[ceenda]

Haha, no, it's not what you think and we're not going down Tracer Road for a nice holiday in Photomanip land....

I know that a number of professional artists have used photos as the basis of studies and it's been quite helpful for them. But something dawned on me recently when browsing National Geographic. I realised that the photos (whilst beautiful) have been heavily adjusted and modified (and yes, this has only just dawned on me ). i.e., the shadows all tend to go straight into black for dramatic effect. Also, contrast is whacked up for the same reason to make the picture more dynamic, but all the subtle tones are erased. I imagine this goes for _all_ photos that appear in glossy-paper magazines. As far as ideas go, it's a great resource, but not all of us can take regular trips to the Grand Canyon or the Rockies and set up our painting easel.

Is it possible to use photo reference accurately at all? Can the photos we take ourselves be reliable as a source of reference after having seen the real thing as far as value relationships and things go? Is my A70 going to provide a better source of photos than any mass-printed reference?

[Three]

The world behaves so chaotically that studying the impression of realism versus perfect realism shouldn't matter, I don't think.

[AndyT]

I think it does matter ... but only if you see something in real life and want to capture it.
Then maybe what you like is lost in the photo.

But ceenda ... maybe think about it that way: look at the photo and decide if it looks interesting.
Does it look aftificial because it's adjusted and modified?
Or is it altered in a way that it would still be good for your paintings?
Look at it and you should know if it is worth studying.

Three has a point.
Is it really that important how close it is to the real thing?
Try to get the best of both worlds.

But maybe there's something I'm forgetting.
Hope there will be more replies.
_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[spyroteknik]

i don't think it can ever be an accurate representation of what the eye can see, but i agree with three, the same effects that you see in photography (adjusments) look equally as good (if not representational of true values) when used in painting, it's more of an issue with the artist than the viewer, they will probably not care as they haven't experienced that view in the first place, if it looks good.... . extreme example, i painted a figure with a backlight not long ago, got the lighting looking pretty much ok, posted it at a board where photgraphy and manipulation dominates, and i got a load of responses saying the lighting was wrong, showing me photographs of backlighting (exposure resulted in the figure being nearly black, but of course, that's not what the eye would see) photographs rarely (if ever) capture the same values as eyes, think the only reason the learning aspect of it is debated is because of this, maybe it's getting outdated as more and more artists are moving away from painting from live reference, an old traditional argument that we're witnessing the downfall of, hope it's not the case though.

[Drunken Monkey]

I find 18-19 century Realism, Romanticism and Impressionism to be a good substitute for photos. Photos are nice for references... but it so much easier to learn from someone elses interpretation, you see how they broke it down, almost step by step sometimes...

[Prometheus-ANJ]

I think that, although one photo can be flawed or edited, if you study many (tons!) you'll get an average impression that's atleast closer to reality.
_________________
Yak!

[makototaramoto]

I agree with Prometheus and the others, lots of photos wwill enable you to see which ones are modfied although natural sites tend to change but thats over the course of years so i guess the date of the photo is important too. Alot of art teachers in my school stress the idea that, "as an artist you have to interpret the 3-d world onto a flat surface" thats why many a times we weren't allowed to use photos b/c it was a flat surface. So i think that if a person cant go somewhere because of cash then use photos as best as they can. If it is possible to go somewhere or see someone then definatly go for that primary source reference.
_________________
mercer

[ceenda]

Thanks for the comments guys. I actually went out with my camera and took hundreds of pics of different atmospheric effects, conditions etc. etc. so I think I'll trust my little powershot for the time being.

Drunken Monkey: I agree, often the subtle effects like tone and hue are exaggerated which makes it easier to see what angle they were coming from.

[watmough]

you know,i've been thinking alot about this lately,and i feel there is a difference when you are using your own photos as reference.i mean you were actually there.observing,experiencing,recording...the photo just kind of helps remind in a visual sense.you still have those emotional responses in your brain(and hopefully a sketch,too)so it just seems like a photo really is a good reference in this case.

[math]

im taking my own photos and then use them as some reference for drawing (well yes i cant visit the rockies orso , but in my country there are also some nice spots to visit), and no i dont trace them. i just put them next to my screen and then try to copy. ill never put them into the graphire 3 photo frame. i dont wanna break that thing ;p
_________________
quit pro quo