Painting from a photo digital or traditional

Hey all, This is a topic I have a hard time with. I keep wavering between feeling like a snob and feeling totally validated. Either way, I do not like paintings that are a copy of a photo!!

I am talking about when you have 1 photo and you only use that photo as your reference for a painting. I think this is more common in the digital painting, or oekaki especially. Here are my issues with this.

1. You are not showing any originality with the piece. Your painting copies the photo's composition, subject matter, and depending on how realistic, it could be that none of the painting came of your own originality.
2. It is unnatural to depict photography effects in a painting, like depth of field with a blurred background/foreground .. lens flare, etc.
3. It doesn't make sense, what are you expressing? what message are you sending? That you like the photographer's work?
4. It may show your physical artistic skill, but it doesn't help you grow as an artist, expressing your own ideas and thoughts.

Of course we do not all live by things that we like and would like to paint. But there is a proper way to go about this .. by looking at lots of photos and references, getting an overall sense... studying closer and picking out details here and there that you would like to include or base off of. Just make the work your own!

Also I do not see a lot of examples of this on Artician which is great, and refreshing. It is on every oekaki site I've been to however, which bugs me now so much that I have a hard time going although I love oekaki.

your thoughts?

I agree mostly, though I "copy" from photos with either digital or graphite quite a bit; the difference is that it's always a study, and unless I'm adding a lot (either adding through brushstrokes or adding more content) I always just call it a study. The purpose is to hone my rendering skills, get me more familiar with colour, light etc. So for me, this image would be a study since it was my intention to observe it carefully and accurately for the prpose of expanding my skills, whereas this image would be a standalone piece since the reference for the face was not followed exactly and many elements are added.

What I can't stand is copies of famous people that are intended to be standalone pieces rather than studies. When I say something is a "study" it's a given that the major legwork of the image creation was done by the model and photographer, and all that's mine is the technical ability of copying it (along with whatever stylistic imperfections of mine that get meshed into the piece). When you create a picture of someone famous.... well first of all since most celeb photographs are either lit unnaturally or photoshopped to hell and back it's not even a very good source for learning. But what really tickles me the wrong way is how someone is riding on the name of the person in the image...

Anyways there's a fine line between copying a photo and a study from life. Granted, more of the composition and creation of depth is left up to you when you have a live model in front of you, but at the end of the day the same skills are necessary to "copy" this person from life as they are to "copy" them from a photo.

So yeah. Long way to say I agree With maybe a slight exception to this:



I would argue that an artist is one part physical skill, one part creativity. Once you unlock the secrets of how things really look through hard work and skill developing, you are almost always more creative for it, since you have expanded upon your visual library. It could give you the tools necessary to properly express your own ideas and thoughts. Though I agree that it's still not a creative, standalone piece and there are plenty of better ways to strengthen the ol' creativity muscles.

I think that some artists, do use photo's as reference more so to enhance they're skill, It goes well by saying.. if you copy a bit of text out of a textbook so many times, You are going to remember that bit of text.
I sometimes see that, in terms of this too.

Now what if you are using your own photographs to do the pieces, does that change your thoughts on it?

That's how I paint a lot of my flowers.

I do not like it when people copy other pieces, but as a reference, i don't see any issue with it. We all had to start somewhere, and that's how I started.

I am not sure of my opinion on that. When I first realized that complete copying struck a negative chord with me, I looked into my own photos, and actually I painted a 4'x4' canvas of 3 monkeys off my photo from the zoo. and I changed the background, but there wasn't much of that visible.

Then people would talk to me about the painting, and I realized that I had no purpose for it. There was no message I was trying to convey... not shedding light on an important subject... not portraying a story... and heck, I don't even like monkeys. It made me feel very empty and lost, and I spent a while after that searching for a subject I could paint that would establish more of a connection between me and the viewer. Lately I've been delving into the stories from my head, and I'm happy with that communication.

But it's not like I'm judging you for your flowers either. I can appreciate that, because of the enjoyment one gets from looking at the complex simplicity of a flower. And that is a genre of art all on its own I guess. .... But, still... I dunno. I can't help thinking that if I saw a painting of a flower with a blurred out green background I'd be repelled by that. I'd prefer maybe a solid contrasting color background, or even sky, or perhaps something that juxtaposes with the beauty of the flower. To add a bit more voice to the piece you know? But then again, painting flowers isn't something one does to send a message, but just to enjoy the beauty of the flower. I guess I need to come to terms with that.

Depends on what you mean by painting 'from' a photo, painting over a photo I'm against, 100%, theres no way you learn anything from it.

Painting from a photo, as a reference, however is what most painters will do more or less in their early stages, it helps teach the eye to see colour for what it IS, not what you THINK it is, and also helps to capture depth easily, I myself work a lot from references, and use them as a basis for where to put things, so to speak, I do not trace, colour pick or in anyway touch the reference, however I do recreate it.

With the latter, I learn a lot, how to properly see colour, how to suggest detail where there is none, and how to build an image compositionally and technically, and that's learning, no matter what anyone says.

Working solely from reference isn't recommended, however using it as a basis for learning and for studying, you'd be a fool not too in my opinion, theres no rule saying you can't learn via photographs as references, so do so

Well, not all of my painting are of flowers, just like not all of my photos are of flowers. When I did paint them, I would change the background, normally into something abstract.

And taking pictures of flowers is not my favorite thing, I just had snagged a new camera and had never been to the S.A. botanical gardens, and was in awe of some of the flowers. Now that I moved to Upper Lower Michigan and we just had 5 months of winter, and it was my first ever. (South Texas= 11 Months of summer) So I am hoping that when we go to all the festivals this spring/summer I'll get some other photos going on.

I see your point of view, I think i share it. It lacks may of the elements that makes art "good"... My thought has always been that if the photo is nice enough, let it stand on its own, as a photo. Using photo references is one thing, but copying a photo exactly is just a bit boring to me. (to create and to view) Its an interesting way to challenge yourself for sure, to try something out, but I think its more like an exercise.

I think people have a hard time jumping from learning to expressing so they hold on to things they're comfortable with.

of course that doesnt apply to everyone, but a lot of the people I've tutored have had that problem.

I think it largely matters on result. If the result has something additive; if it is stylized to a point where it clearly goes from the source material elsewhere, then that is fine.

Mimicry, while not without its benefits, generally lacks a creative spark.

I think that using the "copy" method is a way to hone your skills. Then after you feel comfortable you can change the way you depict a certain reference photo or other work from another source. This goes for traditional AND digital.