What is so horrible about drawing/painting from photos?
Richard
I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and painting from photos.
Models are expensive and they get tired from holding poses for very
long, and they move. Seems to me that photos are still valuable for
increasing your drawing skills, like proportion, shading, etc. so that
you'll be a better artist for the times that you can get someone to
pose for you. Take a look at this web site:
http://www.pastel-portraits.com/
This guy makes some of the best portraits I've ever seen. He said when
he was learning to draw portraits, he practiced using his friends AND
PHOTOS. I haven't seen a better pastel portrait artist than him.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Lauri Levanto
You only copy the shades and shadows, not necessarily learn to see them.
The skin color you asked elsewhere is also presolved, if you copy a photo.
in real. You can draw a complete cityscape from a photo
without learning a bit of perspective :-)
Like your idol said, draw your friends and foes too,
-lauri
Nik Maack
Richard wrote:
> I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and
> painting from photos.
I do it all the time. Some people argue that you can only get the feel
for a person when seeing them in the flesh. Perhaps. This assumes that
your intent is to KNOW the person, as opposed to using them as a
likeness or a point of origin for art play.
I had one person lecture me because I did a work based on the photograph
my girlfriend took of a man I saw at a bus stop. The person told me
that artists should only paint portraits of people they know. You can't
know a stranger well enough to capture their true likeness.
All of this strikes me as pretentious bullshit.
Besides which, as soon as someone tells me "You can't do that!" I'm
suspicious, and prone to doing the exact opposite of what they tell me
to do.
There are no rules in art. Do what you want.
Bonnie
"Richard" <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:qgr0qucv90cejrai8...@4ax.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and painting from
photos.
> Models are expensive and they get tired from holding poses for very
> long, and they move. Seems to me that photos are still valuable for
> increasing your drawing skills, like proportion, shading, etc. so
that
> you'll be a better artist for the times that you can get someone to
> pose for you. Take a look at this web site:
> http://www.pastel-portraits.com/
> This guy makes some of the best portraits I've ever seen. He said
when
> he was learning to draw portraits, he practiced using his friends
AND
> PHOTOS. I haven't seen a better pastel portrait artist than him.
>
lot of time 'working in the streets', which I assume he means doing
portraits from real people. The knowledge one acquires in this way can
be used to fill in what's missing from a photograph. That said, these
portraits are also rather soulless, and I almost wonder why not just
keep the photograph, as it is not all that much different from the
drawing.
ßonnie
Mark Miwird
says...
>I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and painting from photos.
What or who are you quoting now?
Who ever told you it's "sooooo bad?"
Get a grip, willya! You continue
to spout off as if what you have to
say is gospel when in fact it's nothing
more than beginner's babblings.
Richard
On 6 Oct 2002 16:07:32 -0700, ma...@noemailever.com (Mark Miwird)
wrote:
>What or who are you quoting now?
>Who ever told you it's "sooooo bad?"
Seems like almost every artist seems to poo poo drawing/painting from
photos, but they never explained why to me. So I decided to ask.
If you didn't know this, then you've been hiding in a cave and haven't
talked to any artists. You're either very ignorant or playing dumb.
>Get a grip, willya! You continue
Be nice now.
Who peed in your cheerios?
I don't need your approval or anyone else's to post messages.
Learn how to use a kill filter if you don't like my posts.
I just put you on mine.
John Ng
> I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and painting from photos.
People always put you down if you paint from photographs but there is
nothing wrong with it. Almost all modern artists use photos as aids
in place of study sketches. Photographs are modern tools and it is
not only cheap but is the only way some things can be captured
reliably, a fleeting smile etc.
However, there are caverts:
1. The details you can see can never be as good as the eye no matter
what the photo size is (ie supporting the fact that photos can never
be as good as a good painting). As a consequence, you can only show
as much as the photo can.
2. Related to this, the subtlety of tone is absent in photographs
which often forces you to paint very hash lines.
3. Photographs gives only an estimation of colour and therefore you
will never get the proper skin tone for example.
4. Camera has their own lens focal which is different from the human
eye. As a result, your painting can get very distorted. However,
people these days tend to confuse the view of the real thing with
photos and so tend not to see the distortion.
A side point: Some people suggest Bouguereau painted from
photographs. It is downright NONSENSE because his painting would show
the limitations I just described (even with todays photo technology).
