>photographs will be a hindrance.
>
>The Pop painters and post pop painters who used photographs were
>interested in the banal. At making fun of our art and our advertising
>art. They were not serious about the images except in so far as they
>banalized, trivialized or destroyed them.
..and so did Picasso Matisse and Cezanne. Each tried to satirize what
he couldn't do.
> If that is what you want to
>do as the child of the Duchamp they made up, well then photos are an
>easyway to get going. Chuck Close is our most available painter.
>Realists see realism, abstractionists see abstraction, and those who
>want the new see the new. But if that isnot your goal photography
>canbe a killer. Pace all the animaliers in the country, go and look at
>their work and compare it with the work of, say, Rosa Bonheur.
Don't understand this. What are you saying?
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
go...@generalic.com (GoGen) wrote:
>
> >I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
> >pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
> >One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
> >get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
>
>
my paintings. While in the middle of a painting I take a pic put it up on the
computer make changes as i see fit, print it out and go back to the easel to
work some more till its finished. It has saved me countless hours. Would the
masters have used a computer? Methinks they would. Degas used photos and he
didn't even take them himself, hired a photographer to take them. If it works
use it. It is the end product that really matters. george
--
Believe those who search for the truth,distrust those who say they found
it basho
Marilyn
>
> >Also...as I do a successive piece..I will give myself less time....trusting
> >my instincts to have picked up on the spirit of the scene, I will use thick
> >paint, think economy of brushstrokes..and I think I do not lose spontaneity
> >such way.
> >Just some thoughts!
>
> informative and your approach seems like the right thing for you to do.
>
> Whew! I sure wish there was as little pretension as Larry expresses about his
> work here on this list but I guess that's just the way it is. Nevertheless,
> it's refreshing to read what an honest painter has to say about his work.
>
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://www.chrisray.com
Yes, as a painter, I read Larry's posts with interest because he relates his
own experience with no dogmatism.
Marilyn
Diana Lee
myself I consider photography an art form, a genuine medium. If you take your
own photo's and use them I guess you could consider it a mixed media. Most of
my work is done without photo's. Some is done with my own photo's. Some is done
directly from someone else's photo's (like the portraits of my Grandfathers
family, it couldn't be helped) When I do a painting or scratchboard of an
animal, and I have to use photo's from books at the library, I make composites
from 4 to 6 different pictures. This is truely a challenge and as difficult, or
even more so, as working from real life.
When I work from photo's I usually get the basic idea down and put the photo
away working the rest of the piece from my head.
I, personally, find no disadvantages to working from photo's. Sometimes it is
more difficult and it makes me stretch and grow as an artist. Sometimes it
gives me a short cut. Either way it's just another tool to be used.
Diana
http://dianalee.com
Helen Lawler wrote:
> I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
> pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>
> One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
> get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
>
> What do you think?
GoGen
>
>>Directly copying a photograph isn't painting in it's true and original
>>meaning any more.
>
To be honest, some people said for our naive art (we first make a
drawing, put a glass on it and paint using oil colours following the
lines on the drawing) that such painting isn't "what directly comes
from us, but we rather copy our initial impression".
Now I used that phrase in this case, just to see whether such method
really kills the final thing (The artwork) or not, I mean it's
"originality", since what we are seeing isn't "the first", but a copy
of a drawing, a photograph, whatever...
I may sound complicated but am having difficulties in finding the
right words.
>>You know, you draw a tree, scan it and simply position it on the
>>screen, duplicating it, stretching, whatever. At last you get a
>>perfect composition, print out the "sketch" and use it to make a
>>painting.
>>
> So if its a good painting tell us what's wrong with it.
Well, if I tell someone about this hi-tech method, would (and should)
the viewer consider my work less worth because of it?
Marilyn
I agree that it is just another tool. It doesn't sacrifice the
integrity of the work but it could.
For landscape, I would take many photographs, panoramic & close-up.
Then I sit down with my pastels instead of paints. They give you the
most pigment in the least amount of time. These small pastels can
be used as preparatory to a painting and they are works in themselves.
