Copying photos?

[Mr Man]

Ive been having abit of trouble foreshortaning and and positioning people latley. I know alot of you say draw from life, but what if you dont have access to.. the public shall we say. Its not very often you get someone flying in a superman pose across the street right? So ive thought i could try copying basic people from magazines etc? Is this a good idea because im sure ive heard people cursing about this. unless im mistaken.
Thanks

[Main Loop]

thats gonna be a hard position to find in a magazine photo.. why not try shooting your own reference?

[Eveningkiss]

I often draw from Photos i find. It helps with basic positioning. I don't copy 100% (personal reasons) but the poses can help. If you don't feel comfertable copying photos you can always go to your local art store and buy a positional dummy.

[nafa]

I have seen many posts advising people not to copy from photo, but I have yet to see one that is convincing. The very fact that most respectable art forums incorporate photo reference sections implies that many professionals and serious hobbists do make use of photo references off and on.

[mentler]

I am an advocate of beginners avoiding photo reference <> work from Old Master drawings <> in the case of foreshortening the camera lens usually flattens out the forms more than the eye giving photos a great deal of distortion <> professionals often work from photos that is true but they also know how to correct the photo distortion. Work from life and old master drawings and is you have to work from photo ref capture the pose and put the photo away <> it is only good for basic aspect and position.

Let me just say that an experienced artist can spot a drawing done from a photo instantly and it is not a good thing.

[Dizon]

Mentler's is sound advice. OR you can copy from your favorite comic books!

[mentler]

You can see farther when you stand on the shoulders of giants <> comicbooks graphic novels and animation are great resources <> especially for foreshortening <> They are some of the best trained artist in the world and trained I might add in the classical manor <> Tiepolo, Michelangelo, Rapheal, Titian and Rubens were not bad either.

[THUNDERCOCK]

Well put Mentler...I'm pretty sure those old master painters were on to something by not trying to take the easy roads....I think your comment holds more water than a my bathtub....I too am guilty of wanting quick fixes to modern day problems but I've found time and time again that you have to pay your dues in art. Faking things or taking shortcuts can and will be scrutinized by the pros who have done their homework. I say stick with the masters....they won't lead you astray...best of luck!!

[atlsouthpaw]

Mentler said.... an experienced artist can spot a drawing done from a photo instantly and it is not a good thing. Absolutely true. I can immediately spot this in work that is not quite at the professional level.

In regards to drawing from magazines.....I did it early in my career *IN CONJUNCTION with REAL MODELS and life drawing sessions*. I think *any* life drawing is a good thing, especially if your sources of real models is limited. The thing to keep in mind with using photographs is to *use the information* not *copy the information* and always, always, always, keep yourself from using the photos as a crutch to cover up problems in your work. This will make you lazy and keep you from learning what you need to learn. Eventually as you become a better artist you will naturally be able to extrapulate information from a photo without copying what is there. This only comes from drawing *a lot*! I mean a lot. As you start to develop your own *visual language and style* through repititious drawing and observing what is underneath the skin, you can safely use figure photography as reference. Forshortening comes from a natural and *learned* ability in not only figure drawing but perspective as well. I see too many artists that think perspective is math and it's boring. You will never be able to correctly forshorten without solid knowledge in perspective. Get the books and learn it. You will be glad you did! Also, even though I have drawn comics, I never ever used them as a guide to learn figure drawing. The only best true way to learn is drawing from life if you can. If you draw from other comic book artists, you are learning from their *own language of drawing through their individual voice and drawing style* and not from what is truely there. Most of the time I see artists, copying bad comic book artists, who have in turn copied bad comic book artists. It's inbreeding. There is a huge difference beleive me. Gotta run, but draw from life and good luck!

Craig

[Fl3wk]

I am still in college, but the model has been scarce for over a year now. When you say 'draw from life', do you mean exactly a nude woman to draw, or...? (examples please, i could conjure up a few, but hearing them fromanother would surely sound more true/useful).

Thanks in advance.

One more thing, does the model have to be nude if you are doing class studies? I dont really like doing that, but i usually just ignore my dislike and face the problem head on. So back to the question, other than the natural curves and the obstructions of say clothing, what else makes drawing from nude important?

