Working from Photos
- Thread starter Donna T
- Start date
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,695
I think this video is relevant in this thread.
ZenDruid
Supporting Member
- Messages
- 1,038
It is, almost an hour long but worth it. I went back to read the whole thread, very interesting, starting with Donna's original question, and all the following answers of good advice.
These bring up a variety of related but random ideas that have been running around in my head lately, so I'm going to indulge myself and dump them here.
First, I think art should transcend reality. A photograph is not reality. The camera does not copy reality especially when we swap lenses or zoom in and out. What we see is also not reality. We get light waves through our eyes and our brain sorts them out according to what we've been taught since childbirth.
We can look at a tree, we can draw it, paint it, photograph it, hug it, lick the bark, eat the leaves, draw out sap to make syrup, read pages of scientific taxonomy about the tree, and in the end we still don't know the reality of the tree. Only the tree knows. There's a whole rabbit hole for exploring reality.
As artists, we have the freedom, opportunity and maybe obligation to put our own vision of reality on the model and the picture. I think that's what viewers want to see. Every artist I think of that I like is not slavishly copying "reality", they're expressing their own vision. I think SLG referred well to that.
I have a friend who photographs in film and is also a very good artist in a variety of mediums. Lately he's taken to copying his photographs in hyper-photo-realism in pencil and pen. His draftsmanship is excruciatingly good, sharper than the photograph. He gets applause but I don't see that as art, I see it as illustration.
I took a university course in life drawing in a studio, with other student artists and a real nude model. For the first time, I felt like I had joined the art world. My drawing was tight, I was trying to make an accurate rendition, the instructor wanted me to loosen up and get creative. I didn't understand that then, but I do now.
My last job before retiring, was as director of the Kent-Delord House Museum in Plattsburgh, NY. This was a family house built in the 1700's. We had a good collection, 200 years worth, of original family portraits in oil, one in pastels. I looked at them a lot. It occurred to me that the artist and the person sitting for him spent a lot of time together and there was a lot of energy passing between them that could still be seen in their eyes. Visitors to the museum would ask, of course, if there were any ghost stories about the house. We had a few anecdotal incidents, but I invited them to go take a good look at the portraits.
Here's a brain trick: Take a favorite photo in hand or on screen. Cover one eye with your hand and look at the photo with your dominant eye. At first it looks flat but focus on the background behind the subject, then look at the whole photo again. You should get an illusion of three dimensions. The brain has adjusted. Amaze your friends at the next cocktail party.
Probably none of this helps Donna.
JStarr
Well-known member
- Messages
- 723
I generally work from photographs- my piecemeal time to work and the constant pull on my attention to elsewhere is not conducive to live set-ups. So I like to work from pics.
I used to do all that photo-editing stuff- all the tricks- but I found myself needing those tricks less and less as I allowed my brain to see what it *liked* in the photo. The recent peonies came from a reference from a friend sent to me a few years ago- just a snap of her peony shrub. I liked the way the three blooms in the pic were raised up above most of the foliage, and the leaves were dense- but not nearly as dense as I made them in the work.
The blue camellias didn't work AT ALL for what I liked- this lovely reflected blue light and shadow- absolutely could not recreate that. But I am the artist- I have an artistic license and THAT means I get to do what I want. So, I did- I changed the shadow to one that worked. The reference I used is below- you can see that amazng reflected light and shadow- but it didn't work when I "copied" it. So, I didn't.
I used to make Artistic Licenses for students who were angsting about the work not looking like what they saw, or other frettings about things not being "good enough"; but, I think being an artist means you get to pull out your artistic license, and use it.
I used to do all that photo-editing stuff- all the tricks- but I found myself needing those tricks less and less as I allowed my brain to see what it *liked* in the photo. The recent peonies came from a reference from a friend sent to me a few years ago- just a snap of her peony shrub. I liked the way the three blooms in the pic were raised up above most of the foliage, and the leaves were dense- but not nearly as dense as I made them in the work.
The blue camellias didn't work AT ALL for what I liked- this lovely reflected blue light and shadow- absolutely could not recreate that. But I am the artist- I have an artistic license and THAT means I get to do what I want. So, I did- I changed the shadow to one that worked. The reference I used is below- you can see that amazng reflected light and shadow- but it didn't work when I "copied" it. So, I didn't.
