Working from Photos

[Donna T]

I'm not sure where to post this but since I need help being creative here it is. I struggle with working from my reference photos and I'd like to know what tricks or tips you all can offer. So far I have converted photos to grayscale, worked with them upside down, and blurred them in Photoshop. My laptop is across the room so I can't see details and that helps a little. Somehow the stiffness of the photo still finds a way in. Maybe it's a lack of confidence or thinking that in order for something to look "real" it should look like the photo because photos are real ... wait, that's not true either ... Thanks for any advice or thoughts on the subject.

 

[16ga]

I work from photos but try to copy them so I don't really have any first hand experience with that but.
Most photo editing software has filters and the like that can change the image into more of an oil painting or watercolor. They really aren't that great but they make the picture more blobby. I'd try playing around with one of those and see if it helps.
Its been awhile since I used Photoshop so I'm not sure which ones it has or what they're called.

 

[Enyaw]

When you are out they say squint and break it down into big shapes. I'm sure you are familiar with notan. I like to turn my photo into a black and white and in photoshop you can add a layer and posterize it. Ie.. break it down to values. It's not a guaranteed process but once it's down to 4 or 5 values I block in those values using a color that I think will work as my back color which I will allow to show through. I then add color trying to adhere to my value plan but adding changes where I think necessary. On my block in I use a 1 inch brush and remind mysel that it is a block in so do it quickly with no thought of the subject. I only try and pull the subject from my blockin by adding lights or darks as required to fake form.

 

[Terri]

I'm not sure where to post this but since I need help being creative here it is. I struggle with working from my reference photos and I'd like to know what tricks or tips you all can offer. So far I have converted photos to grayscale, worked with them upside down, and blurred them in Photoshop. My laptop is across the room so I can't see details and that helps a little. Somehow the stiffness of the photo still finds a way in. Maybe it's a lack of confidence or thinking that in order for something to look "real" it should look like the photo because photos are real ... wait, that's not true either ... Thanks for any advice or thoughts on the subject.

That's a tough one, because you're the only one who can decide what you're after, using that reference photo. I will say that I think your creativity is off the scale- your recent experiments with abstract have been amazing. So, I don't think that's an issue.

Myself, I try to study a ref photo and figure out why it got my attention. Is it the subject matter? The composition? A place in the world that makes my heart happy? When I can put my finger on that, I know what I want to amplify, or manipulate. I have better success when I can sketch it out, at that stage.

I also like what Wayne said about blurring your vision with a squint, or just doing what you're doing by standing across the room from it.

No good answers from me, I'm afraid, because I know what you're struggling with very well! I've had lots of fun with photo refs, but also believe I do better without them because I get to avoid this very issue!

 

[Enyaw]

Forgot the most important thing. When you take the photo make mental or written notes of what in the composition made you see distance because when you see the photo all truth of dept is altered. Example. The bush on the maple was the first thing I saw as I looked into the scene. Now you need to have the bush to the front but not necessarily hogging the light. That's why it's best to work from your own photos as you have seen the place.

 

[MurrayG]

I struggle with working from my reference photos and I'd like to know what tricks or tips you all can offer. So far I have converted photos to grayscale, worked with them upside down, and blurred them in Photoshop.

Hi Donna, I kinda agree with Wayne, that the camera really changes depth and focus points. The values and colours get muddled.
I am a learnatic, but do use photos a lot. I also try to used photos of where I have actually been so I have a sense of the place. Often, unless it is necessary (portrait etc), the photo is a guide only and I apply the "artistic rules" to enhance the piece.
I also think your creativity is evident in your work, regardless of the use of a photo. Try breaking rules

 

[Donna T]

I knew you guys would have some good ideas! Thank you!

16ga - I do need to play around with those Photoshop options more. If there's not already a setting called Blobifying Photos there should be!

Wayne, thanks for your thoughts and you are so right about the sense of depth being altered by photos. Taking notes would help. I'll also try using a larger brush for blocking in. Start loose to stay loose, right?

Terri - you used the word amplify and that stuck out for me. Find the reason the photo appeals to me and then amplify only those areas that pertain. I get so distracted and derailed by all the other stuff! A friend suggested I take my glasses off to paint but I'm so nearsighted that I would never find my paints!

Murray, Your plein air work is so good and I'm sure it helps you interpret your photos as well. I need that sense of place too otherwise I am completely lost.

 

[E.J.H.]

Posturizing a photo can be practical, especially in grayscale, it simplifies and groups the values.

 

[snoball]

Try combining more than one photo for landscapes unless you are trying to make a place recognizable and of course if it is a portrait you almost have to copy exact.

 

[Artyczar]

I agree with everyone here. And Terri is right in that only you know what you're after. I also work from my own photos that I take, and I combine a few different ones together. I use Photoshop with its various filters to abstract different areas. Then, when I'm painting (after I draw the basic composition onto the surface), I let the painting process take its own form and function. I don't have too many plans on what's going to happen there. I allow that part to morph because the media itself can bring about a lot of abstraction and surprises in itself. Allowing the process to have its own life can be key.

