Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Painting From Photos
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
This question has probably been asked a million times by as many artists, but I was recently advised that I shouldn't rely on photos to produce paintings, because although I'll get a good start, I risk falling into a "trap" from which there is no escape. Drum roll please!
Just to clarify my position, I know that photos CAN distort images, fail to catch subtle colours, especially in shadows, miss some details altogether and sometimes give a washed out look. However, I can't climb Scafell Pike every time I want to paint its flanks or summit cairn. I'm not fast enough to paint a seascape at low tide and I'd bloody freeze to death if I stood out in the snow to paint the moon catching snowflakes.
I do take sketchbooks from time to time, but not usually a colour box of any kind. Often a scene will interest me and I simply take a photo, paying attention to composition, to use later if it turns out well. I also take several shots of the same scene. Additionally I LOOK closely at colour and attempt to get a feel for the light. Doesn't always work btw, but you get my drift.
SO, I'd be very grateful if you could offer an honest and candid opinion about the truth, as you see it, of the original assertion. Where does the balance lie, because I've seen some marvellous paintings/drawings that were produced from photos. Am I missing something?
I ask this in all sincerity, without a trace of sarcasm or wit.
All the best
Bri
Posted
Well i paint almost exclusively frommphotos. As a beginner it was easier and now its just usually far more convenient. Yes they change colours aetc etc but yhe best advice i ever receivd was to paint what i see not what i know is there. Well i can see a photo. The colours are somewhat irelevant. Most of the best photos are black amd white anyway.
I also picked up a style of painting to convey something other than absolute detailed fact. If I want my mountains ti be blue to convey cold, blue they shall be. When I paintd my black dog I knew I couldnt paint him black. So I didnt. Its still clearly a painting of my black dog.
So my advice, for what its worth, is that if painting from a photo works for you, do it...but dont slavishly try to copy either it or nature...use the medium to convey a bit of YOU.
HTH
David
Posted
I'll agree with David's ( and Marjorie's- edit) views and go a step further., in a "nothing new" sort of way. Whether you use photographs/images etc for ideas or no (and I do often) What's the point of painting a scene, person, object etc in ways that any camera can do exactly the same thing? This can/will be disgreed with, sure, that's fine, but unless what you paint is yours and in the way that you see it at any particular moment in time, then why bother painting at all.? Surely art (as in painting and drawing) is as uniquely personal as people are different? Every one of us is our own master and if our only aim is to be able to paint an exact reproduction of something that some one else has already done, then I repeat, why bother? Do such things as practise or excercise if that's what you wish, it can be great fun and rewarding as such, just the same as taking basics as far as you want to go and be still retaining originality as opposed to photographic imagery. Many of the works of old masters would be thrown out of a night school art class today if copybook painting and rule-following had been the aim. It wasn't, originality was. From a pure drawing/painting point of view, many ten year olds' could reproduce some of the stuff in museums or art gallery; it's personal viewer appeal rather than photographic skills that define greatness. Surely that's what art is all about, whether you use photographs of your holidays, your pet camel or a pot of flowers on your patio?
Amen. 😆
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
Well I'm going to be a bit controversial on this issue. Do you want a true interpretation or would you rather paint from the heart?
The argument against photo's seems to me to be that photos don't give a proper 3D image, can distort, can be short of detail and rarely reflect the true colours of the subject. Well if you need to rely on this kind of information to produce your work then photos are not for you.
Photos, however are the ideal starting block for those who only seek an initial subject idea (a starting block) and then want to paint from the heart without the influence of external factors.
I use photos all the time to get an outline/image of the subject (I never seem to have problems with things like distortion - they can soon be corrected). I then put the photo to one side and paint the scene using my own chosen palette and interpret the scene as I see it in my minds eye. The only exception to this is when I paint commissions and sometimes refer back to the photo to establish factors to ensure I represent the subject in a recognisable interpretation. For example it would be wrong to show a brick wall in colours other than those which reasonably represent brick. The client would soon pick up on this but, paradoxically, in my experience, would be quite happy with my interpretation of foliage form and even foliage colours (providing the foliage is not the key subject of course) which may be totally different to reality. Ah, that's artistic licence they will say with a smile.
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
Have you ever been pleased you asked a question!?
Marvellous replies, folks, and just the sort of experienced analysis I was hoping for. Thank you very much indeed.
I tend to use photos for much of my work but only as references. There are exceptions, of course, but even then I'm adjusting the palette and light to suit my intent as I go. The question arose over my recent pastel paintings of South Shields beach at low tide, where I was almost going for portraiture accuracy with my initial sketches. They ARE virtual copies, but the colours, light and overall mood differ considerably, at least they do to my eye. I also used critical measurements to ensure the ratios remained true, and I suppose that could be viewed as a tad mechanical, but the rest was drawn by eye. Once the drawing was in place the fun began and off I went into Briland.
I enjoyed all your replies and appreciate the time, effort and thought that went into each of them. I found myself nodding along to everything, and particularly enjoyed the slight differences in approach expressed by all. Some astute and considered advice there. I owe you one. (each)
Best
Bri
Posted
This topic has become extremely heated in the past with some thinking their way is the only way and is superior to others.
