Using photo reference correctly

[emily g]

Is it ok to use photographic reference when making art?
Yes. In fact, it can be a very smart thing to do.

This is a scan from Norman Rockwell’s book Rockwell on Rockwell: How I Make a Picture. In his early career, Rockwell created his illustrations using live models. Later on, he adopted photography and projection because of their convenience and time-saving qualities.
346939

Because of his excellent drawing skills, Rockwell can use the reference as the basis to create exactly the type of character he wants. Notice all of the small changes he makes. Sticking too close to the reference is often called “being a slave to the reference” and can result in characters that look too stiff or posed.

Also, if there are problems in the photo where the pose is not exact or clear, someone who can only trace will copy these problems into the final image. A skilled artist can solve the problems in the drawing.

Is it ok to use other people’s photos as reference?
It depends. Just like you own the copyright to your art, a photographer owns the copyright to his or her photos.

If you copy all or most of someone else’s photo without permission, this could be a copyright violation. There is no rule that says “if you change it X%, then it’s ok.” In U.S. courts, the test is if a reasonable observer could look at the original and the copy side-by-side and tell that it is a copy. It is ok to copy someone else’s photo as much as you want if it is only for your personal study. It is considered a courtesy to acknowledge your source if you then show that work to anyone.

Here are some examples of ways artists can use others’ photos as reference:
Using individual, generic parts of a photo. Ex. A tree, hills, clouds.
Using individual, specific parts of a photo. Ex. The Empire State Building, a Jeep.
For historical research. Ex. Looking at pictures of WWII uniforms to get the design accurate.
Gathering multiple photos of a subject without using a specific one. Ex. Looking at many photos of lions to see how they are built and how they move.
Using multiple photos for general inspiration. Ex. Gathering photos of different kinds of machinery in order to get inspiration for your own machine design.

If you're looking for good places to find reference on the internet, check out our wiki (http://www.conceptart.org/wiki/doku.php) and references (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30) subforum.

[emily g]

General quotes on using reference:


I'm a believer in using refs whenever possible, and shooting your own is best whenever you can do it.

If you're talking non-figure refs, Google image searches can also be a good ref finder for things like, say, what a mango tree looks like, or maybe the sky line of Chicago. For more complex things like detailed images of a V-2 rocket or high quality photos of an AK-47, I try to look more at books (be it library or personal collection, and Borders bargain section can have some awesome deals for the weirdest stuff). Occasionally I'll do a DVD grab if I remember seeing, say, a suit of Roman armor in Gladiator and my books don't have any photos from a rear angle. I generally think a person is talking about human anatomical refs when they ask this, but that other stuff is in a way even more important. You get an assignment to paint a WWI trench scene, you might want to do some research on historically accurate uniforms.

But for refs of people: shoot your own, shoot your own, shoot your own.

I think the goal is to do the best work possible, and most likely no matter how good you ever are, your work will look better when reference was used. Every pro I've ever met whos work I respected was still using reference after decades of drawing and painting professionally. I never saw it as a flaw or weakness, but as humble acceptance that they don't know everything there is to know about light, anatomy, architecture, geology, biology, meteorology, clothing design, automotive design, botany, and about a million other things that you may encounter in doing a job. Some artists can do amazing work without any reference at all, but most any can do better work with, and it doesn't mean that they are not using their imaginations. That's where you have to find the ballance.

While painting from life is the best, it's not the most practical. When working from photos, you're not copying the exact photo, you're using it for what it is.. reference. Look at Norman Rockwell's stuff..he used photo ref, but changed it up to a great extent. If you're looking to get work as a professional, it'd be near impossible to hire a model to sit for the amount of time you'd need, or get all the props, etc. at once. My advice is to practice both photo and life drawing, because neither are cheating... if you can get a live model, all the better, but don't let not having one stop you from making the art you want to make.

edit- and! shoot your own photo reference, that's a million times better than googling it, and relying on someone else's imagery. if you shoot your own stuff, it's all yours.