It is FAR FAR easier to paint from real life and especially the fact
that his models are paupers.
> This guy makes some of the best portraits I've ever seen.
He is alright. To see good living portraitist, go to ArtRenewal site
and look for
Igor Babailov (Pastel)
Kamille Corry (Oil)
Paul McCormack (Watercolour)
These are quite a few other good portraitist but I can't remember the
sites.
John Ng
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Richard
On 6 Oct 2002 17:33:25 -0700, pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>
>He is alright. To see good living portraitist, go to ArtRenewal site
>and look for
> Igor Babailov (Pastel)
> Kamille Corry (Oil)
> Paul McCormack (Watercolour)
>
>These are quite a few other good portraitist but I can't remember the
>sites.
Wow, they're good. McCormacks skin tones on the Rabbi paintings
approaches the skill of Bouguereau. I have some catching up to do!
haha. I hope I can get an art scholarship like Kamille Corry did.
John Ng
> A very great obstacle is that photos have the 3D problem solved.
> You only copy the shades and shadows, not necessarily learn to see them.
> The skin color you asked elsewhere is also presolved, if you copy a photo.
>
> in real. You can draw a complete cityscape from a photo
> without learning a bit of perspective :-)
There is no setback in this. If the result is what you want, how you
achieved it does not matter. You assume that drawing from photo is
easier than drawing from life and that photo is all magic... not so!!!
Read my post elsewhere here.
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<qgr0qucv90cejrai8...@4ax.com>...
>
> > I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and painting from photos.
>
> People always put you down if you paint from photographs but there is
> nothing wrong with it. Almost all modern artists use photos as aids
> in place of study sketches. Photographs are modern tools and it is
> not only cheap but is the only way some things can be captured
> reliably, a fleeting smile etc.
> However, there are caverts:
>
> 1. The details you can see can never be as good as the eye no matter
> what the photo size is (ie supporting the fact that photos can never
> be as good as a good painting). As a consequence, you can only show
> as much as the photo can.
That's nonsense. A good camera has much more resolution than the human eye.
The difference is that from life you see better the more important details.
When copying a photo one works like a photocopier, loosing accuracy as much in good as in noise.
>
>
> 2. Related to this, the subtlety of tone is absent in photographs
> which often forces you to paint very hash lines.
>
You are speaking about One Hour Copies? They usually have
eccessive contrast to make them look sharper.A good photographer
in a good studio and lab has a as much control as a good painter.
>
> 3. Photographs gives only an estimation of colour and therefore you
> will never get the proper skin tone for example.
See above
>
>
> 4. Camera has their own lens focal which is different from the human
> eye. As a result, your painting can get very distorted. However,
> people these days tend to confuse the view of the real thing with
> photos and so tend not to see the distortion.
That is a good point. One must also remember the fact that a camera
is a physical device of recording. The eye is a device for
information and works quite differently. In fact, what you see
is a product of your brains.
Take a photo of a bear. You get a high resolution image of a lump of meat.
Look at a bear - you see a scary beast. There is a difference.
>
>
> A side point: Some people suggest Bouguereau painted from
> photographs. It is downright NONSENSE because his painting would show
> the limitations I just described (even with todays photo technology).
> It is FAR FAR easier to paint from real life and especially the fact
> that his models are paupers.
>
> > This guy makes some of the best portraits I've ever seen.
>
> He is alright. To see good living portraitist, go to ArtRenewal site
> and look for
> Igor Babailov (Pastel)
> Kamille Corry (Oil)
> Paul McCormack (Watercolour)
>
> These are quite a few other good portraitist but I can't remember the
> sites.
>
> John Ng
> ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
> http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
-lauri
"Art understanding advocate"
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<qgr0qucv90cejrai8...@4ax.com>...
>
> > I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and painting from photos.
>
> People always put you down if you paint from photographs but there is
> nothing wrong with it.
and elsewhere:
quote
Most importantly, unless your image is
of a painting itself, you will never be able to obtain the things
purposefully introduced into a realistic image by the artists to
enhance the image -- unless there is human intervention.
John
endofquote
-lauri
John Ng
> approaches the skill of Bouguereau. I have some catching up to do!
> haha. I hope I can get an art scholarship like Kamille Corry did.
To my mind, there are no more phenomenal artists living. The current
best only does simple subjects of a single person or other miniscule
scale painting (due to the debilitating effect of Modern Art and lack
of sponsers for serious art).
