Painters Online Logo

Login/register

Studio

Portraits from photographs

Welcome to the forum.

Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.

Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.

Hang on Studio Wall
Showing page 1 of 2
Author
Message
With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, Napa

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 24795
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 8643
Posted
Using this heading as something of a dumping ground, because strictly speaking it's moribund but a useful drop when you don't want to disrupt other threads. So - I just wish to give everyone some heartfelt advice, wrought from bitter experience: don't do it.  Draw from photographs, that's fine and relatively easy.  Paint from them and the number of problems which arise are overwhelming, or I found them so.  You want to get your celebrity or whatever down on canvas, give them a call, arrange a sitting, and if they won't - chalk it down to experience.  Don't be a damn' fool about it, in the words of the late W C Fields ("if at first you don't succeed, try again : then give up, no sense being a damn' fool about it"), Some of you will know that we want to make a presentation to our party Treasurer, who has served, man and boy, for 40 years: he had to, none of the rest of us can count.  What would he like, I mused - how about a painting.  Oh yes, the evil troll replied, do me a Corbyn.  I should have said it there and then; no - no, and thrice no ... I'm not a Corbynite, I'm not in sympathy, and anyway I can't get at him to pose for me (he did come to the Isle of Wight, but nowhere near me - couldn't even get that right.... in fairness, he hadn't been asked).  I have struggled with this b. man's apparently ever-changing physical features - with the unique contours of his head, but most particularly with the planes of his face and the texture of his flesh, which of course you can't see in a photograph.   I got a preliminary sketch more or less right, but translating that into full size: no.  Hopeless; all I've got is massive paint build-up.  Maybe you find this sort of thing a doddle, but if you don't, save your paint, your blood pressure, your canvasses, get your subject to sit for you.  I now know why so many dutiful portraits of the late Queen are so completely off - and I'm afraid 99% of them are: the portraitist didn't have the lady to sit for them, and really none of them has ever got beyond the carefully coiffed hair and expertly applied make-up; even professionals like Lucian Freud, who did try to get that fugitive thing, a likeness, made her look as though she were chewing on a wasp - and HE had the real thing in front of him.... I've drifted from the point: we all know that portraiture is difficult, whether you have the real person in front of you or not: but portraits from a photograph - profit from my experience, and don't do it.  In the meantime, if anyone wants half a dozen failed portraits of a former leader of the Labour Party, you know where to come.  
My Profile pic16

Lewis Cooper

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 6309
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 2573
Posted
An interesting subject, that crops up frequently on these pages...usually with the words 'don't', and 'never', in there somewhere.  Portraiture is difficult, perhaps THE most difficult of the arts (?).   I've never attempted it from life, save for a couple of drawings at an art club...certainly never a painted portrait.  But I don't do portraits, I do cartoons and caricatures, if they are supposed to be someone well known I'd use a photo ref.  I think it IS better to attempt it from life.  IF you have the talent.  I used to watch the Sky Arts program on portraits, with a few exceptions, most people don't have the talent for it. I'm in the 'if it works for you, DO IT!' school of painting.  We all know that many, many great artists have and do work from photos. In this portrait of his mother, Van Gogh worked from an old black and white photo. Gauguin worked from a photo for this painting...he didn't get a great likeness, but maybe he wasn't bothered about that? Not portraiture, but Degas embraced photography to the full in many of his paintings... Even Cezanne experimented with this new-fangled photography... There are many instances in art where I'd thought artists wouldn't need to bother with photo reference.  I was wrong.  Here Picasso works from a photo he took... A favourite of mine, Toulouse Lautrec, actually said he preferred to work from photos... Modigliani, it's said, sometimes worked from photos, but preferred to work direct from a model.  Another who, in my innocence, I'd thought wouldn't have to bother...I say that as a big fan of Modigliani. Much further down the art scale, I mostly don't use photo reference but that's because of  my subject matter.  Sometimes I do...usually a selfie of me pulling a face.  I hold the camera too close to my face to get the fishbowl effect.  He's one I did some time back, I'm not after a likeness (the photo doesn't really look like me anyway...honest, Mum.)   I'm just using info in the photo to get something different from all the 'made-up' stuff. So I'm saying if using  photo reference, whatever you paint, helps you...use it!   Photo Reference arrived a 100 years ago and is here to stay. I see Robert's problem with that commission,  but I don't do commissions anyway. Be interesting to see what a portrait painter thinks.
With Sarah, Phil, Ellen, Rose the dentist, and the granddaughter whose name I forget.