Working realistically from your imagination is a skill that comes naturally to very few people, and if you were one of them you would already know it. For everyone else it requires years of building up a library of images, a mental model of the world that you can manipulate at will. This comes from drawing from life, yes, but also from drawing from and knowing how to use photos (for all those things you might want to draw that you don't have access to), analyzing other artists' work (including, horror of horrors, copying), and knowing the principles of anatomy, perspective, and lighting inside out. And even then "realistic" is a relative term. You will probably never be able to do work from your head that is indistinguishable from what you do from life, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I will add that THE NUMEBR ONE reason I can't hire someone is that the figure work is off. It's the first things viewers will call you on if it's not right. Time and time again, when I'm asked to look a student portfolios, I ask if they used reference, while knowing that the answer will be "no." Then I gently tell them they should start.

However, and it is a big however, Cotron was right on his point that pros know how to alter their reference as needed. Another big mistake in portfolios is seeing artists copying their reference verbatim, not knowing how to tweak and alter to fit their composition. Classic problems are say, an image of two people talking but they don't quite line up, they are looking right past each other. Or my favorite - a person running and it's clear that they were photographed standing on one leg -- the artist didn't put a little extra bend in the leg, lean in the body, or the hair and clothing hangs down instead of flowing behind, etc.

It's a shame when I see someone who can be really inventive with costumes, environments, aliens, etc. but I just can't hire them if the figure wok is off. My two cents -- Learn how to USE reference....which doesn't necessarily mean copying it.

Andrew Loomis
346959

[emily g]

Quotes about taking your own reference photos:

All you need is a friend and a camera.
Take the shots yourself.

You don't need to have a single amazing photograph to use as reference.
Take a shot of a single arm in one picture, and a leg in another.
When you get everything you need, piece it all together (with Photoshop is simplest. If you're not computer saavy, use tracing paper and photocopies).
Just be sure your lighting is consistent, and you should do fine.

With a little bit of training, it's really not too difficult to shoot your own refs, and the advantage is huge to using refs that other people shot. The main problem with photos is lens distortion. If you work from photos or learn from photos (which i fully recommend doing) you need to do at least a cursory study of anatomy so that you can fully understand the things which the camera is not telling you/telling you wrong.

Quotes about using other people’s photos:

Don't just draw someone elses gun in your drawing (that breaks copyright), but research guns and find out what makes them look like guns. What are the elements that people see and recognize as "gun"? No matter what peopel may think, but artists are not dictionarys of everything they might ever need to draw, and even if you've seen something a million times there are probably hundreds of details that slipped your notice until you look at them again.

Anything you want to draw, it helps to really research it and make sure you understand it. What really makes it yours though will be what you do with it from there. What you add to it, leave off it, or how you combine it with another idea.

I think the most healthy way of using reference was explained by Ian McCaig. It's a three step process:

First you do imagination drawing without any reference and try to capture the flavour of what you have in your mind. In second step you sit down and find something that looks like this in real life and do tons of studies from photographs or models. In third step you draw your idea without reference again but this time with all the details you remember from the studies.

It's beacause if you copy your reference onto your sketch, you don't process any information any you're limited by what you have on your photo. I also think it's more progressive beacause with studies and testing your memory your visual library is getting richer and you can make something even better in next project.

[emily g]

More pictures:

Nicolai Fechin
346946

Norman Rockwell
346948

346947

346961

346962

Dean Cornwell
346952

Visit Paul Cava's (http://www.paulcava.com/paulcavafineart2.html) site to see some reference photography from Frank Brangwyn, Alphonse Mucha, and Maxfield Parrish.

Jon Foster process thread (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8869).

Photos from Art Out Loud 2 (http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59958&page=10) (scroll down): Jon Foster, Adam Rex, Dan Dos Santos, Greg Manchess, Julie Bell, and Boris Vallejo at work.

Art Out Loud 3 (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73406&page=5) (scroll down): Donato Giancola and Todd Lockwood at work.

To see reference shots by CAers, visit the Show Us Your Reference (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62796) thread.

[arttorney]

I can't see what was so terrible about this thread to merit a one star rating. The star doesn't give me that information, whereas a constructive comment might.

I just figure people don't want to have to read things. That must be why a thread about posting other people's images with minimal commentary gets 5 stars.