The best I think is Paul McCormack. "Hope" is his best. Remember
that it is done in watercolour.
Kamille Corry's "Noon" and "Felicitá" are very good.
These living artists below are ok but sometimes they do great works:
Stephen Gjertson, "Four O'Clock" and "The Recorder Lesson".
Patricia Watwood, "Portrait of a Women with a Bared Breast"
William Whitaker, "The Secret"
Allan Banks, "Girl In Blue"
They are all available at Art Renewal.
John
Noumenon
What is wrong with pictures?
--- EVERYTHING!!!
Especially it is VERY BAD STUDENTS!
Here are details - what is WRONG with PHOTOS:
-----------------
COLOUR [PALETTE]:
flattened and simplified, therefore INCORRECT;
- you will never render it correctly or learn how;
COLOUR [RELATIONSHIP]
pale, and OFTEN are absent on photo altogether (reflexes, subtle tone
shades
and visual blending (which works in live perception only,
cameras can't even pick it up);
CONTRAST
solved for you, (even if it's incorrect [which is more likely] and
simplified)
- nothing to learn from it;
DEPTH
none, because it's 2D and fixed,
- nothing to learn, errors are inevitable;
PROPORTIONS [RELATIONSHIP]
solved, often wrong; nothing to learn from, whereas it's one of MOST
important tasks in studying:
training eye->hand relations.
- There is not much you can learn by copying photos
ANATOMY
always wrong because object image is fixed, no possibility to learn
specs,
or see real shape from different angles, or verify accuracy of work.
Pictures of person from a photo are ALWAYS incorrect in that respect.
- nothing to learn from it.
Pile of pictures of the same person from different angles and in
different
light can solve the problem though, and yet...
LIGHT [NUANCES]
almost none, because cameras are not sensitive to pick up REALLY subtle
sources and reflexions of light.
- generally light layout on photo is solved, nothing to learn...
Naturally, an EXPERIENCED artist can compensate many of these things,
based on his own experience, skills and visual memory [highly trained].
But for a young artist or student - working from photos
[especially landscapes and people] is right way to nail down all
mistakes
and errors and screw up whatever achieved in normal way.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
eve
Painting from photographs is a brilliant idea as it isn't always easy
to remember the colours when you get back home. Eve
Thur
You can try to give yourself a better chance of capturing
a subject if several shots are taken from different angles
or even different lighting conditions.
I find my landscape photos lie about colour, especially in
the skies and distant shots.
Perspective for closer shots, (where it might matter for
buildings, machinery etc), always seem wrong too.
I suppose as a rule of thumb, never copy a photo, only sample
from it.
--
Thur
x-no-archive: yes
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3DA08E93...@netti.fi...
Mark Miwird
says...
>Seems like almost every artist seems to poo poo drawing/painting from
>photos, but they never explained why to me.
I can't speak for the artists (students?) you
associate with. My artist friends are mostly
mature older people who have been earning their
living from their art for many years, as well
as those who do it as a hobby. I even know
photographers for whom the photograph IS their
art form.
You are apparently thinking of photos "only" in terms
of "copying" them exactly. I would say that copying
can be a useful learning tool for students/novices.
It is very unsatisfying to the average
experienced artist. But there are instances
where even the experienced find it useful to
"copy." For example, I know artists who work on commissioned
work where someone provides a photo of a loved one
or loved pet and the artist must copy the photo
as exactly as possible in order to satisfy the
customer. Nothing wrong with that if that's what
you're into. I have even done myself it in times past.
But as a day to day venture, it's very boring
and un-creative to work that way.
On the other hand, I regularly use photographs
as reference material for my paintings. I use various lenses
on my camera for capturing the details of those
things I need to refer to once back in the studio.
A good telephoto lens allows me to capture details
from afar that I could not otherwise see due to
lack of access. For example, a cornice on the
upper floors of a building that I'd need a ladder
or scaffold to access. Learning to photograph well was
as important to me in my learning processes as
learning to manipulate the various mediums I
use in creating imagery. In other words, the camera
and the photograph are two of the many tools that
I use in my creative efforts.
Mark Miwird
>But for a young artist or student - working from photos
>[especially landscapes and people] is right way to nail down all
>mistakes
>and errors and screw up whatever achieved in normal way.
I can't imagine anyone thinking that "copying"
from photos is the "only" way to learn to
draw or paint.