[timpaatkins]

Are you in posession of a mirror?

[atlsouthpaw]

When I say drawing from life, I mean drawing from real things that exist in real life. A real *live* figure model if you can. Drawing a real tree, drawing a real dog etc. Make since?
Also, if you can find models but they arent nude, still draw from them. You still are able to learn from them, even though nudes are preferred. In drawing from nudes it helps you *see and understand* the form. It also helps you *see* what is underneath the skin i.e. *muscle structure, and how it relates to bones, and how things are connected as well as why they do what they do*. It helps you see the *rythem and movement, and grace* of the figure.
There is nothing shameful about the nude human figure. It is in fact one of the most beautiful things you could draw.
Having said that, there are definitely times when a *clothed* model is relevant such as how drapery and folds work. How they fall over the *nude* figure and what causes those folds to drape a certain way.
Hope this helps......

oh by the way. a mirror is a HUGE help and a must have in any artists studio..good point timpaatkins.

Craig

[Fl3wk]

"It is in fact one of the most beautiful things you could draw."

That must be a personal observation.

Discarding the above, thanks.

I dont particularly have a mirror, but if its important, well, like Rembrandt used one alot with his expressions, I will try to get one. But i am modest about my appearance and prefer not to look in the reflection :- S

I never really had the will to want to draw things like trees and such when I was younger (schoolboy), so now it becomes harder to want to do it now. Plus I am learning the anatomy from various books ontop of college studies and it sometimes seems like I dont have time for things like 'experience with paint' or 'practice observational drawings'.

[timpaatkins]

Hmm, I dont think you should disregard what atlsouthpaw was recommending you at all. I agree completely. How old are you by the way? ( No disrespect)
Life drawing is incredibly helpful to train the eye and brain. Sure, the first time I went I was all giggly and nervous, but within 5 min Id forgotten that it was a nude person in front of me, and was only thinking how to render her.

Anyways, a mirror is INVALUABLE, because it means you have access to a poseable model 24 hrs a day, namely YOU. Get one that is fairly large, mine is 2 foot by 1 foot (60x30 cm) and is just the pane, so its very easy to prop up against stuff. Now you dont necesarrily have to draw the face, but as soon as you are confused about something, i.e a fold in clothing, or how the arm is attached, or what someone would look like in 3/4 view, just throw an eye in the mirror, and there you have it. If you are looking to add an expression of say, surprise, just look in the mirror, and there you are, easily translated to your drawing!

Ill go out on a limb and say that none of the artist on CA got where they are today, without the help of a mirror or by not attending nude drawing.

[Fl3wk]

I must have mis-typed. What I was meant to say, bah, its not important. But I did REALLY appreciate his post.

I am almost 19. I did 2 years national diploma previously and countless hours life drawing, I will admit, from those sessions my skills grew astonishingly. I am not nervious nor do I ever giggle about wiggly bits. I just feel uncomfortable near a middle aged woman who has had children, naked infront of me (no offence intended).

I hope the above clears some confusion.

You are right, i will get a mirror to use and discard my discomfort in looking in the mirror.

Thank you for the information, appreciated.

[Mr Man]

Wow I wasnt expecting many replies from this. I really thank you all for this information. Fortunatley I never copie from photo references anyway (appart from textures like scales etc) After hearing that the camera can distort the image it has definatley opened my eyes to make sure i stay away from this type of resource.
I think i might invest in a large mirror, i just hope it doesnt creep me out when i go to bed. :S

Thanks again for this, My mind has been all over the place latley so im glad this has cleared some things up. Cant wait until i can go back to college and start drawing people on the street. :^^:

[Fl3wk]

I found out about that distortion on this topic. My teachers must be useless in not mentioning this to me. They always used to say life drawing was important, but not because photos are slightly distorted.

[CreationEdge]

Photos, AFIK, really only distort proportions because the angles and views they capture things out. If you make sure to figure out the proportions yourself, photos are invaluable for coming up with poses, or how such-and-such part would look at such-and-such angle.

If you're using them for other references, like clothes or nature, then the distortion thing doesn't matter, IMO.