I used to make Artistic Licenses for students who were angsting about the work not looking like what they saw, or other frettings about things not being "good enough"; but, I think being an artist means you get to pull out your artistic license, and use it.
Attachments
BArtsy
Active member
- Messages
- 29
Hi- I am completely new here, this is my first post, so please take my comments with a grain of salt... but...
I do not work from photos until I have first approached painting the subject from real life so I can especially pay attention to the value structure of the scene and the nuances in color . For instance, I'm currently working on a still-life of a branch with red berries... I took many photos, but cannot see the colors in the shadows like I can in the setup... but I got my value sketches down in burnt umber and have some color "notes", so even though the branch is now dried up and faded, I am able to work from the photo... I use the same technique outdoors too, try to work out my value sketch at a minimum on site, and work color notes, then when I look at the photo back at the studio, my mind "remembers" much better than if I just snap a photo.
That said, I know not every either has time or wants to work from life. I find it helpful to take several photos of the same subject- some with the shadows exposed correctly, which often makes everything else a little too bright and blown out, and a few with the brights as they are IRL- which then makes the shadows too dark.
Barb
I do not work from photos until I have first approached painting the subject from real life so I can especially pay attention to the value structure of the scene and the nuances in color . For instance, I'm currently working on a still-life of a branch with red berries... I took many photos, but cannot see the colors in the shadows like I can in the setup... but I got my value sketches down in burnt umber and have some color "notes", so even though the branch is now dried up and faded, I am able to work from the photo... I use the same technique outdoors too, try to work out my value sketch at a minimum on site, and work color notes, then when I look at the photo back at the studio, my mind "remembers" much better than if I just snap a photo.
That said, I know not every either has time or wants to work from life. I find it helpful to take several photos of the same subject- some with the shadows exposed correctly, which often makes everything else a little too bright and blown out, and a few with the brights as they are IRL- which then makes the shadows too dark.
Barb
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,782
Working from observation of real life was an essential aspect of art from the Renaissance and before. By art school experience included years of life drawing/painting from the human figure and face, still life, and landscapes. There are many things that can be seen in observation of real life that are not easily seen from a photograph. It might also serve well to recognize that photographs are works of art in and of themselves with the photographer making choices about lighting, focus, point of view, etc… Having said that, it is not always easy for an artist to have access to the subjects they wish to paint from direct observation. Most of the more “realistic” paintings that I admire by artists who employed photographs were produced by artists with a good deal of experience working from life as well.
I might also note that observation of art in real life… paintings, drawings, sculpture… as opposed to solely from reproduction… may be just as essential to the artists.
I might also note that observation of art in real life… paintings, drawings, sculpture… as opposed to solely from reproduction… may be just as essential to the artists.
txomsy
Apprentice of amateur
- Messages
- 85
If I may...
During a long period when I had no time for drawing, I focused more heavily on Photography. Photography is an art of itself and if you master it and want realism, or even abstraction, it can produce great results. All that talk about loosing depth, whatever, is nonsense. Master Photography and you have gone a long way.
But what makes drawing/painting special is that it needs not be realistic beyond the point where it seems realistic. And when it actually is realistic, people find it usually boring.
What makes it interesting is what you can do that you can't with Photography (although some distortions are possible, take lomography or GIMP for instance): Normally you will unconsciously modify the colors, tones, shapes, likeness, proportions, perspective, composition, elements, unnaturally (usually also slightly) to reflect or capture the "spirit" of the scene, to highlight your impressions, what appeals to you, or what you find more interesting.
So, my advice is this: use photographs either as long-term reminders for details (it is worth building your own personal library of trees, doors, windows, faces... that appeal to you and in pictures taken your way), or use them short-term, while the image that impacted your retina still last and the impression it left in your soul is still alive, and then do not look at the picture as guidance, but simply as an aid for you to translate that impression, to make your work a "caricature", a distortion of the photograph (needs not be blatant, might be just tiny enough to give a hint) that captures the impression, atmosphere, feeling of that which you experienced and prompted you to take a picture to later do a painting off it. Distort, add, remove, simplify, add elements, whatever you feel you need to make it match your original experience.
But don't wait too long. Once the feeling that prompted you originally has faded, that picture will become just one more for the long-term reference library.
As for the reference pictures: tons of tricks. Posterize. Reduce precision. Convert to B/W. Trace outlines. There are tons of tricks to help you transfer that picture to paper or a canvas. Simply learn to use an image processing program (Photoshop, GIMP...) and play to discover new opportunities. Also, references need not be any high quality, as long as they capture whatever you want to remember for later reuse.