On the other hand, copying from
a photo is, to my mind, a legitimate aid to
learning. Everyone has to begin somewhere, and
copying a photo can be a legitimate way
to begin learning.
I still have the very first
painting I ever attempted, and it was copied
from a B&W image in an encyclopedia. If it
taught me nothing else, I learned that "oil
painting" is not all that mysterious or
difficult. And using my own idea of what the
colors should be was further liberating.
Lauri Levanto
you surely know the Chinese advice for a portrait.
Go and talk with the subject for three days.
Then go home and paint the portrait.
Elsewhere you proved you understand that mere rendering is not art.
If it is only the result you want that's OK for me.
(Why reproduce the photo then, the result is there)
I want more, especially I want to learn.
Drawing from life is good
Later, drawing from memory is better.
-lauri
gaynorgallagher
owned a camera and that although he was supposed to have painnted en plein air he very often went back to his studio to finish a
painting and that he used photography as an aid. however with extensive google searching i can't find anything on Monet. i also
cant' remember the book i read it in.
i did find this though.
http://www.culturevulture.net/ArtandArch/DegastoPicasso.htm
gaynor
John Ng
> > People always put you down if you paint from photographs but there is
> > nothing wrong with it.
>
> and elsewhere:
> quote
> Most importantly, unless your image is
> of a painting itself, you will never be able to obtain the things
> purposefully introduced into a realistic image by the artists to
> enhance the image -- unless there is human intervention.
This is an example of A QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT!!!
You put this here without knowing what it all meant. I was referring
to a printer in the latter sentence. Anyway, I don't see your point.
John
John Ng
> > 1. The details you can see can never be as good as the eye no matter
> > what the photo size is (ie supporting the fact that photos can never
> > be as good as a good painting). As a consequence, you can only show
> > as much as the photo can.
>
> That's nonsense. A good camera has much more resolution than the human eye.
> The difference is that from life you see better the more important details.
> When copying a photo one works like a photocopier, loosing accuracy as much in good as in noise.
This is totally new to me! Perhaps I should get Carl Zeiss to install
lenses in my eyes. You are putting conflicting ideals together. You
suggested that a photo can be of higher resolution and yet is has less
details? Which is which? You also suggest that copying from photo
make you work like a photocopier. What about copying the image
retained in the human eye? Also, are you also suggesting that in
painting from photo, there is no room for imagination or
re-interpretation?
> > 2. Related to this, the subtlety of tone is absent in photographs
> > which often forces you to paint very hash lines.
>
> You are speaking about One Hour Copies? They usually have
> eccessive contrast to make them look sharper.A good photographer
> in a good studio and lab has a as much control as a good painter.
You are talking about a photographer ADJUSTING the image. Yes, in
many ways that photograper is an artist; and if he/she should paint
from his enhanced photo, then I don’t see what is wrong.
However, no matter how he can adjust his details, YOU WOULD NEVER get
details lost by the photographic process.
Having said all that, I understand that Modern Art (or its likes) has
made us to loose the ability to discern subtlety in details or care
about details). In this way, photos does help. So, your argument
would have greater support if you compare Manet's Piper painting to
Bouguereau's.
Bonnie
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02100...@posting.google.com...
> made us to loose the ability to discern subtlety in details or care
> about details>
>
picks up how beautifully rendered, say, a skin tone is and admires it
for itself. A 'layman' (for lack of a better word) just sees a
realistic image and thinks perhaps, oh oh a realistic image. But a
so-called 'modern art' painter might do a non-objective painting of
*only* the skin tones, ie, he has taken one aspect of painting and
forced you to consider it. The viewer, the thinking viewer that is,
then remembers the knowledge gleaned from looking at the abstract
work, and will see the 19th c. work with a more experienced eye.
ßonnie
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message news:<3DA12B02...@netti.fi>...
>
> > > 1. The details you can see can never be as good as the eye no matter
> > > what the photo size is (ie supporting the fact that photos can never
> > > be as good as a good painting). As a consequence, you can only show
> > > as much as the photo can.
> >
> > That's nonsense. A good camera has much more resolution than the human eye.
> > The difference is that from life you see better the more important details.
> > When copying a photo one works like a photocopier, loosing accuracy as much in good as in noise.
>
> This is totally new to me! Perhaps I should get Carl Zeiss to install
> lenses in my eyes.
