Photographic perfection

“Are traced or projected photos an acceptable way to draw?” NO!

Rick I agree. Trace ‘n’ paint is quickly becoming the new way to paint, as if painting photographically is the aim of being an artist – which of course it is not! Photographs provide visual facts – paintings should provide feel, passion and impressions.

I couldnt agree more with you Robert. True skill and genuine creativity is not copying. Referencing a photo is fine, but the art is found in the human interpretation.

It all comes down to conveying ‘creative depth’. Traced art demonstrates a boring ‘shallowness’ of creativity while ‘free-hand’ art stirs up the beautiful muck at the bottom.

Leave your camera at home and go out with a sketchbook and interpret what you see. Study the shapes, relationships, values, colors and perspective. When you get the essence down on paper you have something to work with. you can take photos as reference but don’t copy that photo. Camera’s lie, they don’t tell the truth. So work from a sketch, enlarge it to the size you want and then paint. You will be pleasantly surprised with your resulting work.

Like all “tools” in the hands of humans, from fire to the internet, photography can be used for good or bad. We are all victims of the dilemma of being human. Always be aware of this life dichotomy.

While I am skeptical of tracing and painting for photorealism, I use photography in other ways, as creations in themselves and sometimes paint them. I also did a series years ago where I did trace shapes (not specific objects) and am not at all ashamed of this series. Photography is a wonderful tool. It just depends on how you choose to utilize it.

Projecting or tracing an image onto your canvas to paint is akin to a Pop singer lip syncing someone else’s voice or using an auto tuner to smooth out their pitch. Sorry folks, the skill of drawing what we see is what separates the Visual Artist from the wanabees so learn to draw or take up knitting.

The major problem with using a photograph slavishly is that the camera is monocular, one-eyed, with concomitant distortions. But a populace accustomed to such distortions is often not aware of them when presented with such “art”. This does not mean photographs cannot be art. I just question the sense of reproducing them by hand. As for the question “Does not the best art arise from slight imperfections and personal ways of rendering?”, the best art is that which evokes emotions and wonder in the observer. How and how well it is made are secondary usually and unimportant in the greatest art.

I travel a lot and in many of my paintings that involve architecture, I use a photo. In all cases I have to, not only straighten the walls but correct the perspective. While the perspective may appear correct, it never is. Dallas, TX

Just want to point out that a camera has only one vantage point and lens, and humans are binocular. We see slightly around an object, and therefore art based on how we see, e.g. when painting a portrait, is very different, and more real, than what a photograph records. Painting based on photographs almost always has an “unreal” quality about it. It says something about the state of mind of our culture that we have gotten to think that the images provided through photography depict “reality.” What with all the handheld distractionary devices, many have simply stopped really seeing at all.

I use the photograph as a guide…to literally spend time at distant subjects can be expensive and sometimes inconvenient, so I take pictures. Sometimes many to remind me of the sense of place. I then use an inexpensive software to manipulate …crop (sometimes over many weeks) several of the favorite subjects. Then I move to canvas. I use that manipulated work to give me a few lines and proportions. I place the darks usually first and then from there only occasionally refer to the photo. Most university classes acknowledge the opportunity to use newer technology as art tools. And history will tell the story of what dynamics this will offer. Many of us are not masters and will never be. And the occasional reminder of needing to paint from our “being” is always in our creative spirit’s best interest.

While everything you say about depending on a camera is true, there are many ways to edit out the exactitude of a picture. As someone who is physically limited, I am often dependent on pictures I take, especially while painting in the winter months. One can draw on tracing paper, cut around the major objects and arrange them in a manner that speaks to one’s own heart. The same with color. Why would I want to reproduce the color of a photo? The emotion of art often lies (especially in landscape) in pushing the colors way beyond “real.” But none of that negates the value of having a photo from which to start. It’s a reference tool, just like any other.

I do think there are two other things to consider when using photographs, especially when tracing them. As in anything, a lack of understanding of something will produce strange and artificial results. I include using photographs exclusively as a means to produce art. Used in conjunction with live drawing and field notes and a solid understanding of composition, I find that photographs are really very helpful. But, those three things I mentioned should come first. They really are the building blocks of some good art, in my opinion and limited experience. The second thing I would mention is how photographs can help. I always look for the upside of things and photos and their foibles are no exception. As an example, they are great tools for learning about contours, different shapes, and a reduction of light and shadow to just 2-3 values. They can also teach you to gather up values and consolidate them. Lastly, they can teach you about flatness versus volume. All of this is of course in conjunction with what I mentioned above-there is no substitute for experience.