Overall, I'd still highly recommend photos for coming up with poses and possible foreshortening help. As long as you're AWARE of the downsides of photos you can more easily OVERCOME them.

And obviously, if you need reference of the opposite sex, a mirror won't help.

Mirrors are great, too! I have a 1 x 4 footer, and a smaller 12 x 18 inch one. Positioned right, the 1 x 4 let's me see my whole body.

[bdfoster]

Photos distort in a number of ways. One, as Mentler mentioned, is in flattening the forms. There is also "lens distortion" which becomes more and more prevalent as you get a wider and wider lens (which is needed closer to a subject). This is why many pros who use photo reference recommend shooting from a distance, it minimizes this "fish eye" effect.

Photos are great for capturing information-- You'll never get a model to hold a handstand, or a leaping pose, or any other number of "difficult" poses for any extended period. But use it for information only, and supplement with knowledge from life.

[Mecha Hate Chimp]

I disagree about avoiding photos for use as reference.

To say that "an experienced artist can spot a drawing done from a photo instantly and it is not a good thing" is an insult to any artist that has ever used photos for reference. Photos have been used as reference material by some of the very best artists and illustrators of our time. Guys like Maxfiled Parrish, Jeffrey Jones, Norman Rockwell, Bill Sienkiewicz and Alex Ross have used photos as reference to create their work... and some of their work is almost a mirror image of used photo references.

When it comes learning how paint or draw, there is no "one" best way. You can sketch, paint or draw from life, from comics, from printed material, books, etc... Beginner or not, the only way you will improve is by finding what works best for you and move forward with it. If you feel using a photo as reference works best then use it. If you prefer sitting in a coffee shop and drawing from life, more power to you. Theres no right or wrong way in art. Only the finality of your image is important, how you get there is completely up to you.

[mentler]

Hey that what forums are for!

I think most of the artists chimp is referring to could fall into the experienced range.

Parrish and Rockwell did several long live sessions with their models and used the photos only for backup.

BTW all of these dudes could pretty much draw this stuff without a model if they wanted to.

As far as Bill and Alex are concerned, I have really not seem many photos that look at all like their works.

I am sure Jeffery on the other hand uses a great deal of photo reference. And I am also sure that once he has everything roughed in he relys on himself a lot more than the reference.

All of their work is superb btw.

In terms of commissioned portraits and illustration photos are a valuable aide.

I still believe photos should be the last resort for the beginner.

And yes I can almost always spot a work done totally from a photo <> there are several obvious clues <> I really don't mean it as and insult and am sorry if you took it that way.

[k4pka]

The drawing of anything presents the same problems of shapes and values! Thats all drawing is! So a tree is just as good to study from as is a naked woman (unless human female anatomy is your chief concern) However, if you intent is to just improve at drawing anything then start drawing anything!! Note, by that, i dont mean that if you want to get good at drawing trees, you need to just draw trees! Any life drawing experience, whether you have drawn people, cats, lymph nodes, barbados beaches, a quarter pipe...anything from real life, it will help you in drawing trees.

Nothing is really different, no human pose is easier or harder, no object is easier or harder, they are all just 2 dimensional lines on a surface. You just have to get good at translating what you are seeing into these lines. What exactly your subject is is irrelevant, so long as you are seeing it.

*sigh*

[Mecha Hate Chimp]

"...most of the artists chimp is referring to could fall into the experienced range."

And thats a great point. Because even experienced artists use photo references.

"I can almost always spot a work done totally from a photo <> there are several obvious clues"

I dont disagree with this. Ive seen plenty of work which is obviously done from photo reference. Its not a difficult thing to recognize, especially if its done by a beginner. But a beginner attempting to paint or draw from a photo should not be considered as a wrong or incorrect approach to learning. No matter what, a beginner's work is going to look like a beginner's work. They dont have the know how or experience to avoid common mistakes in drawing or painting. Its those very mistakes that they will have and need to make in order to learn from and avoid as they progress.

I would never say avoid photos for the same reason I would never say avoid working from a print of an old master. To me, they are images with information that you can use for reference. Its like saying "..the best way to learn is from reading a book". Yes its one way to learn, but you can learn as much from reading books, as you can from taking classes or from straight up experience.

