photo referance help or a hindrance??

[the_ultimate_evil]

this is something I've seen get a lot of flack on line. there are some who see people who do it as real artists, where as some admit to using it quite a bit. what brought this up was a few sites bashing the likes of alex ross, greg land and greg horn

now i will admit i have used photo reference for my work in the past, to help with anatomy, layout or posing or to represent someone from real life, it was something i was taught in school though maybe it's is due to my link to photography in my art, i don't know

now i can understand if the piece is simply just copied and nothing is done with it to distinguish it from the source then this is wrong, but recently i've seen a backlash on any artist who uses photo reference

so what's your opinions

 

[imagine12]

If your good enough to properly use photo reference consistently, that takes skill. The trick is not just copying it but using a real life reference to create something imaginary or distinct. Where I might find it most useful is lighting, however it's also a time saver when working out a tricky angle. I think if you use reference enough there will come a point when you won't need it. As for Greg Horn, I don't like his stuff at all, he's one of those cases where I think he'd be totally inept without his photoshop.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Yeah, I'm using photos right now so that I can get the human anatomy down.

 

[KAD]

I don't use any refrence for figures or costumes.

Using 1 for 1 photo reference is a commercial or pop art pice while non-reference is IMO a bit more creative or artistic if you will

 

[Syncos]

I find photo reference very helpful. and I use it quite often. Mainly for posing or perspective. I think it depends on what you want to do. It's a lot easier to get a more realistic image with a reference than it is from your head.

In a case like KAD here, photo reference would redoubtably be a hindrance. His perspective and posing it's almost always extraordinarily dynamic. There's no way he could get photo reference to match that, and it would hold him back.

Myself on the other hand, I find it's really hard to stick to realistic human proportions without some sort of reference materials, as I'm essentially a cartoonist by nature. I'm used to simplifying things soo much that I need reference to give me a more realistic tone.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying it can be helpful, but should not be the end all.

 

[Syncos]

Double post apparently.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Artists using reference materials (be it via pictures or real life) is a skill that even the Masters of art used frequently. There's nothing better to do then look at an object in real life or photos to analyze it in order to better your art. Of course, as a general rule of thumb, simply painting OVER a picture is cheating - its okay if your just starting out and learning the ropes, but only that.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I don't think Photo reference is frowned upon at all. Any self respecting artist uses real-life reference to give their work believability. You should always use some kind of reference for whatever you're doing.

Obviously, stealing someone else's photo and directly translating it doesn't take very much skill and is frowned upon. But if it's your photo reference, or it's a generic reference of a building or object, etc.. and you mix it up enough to make it worthwhile, there's nothing wrong with it.

However, if you're just trying to exactly duplicate photos for your art, you have to ask yourself why drawing it is better then just using the photo.

 

[Saint]

Everyone uses photo reference on occasion. It's how you use it that determines whether or not it's desirable.

 

[KAD]

Everyone uses photo reference on occasion. It's how you use it that determines whether or not it's desirable.

Not everyone

 

[Saint]

Not everyone

Everyone. Nobody learns to draw without using it at some point, and no professional goes their entire career without it. Even if it's just looking at a magazine to get the right angle on a hand, everyone uses it.

I suppose there could be an anomaly, but it seems unlikely.

 

[bunk]

Every decent artist has studied anatomy at some point, that typically involves photos. If we're talking environments, photo reference would be even more likely to be used. Even artists who draw extremely stylized, probably studied photos if they're any good.

 

[Vartha]

Well I've used photos, When At the Kubert School, Greg Hildebrandt told us he uses them all the time, posing poeple in costumes with all types of lighting.
The use of photos are just a tool, it takes an artist to make a believable picture from the photo.

 

[KAD]

Everyone. Nobody learns to draw without using it at some point, and no professional goes their entire career without it. Even if it's just looking at a magazine to get the right angle on a hand, everyone uses it.

I suppose there could be an anomaly, but it seems unlikely.

Learn yes but not all con tinue to use reference as they mature.

I stopped using refrence to see what I could come up with on my own.

To each his own.

I agree it takes skill with or without reference just that the less reference used the more creative / original the piece.

 

[Mee]

Like most everyone, I used reference a lot to learn, even tracing. Not so much anymore, I'm kinda like KAD I try and see if I can do things myself, but I do use them for perspective/anatomy/etc some.

 

[ComicChick]

ive used photo reference

artists like Greg Land (not Horn), i have difficulty with because sometimes his people look "off" like heads dont connect properly, or sometimes the same character looks different on one page than another

 

[egarza]

true

 

[egarza]

if you look at many alex ross ref pix, they are pretty diff from the finished product. like, he'll put some schlubb in a superman costume, and just use the pic for fabric folds, proportions etc. since he's got anatomy down, he can do what he needs to do to make the image 'super'

 

[egarza]

 

[Mrh7448]

I have no problem with photo reference and still use it on occasion if something is giving me a spot of trouble. I use it for backgrounds especially if I'm dealing with a specific location that has specific landmarks.

I would say the majority of artists use photo reference.

I don't think the issue is with photo reference, it's what you do with it. If you can use and still stylize then you can maintain the actions and gestural quality of a piece. However if you copy verbatim a photo such in the case of Alex Ross all the energy is gone and figures tend to look completely posed.

This is the problem I have with Ross. When you first see it you think about how amazing and real it looks, but after awhile you start to see how posed everything is. Even when someone is supposed to look like they are doing something, walking, fighting, flying they just end up looking like they are just staying in one spot not moving. Personally I don't like art like this I like to see the gesture and feel of life in a piece of work and to me that's what it's all about.

A comic, a piece of art it can feel real no matter how stylized your work may be if you can breathe life into your characters have them move, or standing with a slight gesture to them. Where as people like Ross and Vallejo and all of those guys who use reference too much it just feels weighted and dead to me.

 

[3dman27]

i don't care much for photo realistic comic art give me classic comic art anyday

 

[C. Lee]

this is something I've seen get a lot of flack on line. there are some who see people who do it as real artists, where as some admit to using it quite a bit. what brought this up was a few sites bashing the likes of alex ross, greg land and greg horn

now i will admit i have used photo reference for my work in the past, to help with anatomy, layout or posing or to represent someone from real life, it was something i was taught in school though maybe it's is due to my link to photography in my art, i don't know

now i can understand if the piece is simply just copied and nothing is done with it to distinguish it from the source then this is wrong, but recently i've seen a backlash on any artist who uses photo reference

so what's your opinions

Unless you are doing some kind of modern or abstract piece....you want your drawing or painting to look like a real object. So you have to either have it before you for days on end (unless you are very fast) or you can take a pic of it to look at later. I see absolutely nothing wrong with working from photographs.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't use any refrence for figures or costumes.

Using 1 for 1 photo reference is a commercial or pop art pice while non-reference is IMO a bit more creative or artistic if you will

i personally dont find one or the other less creative... hell Da Vinici even used models to paint portraits of.

But i think if your going for something very realistic then use a photo.. it doesnt make you any less f an artist.

I think if you have a unique style where its more cartoony or u warp proportions then thats one thing, you dont really need photo reference for that.

 

[chuckymack]

I think anyone who can use photo reference but doesn't is a freaking moron. I'm not saying that everyone's artwork needs to be photorealistic, but learning to draw what you see is an invaluable asset.