THis is the way Wolf Kahn, landscape artist works and I find it the
best way for me. I like to visit the same landscape and capture it
during different seasons at different times of the day. Back in the
studio, I then have my own pastel drawings and my photographs to
assist me in further developing the motif. There is no substitute for
being there and working plein air, because at that time all your
senses are working, you are absorbing smell, atmosphere, wind, sky,
light. Maybe even a little of the natural history of the place. This
natural beauty arouses emotion and this goes into the work. You can
then take that initial emotional response back to the studio to
refine it. Suppose you are in the middle of such an experience and
it begins to rain, you have your photographs.
A discriminating viewer can usually tell a painting which has been
slavishly copied from a photograph. If the painter at least would
use many photographs to organize a composition, it would be better
than slavishly copying one single photograph.
As well, I like to make drawings from newspaper photographs. They are
blurred with details indistinguishable, they are current, and they
are often very moving.
Copy from photographs, from life, from your imagination, from your
memory, do it all separately and together. Wallow like a drunkard in your
subject. Hope that it will all come together into an equisite work.
Marilyn
Diana Lee
Diana
http://dianalee.com
Helen Lawler
Donald A Jusko
their whole life and could do very well without, thank you very much.
And Degas wasn't that great a painter.
Don
yuki...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <36897cbe...@news.tel.hr>,
> go...@generalic.com (GoGen) wrote:
> >
> > >I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
> > >pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
> > >One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
> > >get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
> >
> >
> > I use the computer and digital camera like tools to give me more choices in
> my paintings. While in the middle of a painting I take a pic put it up on the
> computer make changes as i see fit, print it out and go back to the easel to
> work some more till its finished. It has saved me countless hours. Would the
> masters have used a computer? Methinks they would. Degas used photos and he
> didn't even take them himself, hired a photographer to take them. If it works
> use it. It is the end product that really matters. george
>
> --
> Believe those who search for the truth,distrust those who say they found
> it basho
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Aloha from Maui,
Don Jusko
I invite you to subscribe to my list about Painting on Location.
paintingonloca...@egroups.com
Match pigments and light color wheels here.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/jpgchartssm.htm
Use this search engine to find any term on my
"Teaching Painting on Location" site.
http://pinpoint.netcreations.com/search?account=donjusko&query=color&submit.x=30&submit.y=6
"Art has abandoned the sound principles of craftsmanship and is
therefore lacking in a dependable foundation." Max Doerner 1931
Here is a course giving you sound principles.
http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/index.htm
Donald A Jusko
I'm inviting you to join my small listserve "Painting on Location".
I think you will pick up some hints there.
Don
Helen Fleischer wrote:
>
> On 27 Dec 1998 22:26:55 GMT, "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> >But...then, I just decided I really wanted to experience painting afresh as
> >"painting"...and began doing some landscape paintings. At first...I did
> >some in my studio from photographs. I made a little game for myself, and a
> >definite parameter of self-permission was necessary. I would say....given
> >what I know I can do.....what might I be able to do "IF" I gave myself only
> >2 hours? One hour? Thirty minutes?
>
> A fascinating post! You really make me eager to try this myself once the
> weather here warms up a little. Somehow I don't think it would be wise
> to try this with a head cold and snow on the ground, but then I've been
> cursing this cold for nearly a week, for making my head thick and
> dulling my creative energies.
>
> I do work heavily from photographs, as my audience of science fiction
> and fantasy fans always wants detail -- more than I'm willing to give
> them for the small sums they're willing to part with, most of the time.
> It's the way I was taught, but then I run into a tricky situation as to
> balancing the look of the more fantastic elements against the ones drawn
> from photos. One has to match detail levels and lighting pretty well
> or you get a pasted together look that doesn't sit well with the artist
> or the fans.
>
> I suspect what I paint en plein air would be done strictly for myself or
> an entirely different audience, but I'm certain I would relish the
> challenge. Until now the only outdoor painting I've done was to work on
> a purely fantastic piece while camping. The only new challenge there was
> to keep the acrylics from drying too quickly on the palette. My usual
> tricks could not quite keep up with a steady breeze. I blessed my mister
> that day!