I still think some people around here could stand to read a book.http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m214/arttorney/handy.jpg

[Nibras]

Lovley thread thanks for posting it.
Dang about the 2 stars i've voted lets just hope more people move it up
I think i would personally follow Iain's way not a big fan of using refernce straight into the drawing

[ECMastersStudio]

This is a terrific thread and more people should read it!!! I have awarded it 5 stars because it is such an important topic. Not only should illustrators learn to use reference correctly, but we should learn to shoot our own (especially for figures).

[emily g]

Thanks for the support, guys. :)
And I love the pic of "read a book" Handy, arttorney.

Anything I can do to make this thread better would be greatly appreciated.

[PuppyKitten]

Voted 5 to help bump this up. All the quotes were great to read. It's always good to get opinions from people you respect on matters like this.

Plus the Norman Rockwell stuff was just cool. :)

[Ilaekae]

Helped by giving it a five, too, Luv. Great stuff that we all should have known when we were 10-years-old...

[Elwell]

There's a huge site about the impressionists' (and pre- and post-impressionists) use of photography here (http://www.aloj.us.es/galba/MONOGRAFICOS/LOFOTOGRAFICO/ESCUELA%20BARBIZON/TextoT1.htm). It's in Spanish, but the navigation is pretty easy to figure out, and there's a small sampling in English here (http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2006/11/famous-painters-copied-photopraphs_06.html).

[emily g]

Thanks guys. :) And thanks so much for sharing those links, Elwell.
Wow, those are incredible--I learned a ton just looking through the pictures.

[Chris Bennett]

I'm amazed no one has thought of a thread like this before! Great ideas always seem obvious once somebody has one. 5 stars from me.
Emily, is that book on Rockwell's methods called 'Rockwell on Rockwell' and is it still in print? I saw one like this some while ago and couldn't get hold of it - it looks very much like the same book.

[emily g]

Thanks, Chris. :)
Yep, that's the book and no, it's not (http://www.amazon.com/Rockwell-How-I-Make-Picture/dp/082302380X) still in print. :(

It's an incredible book, though.

[S.C. Watson]

Emily, thanks for posting this. Great thread (5 stars :^^: )

I especially loved the Norman Rockwell stuff.

All the best,
~Shane

[ECMastersStudio]

There's a huge site about the impressionists' (and pre- and post-impressionists) use of photography here (http://www.aloj.us.es/galba/MONOGRAFICOS/LOFOTOGRAFICO/ESCUELA%20BARBIZON/TextoT1.htm). It's in Spanish, but the navigation is pretty easy to figure out, and there's a small sampling in English here (http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2006/11/famous-painters-copied-photopraphs_06.html).

Wooow, this ^^^ makes me so happy - and mildly less terrified by the masters LOL

[Rocul]

Awesome thread, and I learned a fair lot.

[Mark Bot]

excellent helpful information.
thanks bunches for posting this.

[Queen Nehalania]

Thank you so much for the great information! :D
I really needed this.

[Chris Bennett]

Here's something that might interest people - I was asked to do a 'portrait effect' of the british snooker referee Michaela Tabb. I could take a lot of liberties so it was not one of my 'straight portraits' and is therefore interesting in that it willfully departs from the reference yet has to be a reasonable likeness. I thus made the drawing you see from the shown reference photograph and then made the painting entirely from the drawings without once looking at the photograph at all, releying entirely on the information that was important in the drawings.

P.S. Emily, if you do not wish people to put their own examples in this thread then please feel free to delete it, I quite understand.

363309
363310

[emily g]

No, thank you so much for sharing Chris. This is wonderful!

This is an excellent way to work from photo reference and I want to thank you being willing to share it with us.

[J Wilson]

Emily G, thanks for this thread! I'm constantly surprised at how many young artists seem to think that reference is some evil crutch that "real artists" don't need. The truth is not only is it ok, it's a damn good idea, and if you aren't using reference you are doing yourself a major disservice!

[ArtznCraphs]

Emily G, thanks for this thread! I'm constantly surprised at how many young artists seem to think that reference is some evil crutch that "real artists" don't need. The truth is not only is it ok, it's a damn good idea, and if you aren't using reference you are doing yourself a major disservice!