You may be aware of the best selling British artist Jack Vettriano who despite his popularity is not featured in any art galleries (the two fold reasons are the sexually charged nature of some of his work but also that he works extensively from photos... not that his work lacks anything because of it in my opinion)
Everyone always says working from life is superior, and I don't doubt it though it has taken me several months to learn techniques compatible with life drawing - I am but a novice and my first few months I was using grids to help me but since doing the Bargue course I have dispensed with them.
Photos clearly have some practical advantages... the bowl of fruit will rot, things will be moved, the sitter cannot sit indefinitely and light may change... the photo however is static and unchanging. Also the photo may inadvertently pick up some magic...
I have been too busy of late for art of any kind, but my last painting was done from a photo (and forgive that it is my third attempt at using oil paints so I am not fully proficient) but I was pleased with the result.
There are a few elements I am very pleased with... the hand for instance enveloped in light, I would not have thought to paint it in such a way... the background being out of focus (I didn't slavishly copy but just dabbed in some greens) these were inspired by the photo.... having been gifted such features I have learned some tricks which I may be able to utilize when I eventually get along to painting from life.
There are a few elements I am very pleased with... the hand for instance enveloped in light, I would not have thought to paint it in such a way... the background being out of focus (I didn't slavishly copy but just dabbed in some greens) these were inspired by the photo.... having been gifted such features I have learned some tricks which I may be able to utilize when I eventually get along to painting from life.
Posted
I must agree with Michael. I always use photos for my work, perhaps elements of a few different photos but why ever not?? There are quite a few, lets say, snobs in the art world, some are even on here! Oh no cannot copy from a photo!!! Poppycock! If I asked someone to paint my portrait I would expect it to look like me. If I wanted a painting of my dog I want that painting to look like my dog! If I draw a flower, it has to look like a flower, not the horrible blobs I see sometimes in the gallery. You cannot draw the detail of a flower without close up photography!
I've argued about this before and I don't care what anyone else thinks, I will continue to use photos, of my own or from other sources.
Posted
Good question, good answers.
There's a painting by Cézanne (Melted Snow at Fontainebleau) - and a print of the photograph he used to paint from; presumably he wasn't keen on the cold. Point is, he had seen the site of his painting - he just wanted a reminder of the forms and features, and his painting cut out all the more fiddly twigs and branches and reduced it to basics. So you're in good company using photographs, and I bet most of us do and have, ever since photography was developed. I remember discussing this with a landscape painter - he did use photographs, but 9 times out of 10 insisted they should be his own, or that at least he knew the territory .... he wouldn't have painted from my photographs (and didn't, even though I offered him one). I admit to being less pure-minded - I have used others' photos, usually only when I know the area, and the photographer, well: I should have some trouble rationalizing that, but I think it comes down to the fact that knowing the photographer I also know their work, and trust their vision or at least feel I can be at one with it.
It's important - as has been said - not to copy from photographs: not to rely on their interpretation of colour, and I completely agree that a black and white image is better to work from; it's hard to avoid being influenced by the colours in a coloured photograph. But provided you're not a slavish imitator of a photographic image; provided you know that it's better to look at your subject yourself, and paint it direct, the fact is that if we restricted ourselves only to painting that which stood directly in front of us at the time, many of us would paint almost nothing - so use photos as an aid; or (shhh) make things up - I often do; a good many of my paintings are based on a place, but that doesn't mean you'd recognize it from the painting if you went there.
Posted
I certainly didn't want to open a can of worms, more garner some thoughts and opinions. Never say never is my motto, and some art forms benefit greatly from a detailed photo. I completely agree with the notion that photos can contribute to the overall effect but don't necessarily have to have the final word, so to speak. It was the idea of photos being represented as a "trap" that spurred me to ask. When I read all the replies, one after the other, I see a balanced point of view that helps to clarify the situation very well. That some people vary, and offer a different perspective seems normal to my way of thinking. However, when something is put out there with such an assertive voice, IE "a trap", I'm left more than a bit curious.
Bri
Posted
My personal circumstances do not allow me to to paint in the fresh air, or even to spend more than a couple of hours in the "studio" aka house. I have no option but to paint from photographs, but I no more slavishly follow photographic detail than I would try and capture every detail in fresh air.
Posted
If you were to copy a photograph down to the last detail - and logo - you may find that there IS a rulebook; the law of copyright. But of course, if you took the photo, or gained permission from the copyright holder, no: no problem.
But my comment for one was more about landscape painting - and also applies to portraiture if you're basically just copying from, say, a photograph of a person in a magazine or newspaper. It's the ownership of the image, not the practice of painting from photos, where legal issues can lie. There are those who simply don't approve of painting from photos and would have us all go out into the field, or up the mountain, or under the ocean, before we presumed to paint any scene featuring those subjects. But I don't think these extremes are represented here. It's still generally true, though, that if you CAN work from life, you generally get a better picture out of it than if you always paint from photos. Apart from anything else, you just see more - colour, and tonal variation, that even a good colour photo obscures.