 

[Donna T]

EJH - I've done posterizing and I've done grayscale but I've never done a posterized grayscale. Thanks for the idea!

Sno - combining photos is something I need to work on. It seems like it would help me be less literal if I had to work more on creating a good composition.

Ayin - "Allowing the process to have its own life" is a great concept and I need to remember it. Abstraction and surprises mean (in my uptight brain) a lack of control yet it's those surprises that bring so much life to a painting! Thanks.

 

[Enyaw]

...also forgot to mention that a lot of the time I paint using a grey scale notan of my picture as my model and my color comes from me trying to keep a flow to the painting.
. .. you gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away

 

[JSparrow]

I hardly feel like anyone needs to tell you how to work from photos, or from anything for that matter. Your work is beautiful, and I could look at it all day long. But here is my answer to your question, anyway.

Regarding the use of photos:

I’ve had to accept that my style in painting is more focused in realism than not. So as much as I’d rather not need the photos, I do use them. When they can’t be my own, my most often used approach is to mash up more than one to achieve something a little more inventive than straight from the one photo.

It’s a challenge though. It means sometimes having to figure out how light and colors shift and change from one photo to another. Also, since wildlife can be rather complex, I will study my subject from many sources in order to really get to know them. I try to observe as much as I can from nature, videos, and a plethora of photo references to really understand what I’m seeing in the chosen reference. Another thing I will do, is when I finally decide on the over all color scheme (which I may work up in Photoshop if I don’t just work it out on the canvas) I will pump up the saturation in the photo to study the play of underlying colors. That part has a lot to do with my chosen approach to colors. (But again, I think you’ve got color pretty well figured out.)

Well, anyway, a good for instance of how I put all of this to use, is a wood duck that I have been working on. The actual reference photo with the pose I’m using shows more russet than violets in his nape, leading to his chest, but some of the ducks in other photos show that sometimes that area tends more to violet. So I chose to go off color from the photo. Also I chose a different perch and background for him. I’m not sure it works, which means I am belaboring a bit much over it, but I am also learning more each time I struggle through this process. I hope one day that my work will look seamless and that all perspectives work together as if that composition actually once existed in that one little moment.

Hope that helps.

Full disclosure: The pencil work that I have shared on this forum was mostly done straight from the photo references as I considered them just practice to learn the medium until I could work up to more “designed” pieces.

 

[laika]

I have to agree that applying a filter to an overlying layer is a simple way to go when trying to break up a photo so as not to go too literal too soon. I use the GIMP, not Photoshop, but I think the process is similar. Sometimes the default settings on a particular filter will do what you need in a single implementation.

 

[Donna T]

JSparrow - the pencil work of birds you have posted doesn't look as if you slavishly copied photos; it has so much life. I realize that you have to instill that quality and that is what I'd like to improve on. Pumping up the saturation is something I can do just to see those underlying colors. Straying from the colors of the photo is a big hurdle and it helps knowing that it can be done without losing the sense of reality. Thank you.

Lamar, I need to play with those filters more. I do get too literal too soon and it always trips me up.

 

[JSparrow]

Thinking on this some more, I might add, maybe you can play with the contrast a bit too. Emphasize it a little more than you might see in a photo. Especially with the focal point. If there is no clear focal point on the photo, decide what you want it to be and then play that up, more light and color than the rest.

 

[Donna T]

Thinking on this some more, I might add, maybe you can play with the contrast a bit too. Emphasize it a little more than you might see in a photo. Especially with the focal point. If there is no clear focal point on the photo, decide what you want it to be and then play that up, more light and color than the rest.

Playing with the contrast is an excellent suggestion. Thank you! Anything that will help me break out of the literal reference photo box is worth trying. It's so easy to go on autopilot while painting and emphasize everything. Having a more defined image of the focal point might help me stay on track.

 

[Triduana]

If I'm working from photos I always print them out first. Before I do that though, I generally cut out the background - this stops me copying it and forces me to use my imagination a little. I also reduce the saturation - not so that it's completely greyscale, but enough that I can see the colours but not well enough that I try to match them.

 

[Donna T]

If I'm working from photos I always print them out first. Before I do that though, I generally cut out the background - this stops me copying it and forces me to use my imagination a little. I also reduce the saturation - not so that it's completely greyscale, but enough that I can see the colours but not well enough that I try to match them.

Thank so much for this, Kay! Those are great suggestions! Cutting out the background is genius and reducing the saturation would also force me to be more inventive with color.

 

[chaffee2]

Might be useful to try a limited number of brush strokes?
Challenge yourself to represent the image with 4 (or 5, or 6, etc..) brush strokes,...there'd be no room for details and the exercise might get you into a different, applicable mindset towards your goal? Have fun!