Well, I think alot of young artists are using Frazetta, concept art, myths about old masters or superhero comic book artists as their guide, but I don't think they realize that:

1. Frazetta's stuff, while superb in its own right, is nowhere near as specific as Rockwell's. Superhero comic work is even less so. Fraz also used reference when he needed it. Alot of environmental concept art is realistic in general effect, but compared to a well researched landscape by the Hudson River painters it lacks in truthful information and subtlety of effect.

2. Unless a person has photographic memory of the highest order, it would be impossible for their work to match the work of a pro who renders realistically using models, props or photographs. Try doing a Dru Struzan-like poster without reference of the actors...

3. Yeah, maybe Michelangelo was knowledgable enough to draw the figure as well as he could from imagination, but at the expense of other subjects. He worked pretty much exclusively with the figure all the time, in 2D and 3D. Artists are not Batman where they can have absolute mastery of 10 different disciplines at a writer's whim.

4. The final result is what matters. Master artists have used models, photography, copying other art, camera obscura, projection, figurines, sculptures, mannikins,etc. to attain the quality of work they were looking for.

[ArtMonkeyWorld Dave]

This is a great thread with a lot of usefull information. The Rockwell stuff was especially enjoyable. Photo refernces have been used for years, even the master used camera obscuras to help them get the details right. When all art is comprised of copying images either fromthe imagination or form life is there really a need to argue of the level of copying? Besides, I think it was Picasso who said that "Amatures Create, Professionals Copy" lol Of course that may be slightly out of context but you get the idea... : )

[Elwell]

Besides, I think it was Picasso who said that "Amatures Create, Professionals Copy" lol Of course that may be slightly out of context but you get the idea... : )
First of all, it's completely out of context. Secondly, it's "good artists borrow (or sometimes, copy), great artists steal." Furthermore, besides Picasso it's also been attributed to others, including T.S.Eliot and Stravinsky, although I can't find a definitive source for any of them. And finally, it has to be one of the most misinterpreted quotes of all time.

[Serpian]

I've learned that the whole 'the old masters used the camera obscura' thing is a myth, or at least largely exaggerated.

[ArtznCraphs]

I've learned that the whole 'the old masters used the camera obscura' thing is a myth, or at least largely eccagerated.


It is if you group Old Masters as a whole. But it's been widely accepted that Vermeer was one who did on occasion. To say that any use of it was a myth is the same as saying real artists' don't use photo reference.

[Serpian]

Yeah some, on occasion, but I've understood that there's this wide misconception that nearly all of them used it, all the time.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not speaking from experience here, only what the internetz has told me...

[ArtznCraphs]

Yeah some, on occasion, but I've understood that there's this wide misconception that nearly all of them used it, all the time.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not speaking from experience here, only what the internetz has told me...

Yeah that misconception exists in the mind of David Hockney.

[Chris Bennett]

I think it was Picasso who said that "Amatures Create, Professionals Copy"

As Elwell has pointed out you have got the quote wrong. However, I rather like it as you have put it. For this reason:
Whenever we witness something 'new', as we do in great paintings, however old they are, there is always a certain kind of awkwardness about them, or rather an ineloquence that is very difficult to put one's finger on - I guess it is that when we surprise ourselves we are in a similar state to the amature in that we are of neccessity on unfamiliar ground. Slickness is almost by definition, lack of surprise.
As a professional, I am always trying to find the amature in me or, to put it much more accurately, and to paraphrase Isaac Newton (har har), trying to stand the amature on top of the professional's shoulders.

[DavePalumbo]

Yeah some, on occasion, but I've understood that there's this wide misconception that nearly all of them used it, all the time.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not speaking from experience here, only what the internetz has told me...

One of the problems is that at certain points in history it would have actually been seen as heresy to use optical devices and could land you in big trouble with the church (like, torture and kill you sort of trouble), so if artists were using them, they had to be very secret about it.

And besides that, who really cares how someone worked several hundred years ago? I hear that the old masters didn't use email to send in their finals either, but personally I just don't believe that.

[S.C. Watson]

I hear that the old masters didn't use email to send in their finals either, but personally I just don't believe that.

yeeeah. that's just a little too far fetched for me. I mean, c'mon. How'd they deliver it? In person? pft.