Look at he sky - any constellation you know. A reasonable photo of that area has ten timesmore stars.
> You are putting conflicting ideals together. You
> suggested that a photo can be of higher resolution and yet is has less
> details?
You missed on word - important. The camera is not selective like our vision is.
> Which is which? You also suggest that copying from photo
> make you work like a photocopier. What about copying the image
> retained in the human eye?
You never see the image on your retina. What you see is a projection of the meaning of the putside
world
presented by your brains. Also, you do not look from a fixed point a fixed time. What you see
is genuinely 3d object. The you mentally project it to a flat paper, and re-invent the
ways to make it have some depth.
> Also, are you also suggesting that in
> painting from photo, there is no room for imagination or
> re-interpretation?
>
Sure there is, but it takes more guts and skill not to go the easy way.
>
> > > 2. Related to this, the subtlety of tone is absent in photographs
> > > which often forces you to paint very hash lines.
> >
> > You are speaking about One Hour Copies? They usually have
> > eccessive contrast to make them look sharper.A good photographer
> > in a good studio and lab has a as much control as a good painter.
>
> You are talking about a photographer ADJUSTING the image. Yes, in
> many ways that photograper is an artist; and if he/she should paint
> from his enhanced photo, then I don’t see what is wrong.
>
> However, no matter how he can adjust his details, YOU WOULD NEVER get
> details lost by the photographic process.
>
> Having said all that, I understand that Modern Art (or its likes) has
> made us to loose the ability to discern subtlety in details or care
> about details). In this way, photos does help. So, your argument
> would have greater support if you compare Manet's Piper painting to
> Bouguereau's.
>
> John Ng
> ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
> http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
If you are only producing B* pinups, go ahead. I was talking about learning.
I forgot to mention that drawing from TV - newsreaders, talk shows,
is as cheap and very effective.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
Out of context - that's why I noted it is from alswhere!
I only was delighted that you have learned to appreciate
"things purposefully introduced", which I think art is about.
-lauri
John Ng
> > made us to loose the ability to discern subtlety in details or care
> > about details>
> >
> Actually I would say that it is quite the opposite. A painter's eye
> picks up how beautifully rendered, say, a skin tone is and admires it
> for itself. A 'layman' (for lack of a better word) just sees a
> realistic image and thinks perhaps, oh oh a realistic image. But a
> so-called 'modern art' painter might do a non-objective painting of
> *only* the skin tones, ie, he has taken one aspect of painting and
> forced you to consider it. The viewer, the thinking viewer that is,
> then remembers the knowledge gleaned from looking at the abstract
> work, and will see the 19th c. work with a more experienced eye.
> ßonnie
There is not dispute to the words "a so-called 'modern art' painter
might do a non-objective painting of *only* the skin tones", and I
can understand that so-called good modern art has art principles. No
argument about it as well if it comes up beautiful enough to hang on
someone's wall.
My contention is, what is a "study" doing trying to be passed off as a
finish piece of art? Modern Art uses art principles, but the
principle is used WITHOUT application or context. In other words,
Modern Art is incomplete! Words aren't beautiful until you put them
together into a phrase... then people can see how good or how bad you
are. I can make a thousand pictures of meaningless atoms but only in
putting them together does it consitute something meaningful.
I acknowledge that some beautiful pieces are purposefully left
unfinished, but that is because the artist feels that he/she could not
do better than that result (and therefore better left unfinished than
finished). That is the incompetence of the artist, or more likely the
fact that the artist doesn't feel that it would be worth the effort to
finish it. As a painter, I know that the last 10% of a painting is
90% of the time... and that is if you don't spoil it first! {
Integrity does not allow me to release it as a Modern Art :-) }
> The viewer, the thinking viewer that is,
> then remembers the knowledge gleaned from looking at the abstract
> work, and will see the 19th c. work with a more experienced eye.
This may be right but it is also suggesting that Modern Art is some
kind of didactic tool and is not whole by itself.
John Ng
> John Ng wrote:
> Look at he sky - any constellation you know. A reasonable photo of that area has ten timesmore stars.
That is not resolution. I don’t know what term photographers
have for that but that kind of optical enhancement aid is not what we
were talking about. You were suggesting that if I take a photo of
someone sitting for a portraiture, if I were to buy a good (very good)
camera, I would get a photo better than what the eye can see. Okay,
that may be possible if you get NASA to come in (and the result is
still a distorted form of reality). Heck, there is no point pursuing
this.