This subject can be argued ’til hell freezes over, however, I feel the root of the issue lies in the definition of ART. The use of projected images and tracing does not involve perception or self expression. In fact, it is a kin to plagiarism. I have tried tracing a photo and felt guilty with the completed painting (although it was technically excellent), it was not mine. Using photographs is often necessary, as one paints what and how one views it (perception), but tracing a subject verbatim may be considered skill rather than art. Technology can work hand in hand with artful creation, but should not replace it. I recently took a stone carving workshop at Haliburton School of Art. Our instructor was a purist, and insisted we use hand tools only. After the third day, I was tired and frustrated and switched to power tools. Was my work hand carved? When a person is stuck, photo projection might help, but should not be the foundation of the creation.

Art (and lower case ‘art’) isn’t the tool, it’s what an artist does with the tool. Cameras, chisels, paint, are all tools. I have a Marchi photograph (Boston, MA) that is unquestionably art. (and, for the record, ‘camera’ means area, space, room – not photographic tool.)

I have always used photography in conjunction with my art, not to be a slave to the photos, but to use them as a guide, a reference, a stepping off point for what I would like to incorporate into my art. My photos are never “willy-nilly”. My photography is taken as seriously as my painting–my other art form. For me photography is a form of reference used whether itis for a hyper-realistic rendering, an abstract or whatever I’m up at the time I want to create art. I volunteer tutor Intermediate/Advanced Drawing at a senior program where I use photos as samplings, examples of great art and to encourage them to find what they like out there and copy it. Because we dissect photographs and practice what they see, my students from gone from a 3/4 to a 10 in their drawing skills. They learn as the old masters did. I encourage them to study what is before them and ask, “What am I seeing?” “How did they accomplish that?” “What am I not seeing?” You can’t pull this out of thin air. I feel that the only time using photography is “wrong” is when you use the photographs that are not yours and fully confiscate every aspect of it and claim it as yours. Plagiarism is plagiarism. Use what you need as a guide, use work that you admire as a catalyst for your own work. You are not likely to duplicate verbatim someone else’s particular work. You just may learn to be a better artist though, learning more about composition, value, color, etc. Go for it, expand your knowledge and practice until your hands hurt and your eyes tear up. Photography is a tool. Your brain in a tool. Use them both together create and learn something new, something better. You can only grow as an artist.

I could not agree with you more. IF you are photo-dependent, then your artistic nature/abilities suffers greatly. I know a couple of artists who project their picture on a canvas, trace it meticulously and then proceed to paint by numbers, maybe adding a few things on their own like a tree branch or a blade of grass. They show their works in a gallery, who has no idea how the work was produced, put a big $ on it and appeal to viewers that like their bright colors and precision realism to decorate their living rooms, matching their couch or rugs. This makes them a successful artist in their minds, because they have sold a copy of a picture and the money is their ultimate goal. I confess this type of thing makes my skin crawl and I want to out them any chance I get. I feel as though they are debasing myself and my fellow artists, the whole world of art with their hidden lies. Yes, they have developed skill but without a soul, or artistic bent of any kind. But that skill does not give them the right to infringe on the honest souls of art and artists.

It’s the old question are you a thinker who paints or a painter who thinks? Are they assembling the image as they go along or are they working towards a preconceived image or object before them? Most artists use tools when they need to depict an image. Trace an image on a mirror gives you the notion of perspective or look through a string or wire grid. The Camera Lucida and Camera Obscura, projectors, digital cameras, film cameras are some more mechanical/optical devices. Sight sizing, holding up you paintbrush to measure proportions etc., etc. All things to help an artist render a counterfeit of the object they are depicting. Colour theories, design and composition, formal art training, workshops, or doodling. Sable paintbrushes, or hogs hair, artists tube colours or house paint etc., again all affect the artists depiction. The tools being use have little to do with the art that is created, it’s the operator.

