[Frog]

Hi all,

just posting a thought really: it seems that amongst the digital art community photo reference is kinda frowned upon, this just seems crazy to me.

While I can't deny that drawing from life is the best option, in most cases this simply isn't practical. Photo reference strikes me as the next best thing, and I believe it is a good practice to hoard as much reference as is humanly possible on any subject you may be called upon to draw. It doesn't have to be followed slavishly but it should definitely be examined, how else can you be expected to reproduce how materials react to light/structures are built/textures interact with form etc... etc... etc...

I think that telling people who are perhaps inexperienced that drawing things without using reference is somehow better is misinformation, drawing and painting rely on observation just as much as imagination and while people are learning they should be taught that using reference is good.

How does everyone else feel about this?

[Lunatique]

Huh? I don't think there ever was a problem with using photo reference here at sijun. I think the problem was with copying photos exactly. Those are two different things completely.

[Zorglub]

Yeah I don't think there was ever a problem with references. Even the masters can't just pick up a pencil and draw anything out of their head. You need references to make stuff look real.

I think the problem was with tracing.

[Frog]

Maybe I just misunderstood, but I often see artists stating that they created pieces without using reference.

[Loki]

frog: ??? I've also seen other people ask similar things.
First of all - why would you restrict your way of working because of a forum.
Secondly: what is usually meant with a despicable use of photoreference is 'THRENODIZING' ... but I'm too lazy to write yet another explanation of what it is ... somebody had made such a great Sijun FAQ - but I forgot who it was ...

[Frog]

Hey Loki, I would never dream of letting anyone restrict my thinking I'm 32 and I do art for a living, like many others here including yourself. I was thinking that it might be bad information for beginners rather than for myself.

Threnowhat? I would be curious to hear what that's about!

[Frog]

Used the search button and found a couple of threads

threnodizing: tracing pictures/painting over photos without saying so

Ummm, still not convinced. There are many many examples of artists who proudly state that "no reference was used". That is not quite the same as saying "This was not traced"

[horstenpeter]

Well it's because doing a painting without any phot reference is a lot harder than when you're using reference....so that's why people are proud when they got a good picture done without reference.

[Lunatique]

Yeah, what horstenpeter said. It's just a way of patting one's own back.

[Loki]

Frog: thx for doing a search What are you doing for a living btw?

Anyway.

Sometimes one places different challenges in front of themselves. Not working with photographic reference is one, speed painting another. Yes, it's maybe also patting one's own back.
Regardless = I think of those different approaches as different arenas one moves in.
And there are different achievements for each area too. But a cool image is still a cool image - heck - even threnodizing could be respected if the individual does an amazing job of tracing reference so noone would doubt that it's original artwork. If that's what you want, haha.

I for one should use more photographic reference in my work - where the objective is to be as photoreal or filmreal as you can get. No client or studio cares what you did as long as the endresult is thoroughly satisfying.

So - once again, we're at point zero - good image is a good image - no matter how it's been achieved. Except if the creator is claiming he achieved the result differently than he actually did.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course

[eyewoo]

quote

Quote:

Well it's because doing a painting without any phot reference is a lot harder than when you're using reference

hmmm... that sounds like it makes good sense, but does it really... and does it make a difference whether one thing is harder than another? Just doesn't seem to me that is where the evaluation of good artwork should be centered.

[el scoono]

i think drawing and painting from your imagination is an important skill, it's certainly something that i've been working on. the ability to create an image (or part of an image) out of your head gives you greater freedom as an artist. it's not that something done without reference is better, it's just another tool that an artist can use. also, there are some artistic fields where this skill is almost a prerequisite. Concept artists, storyboard artists, comic book artists, and animators are usually very good at this.(although they do use tons of reference material as well)

[DeathJester]

I highly agree... Using your imagination is great.. But, some peoples don't go as far in-depth as others.. Being able to use a reference is a releif... When I just dont know how a hand should look, or a tree..shadow..etc.. I just bust out my digi camera take a quick snap shot.. look at it... make corrections in my art.. and go on.. Its saves me a lot of time.. and I think in todays world.. Time is money... And as Loki stated.. They dont care how you get it done as long as you the final peice is "done" and looks "film real". To add.. thats a good one Film Real.. hehe..

okay just had to add my 2 cents..

Just had to add a little more.. I checked out your site Frog.. and that same frog you painted.. I painted that exact one too from a reference picture on the web!! crazy coincidence

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: DeathJester ]

[elam]

There's definitely an attitude some people have toward's using photo reference that they don't have towards other sources, such as a live model.
I think it's because they believe that true talent means entirely from your head, otherwise you suck.
You hear this with a lot of musicians as well. "I never took any music classes, etc."

