There seems to be some furore in the forums about copying, why, I don't know, it is a time honoured way of learning the craft, of learning how our betters overcame problems. I feel sympathy to those who are complaining of so called artiists copying and then passing off the resultant bit of plairgarism as their own. However I prefer to expend my energy by painting rather than worrying what other people do. Whenever I am inspired/influenced by another artist I find it better to make up my own rough composition and try to work on the techniques. We have to remember that some people can only copy, and that is creative in itself, the ability to lay down the correct line, to apply the right colour in the right place that's the way it is; however, for the end result to be touted as their own is a definite no, no. A case in point, a rather excellent pastel painting of Dunwich Beach has just gone up. I have many photos of the area similar to the painting, as have probly many other photographers before me. I'm sure this isn't the case but the painting could have just as easily been produced by copying one of the many photos of the area. I took a photo of Willly Lott's cotttage, I drew it and put the result up here. There are probably zillions of the same pic taken by other tourists, I had to waiit for other photographers for the vantage point as others had to wait for me. What I did isn't plaigarism, just a drawing I made of a well worn tourist attraction, no one knows if my drawing came from my photo that I took or if I sat there and drew it on site or if it has been copied from any one of the counless zillions. Oh and there's nothing wrong in using photos for source material, although there will be those hog tied by rules that think otherwise. it is a very efficient way of colllecting material, first used, I believe, by Delacrois. Get a good camera and take your own or source out of copywrite photos on the internet, or use creative commons stuff. Image from Imagine It SCI-FI premium graphic images, MacMillan Publishing