I believe keeping a liberal view when approaching art is a better way to learn. Wether it be using photos, or studying life, using prints, painting traditionally or digitally, there is always something to be learned from each one. Dont limit yourself to just one way of approaching your art. Try everything. Draw with a pencil, use acrylics, oils, pastels.. paint with a dirty tampon if you have to. Because whatever you decide to use, if youre a beginner youre going to make mistakes regardless. And you need to make those mistakes in order to learn and get better.

[Rebeccak]

Hi guys, :)

Just popping in here, to participate in an interesting conversation ~ one which will never likely 'end'. :)

As someone who leads Digital / Traditional Drawing & Painting Workshops on CGTalk from the use of Photo Reference, well, I must say that I think it's a bit silly to say that using Photo Reference is wrong.

Regarding distortion ~ the human artist will distort FAR more than any camera ever will. We ourselves are not photocopiers, so to say that to use photo reference is bad because the camera distorts is something like saying that one should neither draw nor paint, because the artist as a perceiver and creator will distort the image.

Several factors to consider here when one makes the blanket statement that 'one should never use photo reference' from which to draw / paint:

1. Cost. Many artists, myself included, simply cannot pay what it takes to keep drawing and painting steadily from a live model.

2. Time. Many artists, myself included, do not have the time to go out to model sessions and wait for hours while a so~so or bad model poses live. With the exception of Art Center, where I went to college, I've never been to model sessions where the models were at or above average. It's not to say that good models don't exist ~ it's just to say that they are rare.

3. Principle. Working from Master Copies is working from a photograph. Unless you are in possession of an original Rembrandt print, you will be working from a photograph or other Reproduction of Master Drawings.

The bottom line for me is that it's better for artists to be working from SOMETHING than not working at all. If one does not have the time or money to draw from live models all the time ~ and let's face it, Drawing and Painting are lifelong pursuits ~ then working from photographs ~ particularly from GOOD photographs ~ is not, in my opinion, a bad thing at all.

I have thus far hosted 10 Open Figure Drawing Workshops on CGTalk, in which artists of any stripe work from excellent photographic reference as provided by my friend Hong Ly. If anyone is interested in joining them, which I would love to see, they are all linked here:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=2602753&postcount=3

~~

Now. Having said what I did above. :) I AGREE that the BEST way to learn how to draw and paint the figure is to draw and paint from life. In my opinion, the best ways to learn about figurative art are:

1. Working from life.
2. Working from REAL master work ~ sitting in front of a painting, drawing, or sculpture.
3. Working from master copies.
4. Working from memory.
5. Working from reference.

So, my point is that working from reference may not be the BEST way to learn ~ but it is certainly an excellent way to learn, and one that should be given it's due consideration. :)

I have seen an enormous amount of incredible work coming out of these Workshops. And it's all work from Reference.

My 2 cents.

Cheers, :)

~Rebeccak

[mentler]

The photos by Hong Ly are beautiful <> I agree that working directly from old masters works is better than working from reproductions <> however I do wish to point out the flat copy work may lose some detail but it has very little or no distortion and should not be equated with photography in the traditional sense.

For the record <> I never said the use of photography was wrong <> I am saying however, like Rebecca, that it would not be my first choice <> have I used photography, of course, did I use it when I was a beginner, of course <> the good thing about a photo is that is does not move and look can look at it along time and draw all to the details and shade it to look just like the photo. <> The bad thing about a photo is that is does not move and look can look at it along time and draw all to the details and shade it to look just like the photo. <> It is your time use it wisely and use the best resources you have available.

[Rebeccak]

Hi Michael! :)

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I wasn't really replying to anyone in particular here ~ I know that in the art world in general, be it digital or traditional, there is a tendency to shoo people away from doing work from photographs. So I hope you didn't think I was trying to misconstrue your thoughts, which of course, I really respect. :)

In fact, not long ago, I would have had the same tendency to say, be careful about working from photos, as a number of people here have said. But I think my opinions have changed on the matter with age, and as I have become more inclined toward digital art.

It's safe to say that the Old Masters would likely not have approved of online forums as well. ;) And Degas is considered to be an 'Old Master', yet relied on photographs for his work.

