Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Painting from life
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
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I'm reading .. John Yardley a personal view .. I've always admired the mans work and i was fascinated to hr about his use of gouache and tinted papers in his watercolour work ; he also had very interesting views about artists and their views as regards working from photos , John worked from life for twenty years until a short trip to Venice and time constraints meant he brought a camera and sketch pad and used these photos and sketches for the finished paintings which he said were as goods any he ever painted directly from life .
Here is what he said about some artists who never use a camera ....I'm always amazed to read of professional artists who claim they never use a camera , for these are the people best able to take account of its drawbacks and make good use of its benefits .
Instead they make a virtue of the inconveniences they face by their refusal to exploit such accessories .
An experienced artist I also should be able to work from a photo as he /she has vast experience in working both outdoors and indoors so the camera is used as merely a tool , there seems to be a view amongst a fair proportion of artists that to use a photo reference is somehow not cricket and should be avoided ; what do fellow artists think ?
Posted
I occasionally paint from photos, although I prefer to paint the subject itself.
There are drawbacks to painting photos.Shadows are too black,especially if the photos taken in bright sunshine. There's a tendency to paint too much detail. Prominent feature in the middle distance look less significant on a photo than when you look at them in real life.
Having said all that, I think experienced artists have the knowledge to compensate for these drawbacks.
I know this is a separate subject, but one thing I can't do well is paint a picture using sketches I've previously made. I think you need a strong visual memory to do it well - I'd rather use a photo..
Posted
I paint outdoors whenever I can but have no qualms about using photos, either in conjunction with my plein air sketches and studies or as a reference in themselves. I do however find that when using a photo alone as a reference I refer to it less and less as the painting progresses until I am painting from instinct (presumably informed by years of memory). Similarly I often paint landscapes from my imagination without any reference or by using a photo for only the basic composition. By and large the less I rely on references the better the final result. Probably says a lot about my tendency to follow a scene or photo too closely if its available.
Posted
I don't mind either way but my preference has always been to work from life when possible. Keora is so right, photo's tend to have very dark shadows but with enough experience this shouldn't really cause any problems. Used solely as a reference they are a great help but not as a means of copying, that is just not good and always shows in the end result, I expect that most of us can spot a copied photo a mile away, yuk!.
When I'm out in the field so to speak, I see things differently, my work also takes on a kind of urgency which seems to relate favourably in the end result, far more pleasing usually as there is less detail added, detail which can and usually does destroy what could have been a promising piece. The light is so much more interesting also out of doors and of course you are able to see colours as they are and not distorted as on a photo, however, with enough experience any decent artist can overcome that.
Posted
The important thing here is that any photos that you use are your own. In my view there are far too many copies of others photos in the gallery.
However I find it a great frustration that nearly all my portraits from life have a bored look on their faces as they have been sitting there for up to half an hour at a time. A photo of an expression would help me a lot, as well as show me how the light fell at one particular point in time as opposed to the changing light of the real situation. I some times find that taking a snapshot of the model helps if I want to work on the picture later. For example, if the light was very strong and the shadows very dark, by tweaking the photo, I can increase the light in the shadows and see, what I could not see at the time. So my experience of photos being too black, is the reverse of what others are saying here.
Posted
I tend to use photo's all the time, especially with my flower paintings. I like to take my own pics if possible and can take them from a few different angles to get the 'feel' of the flower. Otherwise copyright free photos are plentiful if you look for them and there are some wonderful photographers out there who take marvellous photos. If copying from someone's book as an exercise, I always quote that person. Working from photos enables me to pick up my brush whenever there is a quiet moment and not worry if the light is right etc.