>
> he...@min.net http://www.min.net/~helen
> Helen "Halla" Fleischer,
> Fantasy & Fiber Artist in Fairland, MD USA
--
Donald A Jusko
I cut up paper towels into 3" squares and keep a pile of them handy for
both acrylics and oils. Like you said, half my picture is painted this
way sometimes.
Don
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> > The only new challenge there was
> > to keep the acrylics from drying too quickly on the palette. My usual
> > tricks could not quite keep up with a steady breeze. I blessed my mister
> > that day!
>
> Larry
>
> Larry Seiler
> my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
> "Art attacks can skill!"
--
Larry Seiler
> Hi Larry,
> I cut up paper towels into 3" squares and keep a pile of them handy for
> both acrylics and oils. Like you said, half my picture is painted this
> way sometimes.
> Don
What's funny is...I get good comments on my work in general, and yet if
many artists saw what I can afford to work with they'd be amazed. I can't
afford red sable.....nor throwing brushes away. I've learned to paint and
make marks with anything not nailed down! haha..
A number of artists work this way with a rag or towels such as yourself,
and because I was so hung up on details years ago.....I would have never
heeded or tried this suggestion. Now....since I know a work evolves and
isn't done until its done....I've given myself permission to experiment,
and the rag quickly does what an expensive brush does...and with a little
work, even better! Rags and knives for building, brushes for refining and
finishing.
Larry
Marilyn
Thumbs are very good tools for painting too!
Marilyn
hunh...@bellsouth.net
to sit. Upon my (one and only) photo session I also make notes of skin tones,
backgrounds, etc. Many of the great painters of the American West utilized
photography...so artists & photographs have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship
for almost 100 years. Would I ever revert to the traditions of the old masters
with scores of studies? I don't think so...It would take too much time for a
modern world that demands speed and convience. I have finally reached the point
where I refuse full sized portrait commissions. It simply takes too much time
to do. The largest portrait I am willing to paint is 3/4 size. And by even
placing those limits on the public I'm still backed up by two years worth of
work. Now I know how Sargent felt when he wanted to retire from portraiture.
Good luck and try working from photos and studies. See which method you prefer.
Helen Lawler wrote:
> I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
> pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
>
> One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
> get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
>
> What do you think?
Larry Seiler
<368C9C59...@mauigateway.com>...
> You got to be joking, the masters didn't need photographs, they studied
> their whole life and could do very well without, thank you very much.
> And Degas wasn't that great a painter.
> Don
Well...in fairness....many of the masters did use devices to assist
accurate drawing......and knowing some of those Da Vinci used, he may well
have used a slide projector today to cast an image up and trace it. No
disrespect intended to him or you....
And..as Degas goes, I like a great deal of his work just the same
though....I mean, it was a time painters were getting away from their
studios...carrying "tube" oils out and finding freedom to paint what they
saw directly. It was great cause to try and understand newer color
relationships..and I think Degas pushed the envelope a little experimenting
on light..etc; Also of doing the figure being more "active" in less sedate
poses. He may not have been awesome in some eyes....but all these other
artist's attempts and life's works add up to give us some insight as to
what may or may not work for our own good.
Personally....I think that the en plein painters today are much better than
most of the Impressionist painters....though I really have been enjoying
Mary Cassatt's work lately. I also think that I had been missing a great
deal of painting history for a good number of years by ignoring what went
on in the American Impressionist movements.....for which I am enjoying and
learning much from these days.
andrew
from life and from photographs (and sometimes from memory), but the
figures i always do from photos. i know a lot of artists look down on
this technique, but for me, i prefer it because i can paint when i want
(as opposed to having to work around a model's schedule), and i dont
feel pressured for time, and am therefore more free to experiment. my
work, however, is not as strictly representational as some, and the
things i'm looking for are pretty easily found in photographs.
(there's lots of work on the website below, if anyone's interested)
andrew.
> Helen Lawler wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear comments from other artists about their experiences,
> > pro and cons, when painting from a photograph.
> >
> > One problem I have found, is that painting from a photograph, it is easy to
> > get to bogged down in detail, and spontaneity suffers.