Basically, I think that as long as people are learning something in some way, it's a good thing. Maybe people start with working from photos, and graduate to working from life. Who knows? :) Everyone is different, and all of art and all artists are meant to evolve. :)

Cheers,

~Rebeccak

[Fl3wk]

I dont think the Old MASTERS would have approved of the internet ^^

[Larrikin Lad]

I must say that I think it's a bit silly to say that using Photo Reference is wrong.I agree, and you're the only one saying it in this thread.

I prefer my information firsthand sometimes I have to settle for secondhand information, at least I know the difference, some people who don't are a worry

I think that as long as people are learning something in some way, it's a good thing.Yeah, learning is a good thing. I have learnt if there is a better way why waste time and effort learning inferior stuff?

The old masters were probably curious people looking for better ways to do things. I am pretty certain they would have been down at the local beach or swimming pool drawing their heads off making use of such an opportunity unknown in their day. I doubt if the internet or photos would occupy their daylight thoughts.

[Main Loop]

I dont think the Old MASTERS would have approved of the internet ^^

yeah i dont think they wouldve approved of anything that makes communication and information sharing easier........:rolleyes:

but i dont think they wouldve approved of gh4y-4zz h4xx0rz!!1

[bdfoster]

The old masters were probably curious people looking for better ways to do things. I am pretty certain they would have been down at the local beach or swimming pool drawing their heads off making use of such an opportunity unknown in their day. I doubt if the internet or photos would occupy their daylight thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

It is widely speculated that many of the "old masters", from as early as DaVinci and certainly up through Vermeer and the other Dutch masters, used a pinhole camera, or camera obscura, to check perspective and proportion in their work. So in some respect, photos certainly occupied their thoughts.

[Fl3wk]

yeah i dont think they wouldve approved of anything that makes communication and information sharing easier........:rolleyes:

but i dont think they wouldve approved of gh4y-4zz h4xx0rz!!1


I say lets ignore what these Artists from centuries back would use and start using the technology that our century has to offer. No need to be behind because some traditionalist thinks using photos and the internet is wrong (refering to no one in particular).

Like you all have said, you can tell from photo use and real life use by the look of the proportions etc. So like also what some of you have said, keep in mind of those differences and the internet and photos will be more useful to use than not to use. Even beginners could use them if they be careful not to 'copy' from the photos/internet.

Myself, I only ever copy from anatomy books, and thats mainly due to not been able to cut people open without a doctors license, and been in the surgery.

[Larrikin Lad]

I said I doubt if the internet or photos would occupy their daylight thoughts.
:nohope:
Now come night time, I'm sure they would have been tinkering with the internet making it idiot proof and spamless :wink: As for photos I'm pretty certain they would ignore them and be working on some sort of 3D imaging device. Remember they were the innovators of their day and leopards don't change their spots no matter what century they are in. :tihi:

I say lets ignore what these Artists from centuries back would use and start using the technology that our century has to offer.
Lets not dump them too quickly first go and find artists you aspire to be like and discover their knowledge base. They may use photos now but what is their knowledge and skill based on, what sources did it come from? Learn from that base so you can be like them if you want.



It is widely speculated that many of the "old masters", from as early as DaVinci and certainly up through Vermeer and the other Dutch masters, used a pinhole camera, or camera obscura, to check perspective and proportion in their work. So in some respect, photos certainly occupied their thoughts.
yeah wild speculations There are too many contemporary artists with the same skills to show its not necessary to use aids like that.
Have a look at this guys sketchbook he's only been doing it for 2 months, no cameras here. He can work from photos too.
http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57301

I wouldn't dismiss any resource or reference, the camera made it possible to capture reflections and movement and broadened our knowledge of these things. If I had a choice between primary knowledge or secondary I would always choose primary.

Look at all those dumb portraits of films stars done from photos and then look at the portraits done from life from artists on this site and you can see life with knowledge wins everytime.

[ronin684]

I recently bought "The Nude Figure, A Visual Reference for the Artist" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0823032329/103-2640401-9561434?v=glance&n=283155)

At the moment I cant attend any Life Classes. (Hopefully in the coming months I will be able to.) The book has plenty of Figure Reference, enough to teach me the basics until I can attend the classes.