> You never see the image on your retina. What you see is a projection of the
> meaning of the putside world
> presented by your brains. Also, you do not look from a fixed point a fixed
> time. What you see is genuinely 3d object. The you mentally project it to a
> flat paper, and re-invent the ways to make it have some depth.
What sort of differentiation does you brains have when it look at a
photo and when it look at the real thing? Both end up the same. It
is this that we are copying.
> > Also, are you also suggesting that in
> > painting from photo, there is no room for imagination or
> > re-interpretation?
>
> Sure there is, but it takes more guts and skill not to go the easy way.
You keep basing your argument on the misconception that it is easier
to copy a photo than real life. Real life is any time easier than
painting from photos not matter the resoluti... unless you are trying
to painting something you cannot see, like the 10x stars. If you
paint from a photo and it looks like a photo, then it isn't worth
anything. But if you paint from a photo, and it looks like life, who
cares how you got there. It is great art to me. Vermeer has optical
devices to aid his painting but who cares?
John
John Ng
believe that there is nothing wrong with it just like there is nothing
wrong with using the computer's spelling checker. More artists than
you have imagined actually used photos extensively but they know the
pitfalls and use correct them. If you are going to use photos with
the tunnel-vision approach, your result would show and your painting
could look like a Manet, or a worst a Picasso.
Of course, real life is better than a photo... it is easier to achieve
results for one but photographs are not all evil.
John
Nerd Gerl
Professional #1 to Professional #2: "You're not a real professional
because you use a (insert equipment)!!"
Professional #2 to Professional #1: "You're not a real professional
because you use your feelings!!"
Uh huh.
===============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Jack
"Pop artist David Hockney has sparked a sensation in the art world
with his recent pronouncement that Old Masters like Caravaggio did not
paint freehand but used a 'camera obscura' instead."
The full article is here:
http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2000-02/art/candid_camera.htm
Jack
Lauri Levanto
The right answer about resolution is
If you enlarge a photo ten times, and see more details than before, then the
camera resolution was more than your visual.
Also, you cannot see the pixels in a laser print. Still they are a result
of a photo process.
The other question about important or significant details you left unanswered.
I once saw a demonstration that British people could reckognise
Prince Charles faster from a caricature than from a photo.
Less details and you see more!
My personal excercise is to draw 1-3 min croquis as often than possible.
Often from telly.
Hundreads of them. Once or twice a month I work slower 2-4 hours for
a charcoal or pastel work.
All this decades after I used weeks to draw a plaster cast at an art school.
-lauri
>
Erik A. Mattila
> A very great obstacle is that photos have the 3D problem solved.
> You only copy the shades and shadows, not necessarily learn to see them.
> The skin color you asked elsewhere is also presolved, if you copy a photo.
>
> in real. You can draw a complete cityscape from a photo
> without learning a bit of perspective :-)
>
> Like your idol said, draw your friends and foes too,
> -lauri
Yes, but what you end-up with is a drawing of a photograph. We should
have a "truth of photography" thread, because it is very interesting.
I attended a group critique in art school once, and one of the students
whose work I admired took to using an opaque projector from photos in
some of the objects in his paintings. I told him that the projected
figures weakened his work, and he challenged me to point out which
figures were projected. I did it. "here, here, here, here.." pointing
my finger at each one. He was amazed that I could tell the difference.
But I'm an old-time graphic artist and the "Lucy" (camera lucinda) was
standard equipment in a design house.
The truth is that the camera lens is radically different from the human
eye(s). Only we don't notice it that much, since we are inundated in
our lives with photographic representations - so much so that it
"stands" for reality, as much as human vision does: "Seeing is Believing."
One job I hated but did often was correcting for camera parallax with an
exacto knife. Mostly on close-up photos of electronic parts. I would
cut a very thin pie shaped wedge from the top of the photo, and move the
two halves together. It was very subtle, but it really made a
difference in the presentation. After I cemented the two halves on a
backing board, and burnished the ridge of the cuts, it would go to an
airbrush specialist and the end product was much closer to human vision
that a camera could ever achieve.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Your caverts are the same as what I have suggested. However, I still
> believe that there is nothing wrong with it just like there is nothing
> wrong with using the computer's spelling checker. More artists than
> you have imagined actually used photos extensively but they know the
> pitfalls and use correct them. If you are going to use photos with
> the tunnel-vision approach, your result would show and your painting
> could look like a Manet, or a worst a Picasso.
