Results 14 to 26 of 63
Thread: Using photo reference correctly
April 26th, 2008 #14
Hide this ad by registering as a memberApril 26th, 2008 #15
Emily, thanks for posting this. Great thread (5 stars )
I especially loved the Norman Rockwell stuff.
All the best,
April 26th, 2008 #16
April 28th, 2008 #17
Awesome thread, and I learned a fair lot.
Originally Posted by Mitch Hedburg
April 28th, 2008 #18
April 29th, 2008 #19
Thank you so much for the great information!
I really needed this.
Will update sometime soon.
May 6th, 2008 #20
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.
From Gegarin's point of view
May 7th, 2008 #21
May 7th, 2008 #22
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!
The Following User Says Thank You to J Wilson For This Useful Post:
May 8th, 2008 #23
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to ArtznCraphs For This Useful Post:
May 8th, 2008 #24
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... : )
May 8th, 2008 #25
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
May 8th, 2008 #26
- ThanhVu Dinh,
- Mister Snow Leopard,
- Mad Savier,
- Zewar Fadhil,
- The Red Raeburn,
- Mocha Monkey,
- Paulie Knuckles,