I use a lot of photos in my work as I am asked to paint loved ones, most of whom are dead. I prefer taking many photos of a living subject and then use them as a tool to create a portrait. The digital camera is a great tool, you can take many, many, photos of someone and then cull and combine them and decide on which ones are the best, even getting the clients opinion with a rough pencil drawing. Portrait artist <a target=_blank href=”http://quote.robertgenn.com/auth_search.php?authid=1815″ title=”Art Quotes by Mary Cassatt”>Mary Cassatt</a> would go to the clients home with pencil and paper do many rough sketches. Then she would do several preliminary oil sketches and the client would then be allowed to pick out the one they liked. She would finish it to their satisfaction and the rest of the oil sketches were hers to finish as she saw fit. I discovered this when I went to a show opening in Orlando and saw a original painting done by Mary. It was incredible. As I was thumbing through a book about her and noticed several paintings very similar to the one hanging on the wall, the curator then explained to me how she did it. She lived most of her life in Paris, France and she would then ship them to New York or Philadelphia for sale. Mary was also a damn good business woman.

To me the key to this issue is, as you put it: “For the painter, photography is a brilliant tool and a cruel master.” This brings it all down to one’s life-state. Am I enslaved to this photographic image or able to explore its painterly possibilities? I find that asking myself this question is a good rule of thumb when using photos as reference. Another is to only use photos I’ve taken myself on the principle that this is a visual prompt about an actual memory. For me the inner image of what I’ve experienced has to haunt me just as much as the photographic image. An image processing tool like Paintshop can be very useful too as a way of knocking photo references about, reducing their photo quality and enhancing whatever compositional qualities are latent in them as reminders of the raw visual response that led me to record the experience. Digital reference can then become a wonderful sketchbook tool. It’s curious that a brilliant photograph can often lead to a poor painting whereas a flawed photo can become a good jumping off point for painting. Some of my artist heroes were far from shy about using a camera of some kind. Vermeer, Degas, Sickert and Hockney come to mind initially. Each of them made paintings that could only be paintings, pieces with real presence that are far removed from copied photographs.

The only time I use the projector is if I have a commissioned wall to paint and don’t want to spend all the time sketching and want to get it done. Now upon saying that, the best, very best painting is done by sketching free hand or on the grid. And the grid for a time I thought was cheating. What do you think? And the Old Masters are the best because they did their work by hand and the imperfections etc. made their work the best. Or the best from our point of view. The projector gives you “pretty pretty” but not that wonderful artistic paintable look.

I attended a watercolor portraiture class where the instructor had us trace our photographs onto watercolor paper. Her defense: we already knew how to draw well and this was a painting, not a drawing class; some of the masters used a variety of projection devices or had students do their drawing; and even with our exercise to start the workshop (we were each given a projector-traced image of her grand-daughter), each of our paintings were significantly different because of our painting styles and ability. Not sure whether her defense of using a projector was convincing, I couldn’t help but observe that unskilled artists were no better with a projected image than if they’d drawn it themselves. Skilled artists’ paintings from the same image were vastly different from each other’s; it was difficult to attribute to the identical drawings. That said, I prefer to draw with paint — not with pencil. I was trained to “sketch” with ink, or with a monotone palette — not with pencil or pen. (Clearly, I’m not a photo-realist artist.) There are times, however, when the image of our delight is ephemeral: fleeting light; while traveling on a train; moving young subject. In those cases, I find a photo reference (with a capital R) a gentle and whisper to my artist’s memory, eye and intuition. In the case of painting what no longer exists (deceased persons, landscapes and buildings that no longer exist), it helps to learn as much as possible about the personality of the person or place. Regardless, I prefer photos as a potential reference point, not a replacement.

No need to get uptight about the camera and its uses in art and for other uses (like monitoring). Far more wonderful and controversial devices are coming.

“Photographic perfection” is an oxymoron. Photography captures a camera lens image but cannot be perfect. Only the perfect lens of our eyes adjusts for size and depth: if you are going to use photos you must learn foreshortening and how to compensate for distortion. This isn’t an embarrassed anonymous email disparaging photo references but secretly using them. I have never traced or projected an image, but using photographs as reference is not the same comparative crutch. There are valid reasons to use digital photographs. Can we please admit that?

Another perspective….does the art evoke “emotion” from the viewer? I can really feel joy looking at a panoramic photo of the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite, or a bird, etc. or a beautiful painting of the same subject. If a person who has one of my paintings on the wall tells me that everytime they look at it, they feel “good”, then so do I.

There’s nothing wrong with working from photos, I do it all the time. I see no difference in painting outdoors or painting from photo reference. One still has to get out there and take them. As long as you know how to use photographs sensibly and realise that the camera does not always tell the truth, then they will work for you.