Robert Jones, Napa

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 24795
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 8643
Posted
Yes, and I'm not a portrait painter, either - I hadn't seriously tried before, and - well now I know why.  The caption, as well as the drawing, on your last bit made me snort into my tea.  By the way, someone once told me (and I do so wish I'd listened) do a cartoon - if you can draw your subject as a caricature, then cut into it to get the exaggerated shapes er... unexaggerated, you stand a good chance of getting a likeness; advice I might yet take, but that's yet another canvas wasted if I made a dog's breakfast of it.   You've educated me, Lew, about the history here: I had no idea that these artists used photographic references (though - really of course, they would have done, wouldn't they?); I don't know that Toulouse was overly preoccupied with the accuracy of his facial features, but the van Gogh portrait is really very touching; I did start on a drawing of my mum, but it was too soon after her death and - well I just had to stop, you'll understand why.   Would I do it again - yes; I would; but only because I hate to be beaten.  

Alan Bickley

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 11888
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 4488
Posted
I’ve found Lew’s narrative very interesting! I also hadn’t realised that these artists used photos as reference!
My Profile pic16

Lewis Cooper

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 6309
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 2573
Posted
For someone who draws people all the time, I'm not too interested in portraiture.  Carl Larsson, a renowned portrait painter in his day, once spoke of the tyranny of getting a likeness.   Anybody who has tried portraiture will know exactly what he means.  You can fiddle and fiddle until the image looks as lifeless as a ham sandwich. I too really admire the Van Gogh portrait of his mother.  In truth, if the photo is anything to go by, it's not a great likeness.  In the photo she's more fuller of face.  But the portrait is much better than a likeness.  It's a heartfelt, loving memory of his mother.  It's everything that a painting does better than a photograph.  It sings with life whereas the photo is a bland uninspiring representation. This adds another string to this thread.  I've heard it expressed often.  It's the painting that counts, who knows or cares what the person looked like?  Another artist, when it was pointed out that his painting didn't look like the subject, said 'he will do in time.'  Can't remember who, sounds like the sort of thing Picasso would say. I entirely understand about your drawing of your mother.  There's a portrait I'd like to attempt, but it's entirely too soon, and may always be too soon.
Croft Castle drive, Autumn

Hilary Forbes

  • Forum Member +
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 118
Posted
That's very interesting to read about the above artists using photographs as a reference, thanks Louis that was very insightful. It makes me feel better about using photo references, if the masters did it then why not? If it works for us individually then use it, I think. 

Norrette Moore

  • Esteemed User
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 937
Posted
Interesting posts Lew.  As our art group finished up yesterday, till September, we set ourselves a challenge, to keep us at it, till then. To avoid the mañana problem.  A couple of us chose a portrait option. I hope to do at least one from a photo...working up the courage to do a selfie from a mirror.  

Martin Shaw

  • Forum Expert
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 391
Posted
Do what makes you happy. 
IMG_8857

Marjorie Firth

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 8043
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 2436
Posted
To me, a portrait has to have something more than just be a representation of the person. A good portrait captures the “ essence” of someone. If it’s someone you know well, then you will have that added knowledge and make use of a photo too for accurate likeness. If you are painting from a photo without having met the person then the result lacks something I think. A sitter conveys something of his/her personality, whether through mannerisms or gaze - it’s the ideal way to paint a portrait, and the hardest ( but more satisfying and enjoyable imo ). I’ll have to add the element of frustration to this too!

Edited
by Marjorie Firth

Martin Shaw

  • Forum Expert
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 391
Posted
To me, a portrait has to have something more than just be a representation of the person. A good portrait captures the “ essence” of someone. If it’s someone you know well, then you will have that added knowledge and make use of a photo too for accurate likeness. If you are painting from a photo without having met the person then the result lacks something I think. A sitter conveys something of his/her personality, whether through mannerisms or gaze - it’s the ideal way to paint a portrait, and the hardest ( but more satisfying and enjoyable imo ).
Marjorie Firth on 20/07/2024 19:04:01
Maybe right. Don’t think about anything really. When my work gets noticed I’m happy with that. Studying Who does what can influence your work. Won’t let it happen. The others do what they do and I do what I do, that’s the only comparison I need or ever want. 
IMG_8857

Marjorie Firth

  • Prestige User
  • Reputation: 8043
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 2436
Posted
I suppose it depends what kind of portrait you’re after. I’ve done quite a few “ portraits” from photos, some of people I knew, some not. The latter I view as practice, the more personal ones mean more to me.

Martin Shaw

  • Forum Expert
  • Last active:
  • Posts: 391
Posted
In my view, a great portrait happens by mistake, in fact, many mistakes that have worked,  plus intentional  creativity of course. It’s why we don’t understand why some people don’t like the picture that’s taken you eons to perfect. They like the one that was fast and furious.  Get them done and onto the next, period.  That’s the momentum you will always learn by and forget by. The magic happens in between. If you are not doing them, the rod for your back tightens. 
Showing page 1 of 2