Ironically, Manet and his fellow Impressionists were informed by the
philosophy of French Naturalism, which declared itself the enemy of
Idealism. Just take the issue of in situ art versus photographic
reprodctions. The differences between the human vision and the camera
lens are enormous. For one thing, we see the world with two lens that
work in unison, our brains sorting out the overlaps and incongruities to
form a cohesive visual representation, which is as much a mental
consruction as it is a phenomenal truth. For another thing, we
experience vision in time and movement, not the frozen static moments of
the photograph. But perhaps the most profound difference is in depth of
field. Humans have a rediculously short depth of field, which is
compensated for by an incredibly rapid focus mechanism. This means that
at any given "frozen moment" of vision, most of the visual field is out
of focus, fuzzy and underdefined.
Considering this in light of naturalism, Impressionists deduced that the
most accurate representation of the frozen moment of human vision, i.e.
the painting, would show the world fuzzy and out of focus, except for
the subject that the artist determined would be looked at. Compare this
with your favorite (I assume) Bouguereau, and you can see that the world
that he portrayed, where everything is in perfect focus, is absolutely
unnatural and contrived along the lines of an ideological bias.
So, in fact, Manet's approach was much further from "tunnel-vision" than
"B's," by any measure.
Picasso? He wasn't even concerned with "truth" in vision, so you're
really off-target on that one.
EAM
Bonnie
> "Bonnie" <qx...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<YgBo9.36156$OO4.2...@news1.telusplanet.net>...
> > "John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
>
When Leonardo made this little study of hands, he had no intention tha
t it should be framed and hung, and yet - there it is!
http://www.visi.com/~reuteler/vinci/hands.jpg
Ah, how incomplete. Yet I would trade this one little study for 10,000
realistic finished pieces by artists working today. And every
painting, every drawing I have looked at, really looked at, is indeed
a 'didactic tool' for my eye. I stand in front of a great painting,
even a *study* and I say: give up your secrets to me.
ßonnie
Bonnie
"Jack" <jackst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf4875ba.02100...@posting.google.com...
'Sight-size' method of drawing is an essential technique which, once
mastered makes one scoff at such cumbersome methods as drawing
directly onto a slide projection or using the camera lucida. Did I
suffer beatings at the hand of the drawing master (for incorrect
placement of the initial 'scaffolding'), just to be insulted by
Hockney? Ok ok these were psychological beatings, but still - !
"It is not surprising that Hockney could find no concrete evidence
that Ingres used a camera lucida. This is because the camera lucida is
not what it appears to be, especially as initially presented by
Hockney. It is not an easy mechanical solution for translating a
visual image onto paper. In fact, it requires tremendous skill in use
and no highly competent artist or draftsperson would waste the time
required to setup and use the instrument in the field when it is so
much more efficient and instantaneous to sketch with eye and hand. The
only place for the instrument in the kit of a professional artist from
the nineteenth or twentieth centuries would be limited to accurate
copying of complex contours in controlled situations. For the bread
and butter jobs of preliminary sketching for landscape or portrait
painting the camera lucida is pretty much useless. In fact, when
versions were marketed in France in the 1920s and 30s it is clear from
the illustrated brochures of the time that the target audience was
amateurs hoping for a simple drawing machine"
from:
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/discipline/fine-art/theory/analysis/lucida
-x.htm
ßonnie
Andrew D
wrote:
+John Ng wrote:
+
+> Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:<qgr0qucv90cejrai8...@4ax.com>...
+>
+> > I don't see what is sooooo bad about drawing and painting from photos.
+>
+> People always put you down if you paint from photographs but there is
+> nothing wrong with it.
Nothing wrong with it provided you know what you're doing. Artists
interested in painting "realistically" would do well to paint from life
(at least occasionally) in order to understand just what *doesn't* appear
in photos.
The average quick photo print will either have blown out highlights or
filled-in shadows and rarely captures the full range of colours and tones.
Artists who don't venture beyond copying from photos may wonder why their
work never meets the standard of art they appreciate by others.
"Good" digital photos, viewed on-screen not printed, would appear to offer
a better source image than traditional photos because the photographer can
judge the final image to some extent when the photo is taken AND because
when displayed on-screen, the image is projected light rather than
reflected.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"