I think an artist should use everything available to them to create their work. Paint with a stick, paint in Plein Air, use a photo, what’s the difference? It’s what is in us (our own invention) that makes the painting sing.

Sharon and Russ, well said! Create a good’un!

Defrinitely a great topic for discussion. I spent 10 years of my life behind a camera and find that once again, I will repeat an old adage. “A camera has only one eye….and no brains” Cameras are everywhere these days but I see $1500 cameras slung around peoples necks and it is set to “Auto”. Speak to some people about f-stops and depth of field and one is met with a somewhat blank stare. Knowing how to use a camera to its utmost can bring all the qualities of the outdoors into the studio…. But it was the old masters who showed the photographer what lighting is all about….Rembrandt for example.

I just had this conversation the other day with a visitor to our gallery and explained that some artists use projections in order to maintain proper proportions in their paintings. I am not a painter but a photo enthusiast and my take on this is that for those who are challenged by creating proper proportions, a projector can be useful. An artist can first draw their imagery on acetate then project it on a larger scale without losing the imperfectness of the original drawing. As for others who use photos/projectors, I think all tools available, be they brushes, scrapers, cheesecloth or whatever should be entertained as artistic possibilities to use at the artist’s discretion. As in photography, what really matters is not so much the method, but the reaction a piece elicits from the viewer, both positive and negative. If it stirs, it works. And as it is said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

It is natural for humans to collect things. Photos by smartphones are the most brilliant collection media of our age. Humankind is readily able to preserve life itself–and share it–and it’s by and large free.

I am so tired of this discussion. But it is an accepted fact of life. I don’t have to directly deal with it, so I can not give it much thought. I saddens me people are doing it and they will never feel the joy and wonder of creating something from the heart. It is the way of the world these days. My productive days are numbered and I will go to my grave drawing the old fashioned way knowing I have accomplished something I can call my own produced from my ability-without aids. In the end, it only matters to me.

I completely understand why the thought of using photos rather than an ‘old-fashioned’ hand tool such as pencil or charcoal depresses you Rick, but the idea that employing a camera instead in the process of capturing a moment or a subject results in non-creative heartless work is simply not true. As a painter who specialises largely in equestrian and canine portraiture, where accuracy is vital, I find the camera is an absolutely vital element in my toolbox. My subjects are never going to pose in the same position for hours on end (although of course I do also draw and sketch them from life) and approaching commissioned portraits of animals in the same way as one would for a humans is just thoroughly impractical. However there are several important provisos in use of photos as a basis for this kind of work… The first is that you need to know the nature of your subject intimately, not only by having a thorough understanding of anatomy and the way an animal moves, but also via actual one-to-one physical contact. I’m not entirely sure why this should be the case, but I’ve found over the years that when one ‘meets’ a horse or a dog and have had eye and hand contact with it, some kind of indefinable transfer of intimacy takes place and magic then happens back in the studio via one’s brush, resulting in a portrait which truly captures ‘soul’, even though it has been made from a ‘flat’ photo. For this reason alone I always insist on using my own images whenever possible. If the subject is on another continent however, or worse, deceased, then I am forced to consider the suitability of available photographic references VERY carefully. I often say ‘no’ at this point in fact as poorly lit, badly composed amateur snapshots are almost always a non-starter. The second most important proviso is pretty much the same thing – you have to be a darned good photographer, with as much technical knowledge of how to use your camera as a tool to achieve your creative aim as you have with your brush and paint… in other words, you must be an artist with both. So I don’t see my camera as an ‘aid’ or a crutch in anyway. It’s a fully integrated and vital element to my work as a painter. And yes, I confess I do trace a rough outline when I’m transferring to canvas, but the creativity has already begun long before this and continues right up to the point where I add my signature. All my work comes straight from my heart I hope!

It is all too easy to see the world through a viewfinder and not really see.

What I have found with “amateur artists”…is like what you brought up: legs too short for either people or horses…why? Cause when the camera is “titled” to get objects “below” the eye level, the camera being further from the subject, also become smaller… I feel a camera can be used to shorten layouts, or “layins” when preparing a painting, but by no means is “CORRECT” more important than “PASSION”…as you pointed out with Van Gogh’s work, or many others thru the years. PASSION IS the only reason I feel for any artist is spend their time, painting! Otherwise, just get the camera out!