> >
> > What do you think?
* andrew * sa...@cstone.net * http://www.cstone.net/~sand *
zi...@interport.net
training asids" and do wonderful work. I saw the late Delcroix Show at
the Philadlphia museum today and his is often a great srtoist. His
paintings except for studies of flowers and some foliage studies are
synthetically made up from drawings and out of his imagination. He and
Gericault as well ar Courbet specifically trained themsleves by
drawin and painting from the art int he museums. They both di, as well
a lot of work from life. The lastlarge series of portraits by
Gericault, for example, wer portraits of the imhabitants of what was
then called a "Mad House."
It is well know nthe Delacroix used photographs directly for painting.
But it is very important to lear about painting and drawing from two
sources. Working from themotif [nature] and making studes of whole
paintings in paint and in drawing over and over again. to make it more
fun, choose only the artists you love.
A painting has been formed intimately in every square inch by a
mater's eye. Some slowlt and securely and some much faster. So when
you copy a master painting, even if, sadly you cannoit read a painting
[because you had an education which never broached that whole
subject]. Because you are looking at a work formed by a master, you
may learning forming in all its ramifications yourself.
Photography has its great moments, bu whatever else they have done,
they have not come up with forming which was spoecific to that medium,
and in fact most of the famous photographrs, when they do it, do it by
accident. Ther are a few great oneswho were artists with a camers.
Utrillo painted form Atget photographs without changing the
composition.
Since so few people have been taught, or have figured out how to move
through space to construct a drawing [this even on a high level is
just the beginning] when they work from a photo which has it or not
willy nilly, they can;t learn how to form, compose Etc. Since I think
that most people of my own generation and especially those 15 tear
older than me and even younger never got a prokper schooling, what
they need most is tolrean how a painting really works. I went to the
show by a guy I have known for maybe 35 years. He is a mester
technician in all water base paints and cbonations of them.
I was amazed at his remnakrs about certain paintings. I haven't been
together with him and no one else for some 30 years. He several times
made comments that were on the tip of my tongue. We could see all of
rthe pictorial and subject matterflaws as well as the good points. He
has an eye which has been honed by years of work from landscape and
the model. He doesn't needd photographs. He is fast enough and thge
point is to get a true painting, not to get there quickly.
Most of the people who use or have used photographs today get a photo
look. Photographic distoitions out of control no awarensee of spacial
flow, Etc.
Actually I cannot think of any artist I respect who uses photographs
as primary sources. One of my friends started out by using photos when
he was breaking into the art world. He still can look at them,
although he can use memory drawing and painting as his major process.
I think his work would be much better iuf he let himself go infrort of
a motif regularly.
ASlso what did he teach his students?
Sincerely,
Gabriel
On Sat, 02 Jan 1999 12:57:44 GMT, hunh...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>I am a portraitist (by profession) and my subjects usually never have the time
>to sit. Upon my (one and only) photo session I also make notes of skin tones,
>backgrounds, etc. Many of the great painters of the American West utilized
>photography...so artists & photographs have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship
>for almost 100 years. Would I ever revert to the traditions of the old masters
>with scores of studies? I don't think so...It would take too much time for a
>modern world that demands speed and convience. I have finally reached the point
>where I refuse full sized portrait commissions. It simply takes too much time
>to do. The largest portrait I am willing to paint is 3/4 size. And by even
>placing those limits on the public I'm still backed up by two years worth of
>work. Now I know how Sargent felt when he wanted to retire from portraiture.
>
>Good luck and try working from photos and studies. See which method you prefer.
>
Marilyn
Who is the contemporary NYC artist who paints lemons, using tar?
First name is David, NOT David Salle. He paints wonderful city scenes
from newspaper photographs. Not exactly from the photographs
but inspired by them. I love his work.
You are right about your perception being formed in part by your
historical context when you explained how you & your contemporary
had similar reactions to paintings.
Marilyn
Donald A Jusko
You know, nothing blends a better hairline then a good thumb, make sure
you don't leave a fingerprint though!