During a long period when I had no time for drawing, I focused more heavily on Photography. Photography is an art of itself and if you master it and want realism, or even abstraction, it can produce great results. All that talk about loosing depth, whatever, is nonsense. Master Photography and you have gone a long way.
But what makes drawing/painting special is that it needs not be realistic beyond the point where it seems realistic. And when it actually is realistic, people find it usually boring.
What makes it interesting is what you can do that you can't with Photography (although some distortions are possible, take lomography or GIMP for instance): Normally you will unconsciously modify the colors, tones, shapes, likeness, proportions, perspective, composition, elements, unnaturally (usually also slightly) to reflect or capture the "spirit" of the scene, to highlight your impressions, what appeals to you, or what you find more interesting.
So, my advice is this: use photographs either as long-term reminders for details (it is worth building your own personal library of trees, doors, windows, faces... that appeal to you and in pictures taken your way), or use them short-term, while the image that impacted your retina still last and the impression it left in your soul is still alive, and then do not look at the picture as guidance, but simply as an aid for you to translate that impression, to make your work a "caricature", a distortion of the photograph (needs not be blatant, might be just tiny enough to give a hint) that captures the impression, atmosphere, feeling of that which you experienced and prompted you to take a picture to later do a painting off it. Distort, add, remove, simplify, add elements, whatever you feel you need to make it match your original experience.
But don't wait too long. Once the feeling that prompted you originally has faded, that picture will become just one more for the long-term reference library.
As for the reference pictures: tons of tricks. Posterize. Reduce precision. Convert to B/W. Trace outlines. There are tons of tricks to help you transfer that picture to paper or a canvas. Simply learn to use an image processing program (Photoshop, GIMP...) and play to discover new opportunities. Also, references need not be any high quality, as long as they capture whatever you want to remember for later reuse.
Donna T
Contributing Member
- Messages
- 3,210
“But don't wait too long. Once the feeling that prompted you originally has faded, that picture will become just one more for the long-term reference library.”
That is so true. I used to have a little notebook to write in when I took photos. Sometimes a few words that described the mood helped bring back the feelings and remind me why I took the photo. Good advice on using photos - thanks.
That is so true. I used to have a little notebook to write in when I took photos. Sometimes a few words that described the mood helped bring back the feelings and remind me why I took the photo. Good advice on using photos - thanks.
txomsy
Apprentice of amateur
- Messages
- 85
You are welcome. I've had this happen even with sketches. I have specially one where I tried to get the feeling. It worked for some time, but a couple of years later, when I looked back at it, I couldn't remember, and worse, I couldn't even make any sense of it, tell head from tails or even which way was up (I took it in landscape orientation in a portrait notebook, and I don't have a rule for these cases). It wasn't worth even as a reminder of anything, just a lot of nonsense blots.
But that's advice for sketches, not photos: do not take distortion too far when sketching, at least not to the point where it might become unrecognizable. Or at least, as you quite rightly say, if you do, jot down some notes as a reminder.
But that's advice for sketches, not photos: do not take distortion too far when sketching, at least not to the point where it might become unrecognizable. Or at least, as you quite rightly say, if you do, jot down some notes as a reminder.
StephKunze
Active member
- Messages
- 53
Thanks for your post, txomsy! I agree. I often feel a lower quality photograph makes a better reference for a drawing. Ultra crisp high quality photographs with an insane level of detail are difficult to reference. For me it's just too much information. If I need to use a photograph of higher quality, I'll try to make it look a little worse so I can better see how I could translate it into a drawing. I most often work in graphite, so when I'm creating a reference photograph, I'm thinking about how I'll be able to translate it into a drawing using graphite's strengths, such as where I might be able to add a brighter glow, a darker shadow, or areas of cross-hatching.
Reference photographs are pretty essential for my own practice - I draw a lot of different kinds of animals - though I don't usually use just one for each piece. I prefer to create what might be better called digital collages, which are made out of multiple copyright free photographs, personal photographs, and/or photographs loved ones and friends gave me. These digital collages are often of absolutely abysmal quality, with lots of low resolution pixelation, but that of course doesn't matter when all they are is a rough mock up!
That said, drawing from life is pretty eye opening. There's A LOT we don't see in a photograph that we can see in real life, especially when it comes to color!