Maybe drawing from life is seen as more of an exercise, where using photos is seen as a crutch.

I took about eight semesters of life drawing as opposed to the mandatory four, strictly for the purpose of being able to draw from my imagination.

I erroneously believed that if I drew enough, I would develop a visual vocabulary that would overcome my lack of anatomical knowlege.
What I've come to realize over the last year, is that book knowlege is just as valuable. Becoming familiar with bone and muscle structure, and then augmenting that with photo reference has been enormously helpful.
I've filled more sketchbooks in that last year than I did in the previous 3.

[turnip]

it's vulgar, disgusting and wrong.
naaaah, nothing wrong with it unless you used reference and tried to pass it down as your own creation, OR you always have to rely on reference.

[Frog]

Loki: I'm an illustrator, for mags, advertising, kid's stuff etc... Some of my stuff is realistic, some is stylised. For realistic stuff I always use reference, accuracy is impossible without it. I actually think that not using reference is sloppy if realism is your goal, and also it will take you more time.

DeathJester: That frog was painted from a birthday card someone gave me, people always give me frog cards I wouldn't be surprised if that exact same photo was on the net though. In fact if you got it from somewhere that has good animal reference I would love to know where that was!

By the way, I'm not bashing drawing from your imagination either, a lot of my stuff is very stylised and drawn without ref. All I was pointing out is that I think I've felt an elitist tendency amongst some digital artists that using photo ref is bad, or somehow not as "difficult" as drawing from your imagination. IMO reference is a vital part of achieveing realism.

As for the challenge aspect, nothing wrong with that, if people want to set themselves a challenge then why not? The thing to remember is not to get too wrapped up in how "difficult" something is, but rather how effective the end result is. This isn't an endurance test...

In fact, for me photorealism is intended only either as a technical exercise (the frog on my site), or to fullfil client requests (the vehicles on my site). Most of the illustrators I really admire are a million miles from realism.

Thanks for your input though

[Sedone]

My thoughts on using photo reference is: Use it. For that matter, use real life references, comic book references, whatever. Honestly, if someone has talent and drawing ability, most people will recognize that (at least most of us who come here, anyway). Sometimes you need to rely a bit more on reference, sometimes not. Does it really matter? It's all problem-solving in the end. References help you solve those problems, unless you already know the answer, in which case you won't need them.

I think it's silly for people to say whether they used reference or not when it's obvious either way. Most of the time I see an artist say "No references were used", and I'm thinking, "Yeah, it looks like it." Again, I think most of us can tell.

[mythwarden]

I get the impression that people are insecure about not being able to paint well without reference. If you can do it, great, you tacked on an extra skill. If not, then who cares, it's not nececary to make a great image, though it does help.

I paint more often then not without reference, but that's cause what I paint at times can't be found in this world. An exaggerated pose that only an extremely skilled person could hold or a fantastic scene that there is no way in hell you could find reference pictures for.

Click on my name and you'll see the painting "Creed" Never have I seen a guy take that stance nor elves coming out of a wave like that...nor the wave lit magically at night...nor the half scene of sharks underwater.

Is it perfect? No, but what have we to judge it against that relates to it? That's the great part about painting from the mind. Showing people things that can only be found in your head.

There is no other way around creating static images without stretching reality with your imagination.

It's always a good idea to get reference for a painting after you've designed it, just to be sure things look as they should when related to things in this world.

Check out this link if your questioning the use of reference. Todd loves reference and highly suggests it. He's one of my favorite Illustrators and he's also a great guy.

(Look at his Q&A)

Todd Lockwood


-myth

Edit: Grammar

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: mythwarden ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

Heh, I've been known to write "no reference used" next to images I've posted here, but I'm not copping a attitude or anything...

I'm just a bit proud of myself for struggling for hours and hours with the anatomy and lighting, and finally getting it sorta halfway ok... I know I could do it MUCH better and quicker with reference, and if I don't use it there are usually 3 reasons why: it's not a paying job, it's a hard-to-find ref (aren't they all) - and it's a challenge to see how far I can get without them, after using them for over a decade.

[gArGOyLe^]

these days I'm drawing someone who was in my highschool.. I HAD to get the yearbook out because even though I can see her face in my mind VERY clearly I just cant get the shape of her nose and jaw correct. I dont think I did something wrong.. I could have easily made a caricature.. but I was going for realistic.