Don
Iian Neill
> >painted from photographs, of his own making. As a result, you will
> >find that there are accidental photographic distortions [spatially] in
> >many of them. Now, as a student of Gerome, he should have known
> >better, right? And as a kind of provincial genius -so many Americans
> >take him to be -he should have been able to avoid that-well if you
> >look closely at any of his out door genre paintings [not the people in
> >the sculls on schuylkill] there are the distortions.
>
> Its not "that he should have known better." Its because that was the
> best he could do. He's no match for Gerome
Whilst on the subject of Jean-Léon Gérôme, it is worth pointing out that the Master made frequent use of photographs in his trips to the Middle East, as
well as the usual oil and pencil sketches artists made at the time. Taking all of this into account, it is a tribute to his own genius and the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Academic system that artists could combine life-studies, photographs and set pieces into one composed, balanced whole.
Perhaps those artists who felt threatened by photography did not have a technique equal to the demands it placed on them.
It is curious how accomplished realist paintings are often compared to photographs - are not photographs second-hand impressions of THE reality from
which both the artist and the camera work? Just a point to consider ..
Regards,
Iian Neill
RA Friedman
I have been working with this question since 1993 when I was in grad. school.
It is a very interesting one. What I started to realize was that the camera
sees much differently than the human eye. Photographs are not mirrors of
reality at all.
Detail is a problem since photographs rely on an abundance of detail and
paintings/drawings rely on reduction of detail to essential form.
When working with the figure, I found the best thing to do was to use the
photograph as only a partial reference and construct the figure using the
photograph as a set of cues/clues. If you draw the figure directly from a
photograph, it will come out very flat and lifeless because drawing that has
tension requires the draftsperson to work the drawing in such a way as to
develop forms that have a spatial life of their own. You can only do that if
you work from the real human or can re-invent anatomical forms and concentrate
on the act of drawing rather than the image. A good way to do this is to
spend time really examining the photo and then creating a drawing from memory.
Best,
RA
peter nelson
>When working with the figure, I found the best thing to do was to use the
>photograph as only a partial reference and construct the figure using the
>photograph as a set of cues/clues. If you draw the figure directly from a
>photograph, it will come out very flat and lifeless because drawing that
has
>tension requires the draftsperson to work the drawing in such a way as to
>develop forms that have a spatial life of their own. You can only do that
if
>you work from the real human or can re-invent anatomical forms and
concentrate
>on the act of drawing rather than the image.
Although I agree that it is much preferable to work directly
from the figure, the reason for this is so I can have the model
pose as I wish; so I can set the lighting as I wish, and so I
can approach the model from whatever angle and distance I
wish. Other problems with photos are lack of dynamic
range, so details are lost in shadow or highlight, and lack
of detail if the photo is too small or far from the subject.
My point is that the advantages of live models can be explained
in simple technical terms, rather than invoking references to things
like "lifelessness". You haven't suggested any reason why a
painting from a photograph should *necessarily* be less lifelike.
The image which is projected onto the film is a two-dimensional image,
but then again, so is the image projected onto your retina.
There are definite advantages to working from photos:
1. It's not always easy to find good models. I live far from any
large urban areas with art schools and experienced models.
Once a week I attend an open life studio sponsored by a local art
store but the models there have been mediocre at best.
2. Lately I've been working in paint. This requires many hours
to do a finshed work, especially as I'm interested in lighting and
skin texture and tone so I do many layers of glazing, and this
takes a long time, which can be problematic for a model.
3. The biggest issue for me is that I'm interested in drawing and
painting dynamic figures and it's very hard for a model to maintain
thos kinds of poses for a long time. That's one reason why seated
and reclining nudes are such common subjects and running ones
are not.
---peter
Frederic Goudal
> Helen:
>
> I have been working with this question since 1993 when I was in grad. school.
> It is a very interesting one. What I started to realize was that the camera
> sees much differently than the human eye. Photographs are not mirrors of
> reality at all.
One point very interesting is that while painting, your point of view
may vary. And some painting shows effectively different perspective
points (What is the name of the point where the perspective line cross
in english ??).
A photographic picture gives only one point of view.
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html