[ArtMonkeyWorld Dave]

Well, I knew the quote was out of context, and as some of you have mentioned, misquoted too.Thats what I get for posting on the last 5 minutes of my lunch break. The spirit of the comment was intact in my head( if no where else lol ) Next time I will take the time to make sure I quote the statement correctly. I apologize for any ruffled feathers. : )

Honestly though I am glad I got it wrong, because if I hadn't I never would have heard Chris's interpretation of the statement. I love that interpretation of the quote. And while all artist didn't use camera obscuras,many did use grid systems, and sketched from life. Alternate forms of copying but copying nevertheless. I guess what I am trying to say is like art, its a matter of perception for me. Some people will always see anything that isn't formed from pure imagination as copying and that is a perception that we have to get away from.

Reference is a good thing! ( but only if you quote the reference right ;) lol

[theesatellite]

Hello, I'm new here. I'm so glad to have read this thread. I've recently experienced personal issues about ref material in my own work. The info. here has really expanded my thoughts on the topic.

[Nibras]

Emily G, thanks for this thread! I'm constantly surprised at how many young artists seem to think that reference is some evil crutch that "real artists" don't need. The truth is not only is it ok, it's a damn good idea, and if you aren't using reference you are doing yourself a major disservice!

Thats pretty much me

[Stoat]

It is if you group Old Masters as a whole. But it's been widely accepted that Vermeer was one who did on occasion. To say that any use of it was a myth is the same as saying real artists' don't use photo reference.

Widely accepted by people who have never used a camera obscura, I'll betcha. I've used one (a reproduction at a museum), and a modern overhead projector, and a photographic enlarger (as a tracing aid)...and light tables, pantographs, grids and pretty much every other device ever dreamed up with for working directly from reference. (In renderings of machinery they want accurate, they want fast and artsy is barely an afterthought).

I've got to tell you, even with modern projection equipment using bright electrical light sources and good lenses, it's VERY difficult to draw from a projected image. If you turn up the room lights enough to see what you're doing, you can't see the projection. If you turn down the room lights to see the projection, you can't see what you're doing. And the MOMENT you make a mark, you are no longer projecting that information onto a white surface, but a dark one. You ever projected an image onto a dark surface? Oh, and then there's your hand shadow. And keystoning.

Now imagine doing all this without electrical lights and dimmer switches and focusable lenses, but with candles and tents and pinholes and sunlight.

I. Don't. Think. So.

Drawings done from projected images have a distinct 'look' about them (until they're worked over by a decent draughtsman). A jerky, spikey, wavery, hesitant look...like the person couldn't quite see what he was doing. Because he couldn't. Does that sound like Vermeer to you?

Vermeer's specular highlights are round, just like highlights seen through an unfocused lens, and that's what gave the original bright spark the idea that he worked with a camera obscura. You know what else makes round specular highlights? Paint that is looser and oilier than the stuff we're accustomed to. And that's clearly what Vermeer worked with.

Ummm...sorry to come completely unstrung here, but every time I read that assertion it makes me :wtf: The proper use of reference entirely aside, it's just not technically feasible pre-electricity. If you ever get a chance, try it. It's a cinch the 'experts' never have.

[AeonPhoenix]

Im glad this thread exists. Never has an art teacher told me to even bother looking at pictures for sources of references. It's so obvious now. I'm 18 (Soon to be 19) and have yet to be told by any of my art teachers about this stuff. Guess there are some things that going to college can't teach you about art.

[Elwell]

Never has an art teacher told me to even bother looking at pictures for sources of references .
:xpld: :frustrated: :nohope:

[William Whitaker]

Stoat,

You are absolutely right about Vermeer's paint. If one uses pure white lead in linseed oil (no additional fillers) and your paint is oilier than what normally comes out of the store-bought tube, the combination of the oily paint and the wonderful natural ropiness of white lead results in very beautiful, and very easy to achieve, white dot highlights.

I can achieve a tinier highlight with pure white lead in oil than I can with pure titanium white in oil. The secret is the ropey stringy quality of pure white lead. White lead is the best paint of all!

[carlosranna]

Just adding to the topic:

http://www.glennfabry.co.uk/whatami.htm

[KMiller]

A hell of a lot of comic artists obviously use figure reference. Bryan Hitch and Tony Harris are examples. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's how they use the reference that matters. Hitch manages to imbue a dynamism to his work (Ultimates, etc) , whereas Harris' work (War Heroes) can look stiff sometimes.

[Cella]

Yeah I just wanted to also pass on my appreciation and thanks for the thread. Its really insightful and makes me even more motivated now. Cheers!

[Saturns Gate]

If your just trying to learn about anatomy or surface materials etc just copy the photos or from life straight up. Once you have them memorized somewhat then get more creative with the references and change it up a little.

[skidfrog]

Thanks Emily !....these are all great reminders.....and you won't find them at the box stores these days.

now.....how to get the time and money to do all this.....food for another thread lol


D http://zoomfrog.blogspot.com/

[Blue]

:xpld: :frustrated: :nohope:

Isn't it sad? It actually wasn't until IMC 08 where I had anyone ever tell me that reference was not only 'ok' but was a very legitimate tool. Well actually, you told me that 1st in the beginning of the year here on CA. But yea, seems the difference between teachers and professional painters on methods seems to be drastically polarized at times.

Frustrating for me as a student still. The general consensus among my art teachers seems to be that you do life drawing so you can do a painting and not use reference. Everything is so much better now that I use reference for them. :)

Thanks for the thread Emily! :D

[ESAUL]

Hello comic artists!
If you are looking for some very good photo references try this site: http://www.photo-reference-for-comic-artists.com

[darkseraph57]

Even though we're all 2-D artists here... we should always think of ourselves as manipulating 3-D objects.

This Rockwell guy seems to be just collaging photos, putting almost all his characters in the same positions and with the same lighting in the picture as in the reference, which doesn't require the 3-D knowledge that a conventionally more 'imaginative' artist uses. I mean, reference should be about collecting a visual library, yes - but of 3-dimensional objects, not collage components.

If you've got the object in mind, rather than the photo, you're not copying, you're collecting ideas which you can combine, mimicking very closely how the imagination works, but with the added bonus of conscious control over what you're doing.

[grenogs]

Frustrating for me as a student still. The general consensus among my art teachers seems to be that you do life drawing so you can do a painting and not use reference. Everything is so much better now that I use reference for them. :)


the next time an art teacher tries to convince you this, then please ask them what happens if someone commissions you to do a painting of an amazon jungle scene? Are you supose to catch a flight directly to the scene, then wait patiantly while all the animals you need in your picture gradually come around you in order for you to start some real painting, and then fly straight back?, btw this has all got to be done with a week, possibly 2. Of course not, it is totally impractical for any modern day artist to rely on real life painting alone, majority of time useing reference is a must. And the simple fact is if past masters had the same technology then as we do now, im pretty sure they to would have used it.
just one last thing, i need to do a dinosaur scene, does anyone here know where i can get myself one of those time thingies ;)

[Tofa]

thanks a lot for this thread, im one of those stupid stupid people that very frequently become "enslaved" by their reference. :(
glad to know it isnt a sin to not copy everything directly. im gonna try and apply this more. ta

[Elwell]

This Rockwell guy seems to be just collaging photos, putting almost all his characters in the same positions and with the same lighting in the picture as in the reference, which doesn't require the 3-D knowledge that a conventionally more 'imaginative' artist uses. I mean, reference should be about collecting a visual library, yes - but of 3-dimensional objects, not collage components.

If ignorance were fried chicken, you'd be Colonel Sanders.
(Mind you, I agree with pretty much everything else you've said, but using Rockwell as a counterexample is about as wrong as wrong gets.)

[peterhurman]

at college we have always been told to use references but when possible to take our own photographs because then you at least own the copyright. the more i do it the more i think using references well is as much a skill as anything else

[maldrin]

using references well is as much a skill as anything else

Absolutely. Taking a good ref, and then using it well, is a skill all it's own.

The "Show Your Reference" from a while back (which I've considered necroing recently) really shows the power of shooting your own ref and controlling those "3d" elements that darkseraph57 was referring to. On top of that, not being a slave to the ref (what this thread kinda already covered) is also critical.

mal

[kelly x]

Emily, Thank you for this thread, the comments are good too, you did great research on this. More examples would be great to see... please.

[Bushido]

Heres some really good info about how to use references!

http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/03/using-photo-reference.html
http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62796

I think this topic is one of the most intresting topics on the forum!

Tnx for make it!

[KarylGilbertson]

Great thread, I don't use a lot of reference in my work, but I'm sure going to start. Thanks for this! Magnifique!

[shaggy]

More from gurney journey...using an example from andrew loomis



http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/06/too-smooth-tones.html (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/06/too-smooth-tones.html)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Eiwce13X738/Sj5cvK9sEfI/AAAAAAAAGpQ/sA6Yd4PW6FM/s400/Loomis.Andrew.Breaking.Up.Too.Smooth.tones.jpg

Too-Smooth Tones
When he translated his reference photo into a painting, Andrew Loomis softened the edges and subordinated the unimportant small forms. For example, he simplified the details under the model’s left hand, and eliminated the delicate tracery in the lower half of the dress.

To idealize the figure, he made the head of the model slightly smaller in the painting than it appeared in the reference.

He was also conscious of breaking up the flat tones of the photo.

“One of the main things that identify a photo as a photo,” he wrote in his classic book Creative Illustration, “is the ultra-smoothness of the tones.”

Where the photo presented monotonous values, such as in the pillows behind the model’s shoulders, he activated the surface with painterly variations.

“Note the accents placed here and here of dark against light, to add punch,” Loomis says. “The lights have been forced somewhat to obtain extra brilliancy. The background has been lightened in spots to avoid the monotony of tone in the photo.”

[Kristal Lee]

This a wonderful thread as it clears up a lot of misconceptions about using references. :) Thank you very much for this contribution to the community.

[Jasonwclark]

Interesting story on NPR today about Rockwell and photography...

Behind The Lens: Norman Rockwell's Photographers, A Mixed Picture

http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2009/11/rockwell.html
The Jacki Lyden recording

[Vladimir Gasai]

Awesome topic and thanks to everyone who showed interest in this because it helped me :) a personal example,i mostly draw from my memory and imagination.Wherever i go i try to remember everything i see for example a night out with your friends,try and put in your mind anything you like.Use what you saw in your art.Observing and remembering is a key to have a richer memory for your artworks.
I sometimes use photo reference to observe it and remember it and then draw my artwork based on it if want to do a study.Other times i munipulate it like a 3D model as my mind was a computer and make out my own image.Thanks again for the helpful posts.

[Marine_Blue]

This thread is great. I have been trying to get this straight in my head for a while. It has reaffirmed my belief in gathering tonnes of reference to produce the thing you want. Film making is a good example; directors as well as actors spend all their time researching the appearance of so many things. This is great. And nice to see the rating up where it should be.

[-DenArt-]

I was also reading this section today...I agree about making art from self-photo reference actually its so healthy and great idea but I also think that to draw and paint from reference image as a reproduction(copy) would be helpfull for beginners to improving their skills or something while they on making exercising about drawing and painting when I was course last year we all course people were making from reference or reference art or a masterpiece for learning and for improve it our teacher showed us that way...but don't get me wrong only I wanted to tell my opinions...
(by the way sorry for my weak English...)

[accuracy0]

Hi everyone, Im a student artist, a beginner. I used many photo reference as well as artwork reference from other artist to help myself to create better art. This is one of my artwork which created few months ago using reference

Rattletrap ( Warcarft III)
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9634/rattatrapgoldcopy.jpg

When i was studying the movement of rattletrap in the game, after a few sketches, i find this character might work well with the character pose and the composition in the reference artwork. So i proceeded and finished the artwork.

But i am confuse. can i say that im inspired by the original artwork? or that im copying pose?

Second thing is, lets say i had never seen the reference artwork before, and i created that artwork using a combination of various reference source. And the pose and composition just accidentally look similar to that. How should i defend?
Have u guys ever encounter this situation before? (it happens to me few times, it made me felt like all my effort meant nothing)

[Wozza]

Emily, great read. Thanks for hooking me up with this.