[pierre]

I could not restrain myself from painting my own gladiator since I saw some made here. I haven't seen the movie yet! (yes it is true).

I used a photo reference for this painting. There are some 10 high rez pics of the painting in progress.

Go here to see it come alive:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~pierrehannah/

first pic on the page, just hit the link or the image for the high rez.

------------------
http://www.crosswinds.net/~pierrehannah

[Frost]

Very nice Pierre. Wasn't Maximus gay? =) (kidding=) It was a great movie.

[pierre]

Thanks Frost. I just got to see that movie.

------------------
http://www.crosswinds.net/~pierrehannah

[silber]

hi pierre
love this step by step shots
the pic looks great

how long did it take you?


------------------
-----silBer--
http://silber.atariflys.de

[Matt Elder]

The tutorial images were pretty good but please go through and add in some text. Even if is just a line or so to say the main thing happening in each panel.

------------------
See ya on da flip side
Matt
http://www.mattelder.com

[pierre]

Is it only I who cannot read any of the replies? any tip on what to do to have it update?

------------------
http://www.crosswinds.net/~pierrehannah

[Superbug]

Pierre, im very impressed with your art. I think its wonderful. The process u showed is amazing, and i have much to learn from u

[Flexible Elf]

very nice pierre.. you should do some smaller quicktime movies of your steps

-Flexible Elf

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/flexible_elf/Main.html

[Dryfire]

Nice man, but i thinkk you could have made the final pic better. Add some more detail, i know you can!

------------------
-=DryFire=-
'Reality is just a dream'

[toast!]

hi pierre,

i love your work and especially this one

Are you planning to make a similar tutorial on some steps that could be created after those ones you just made ?
I mean , what you made is very useful and very well done, but think many people would be interest in the way you achieve some pics with an awesome photorealistic touch. Going to the point you stopped is not easy but going beyond, adding the final details seems to be more difficult. I ve tryed several times myself to go to the point you shown on your pages but with no sucess . Sure more people tryed this too and be interested to know how are your methos and techniks to do such things

[Fred Flick Stone]

First off, I am going to say this may start some heated debates, so I apologize for stepping on a toe or two. I just feel very strongly about this subject, especially when I am an art instructor trying to get my students away from crutches, especially those that develop from using photos exclusively to paint...

Pierre-hello first off. I have been staying out of these threads for specific reasons, mainly, I wish not to insult or hinder the creative process.

I honestly wish though that you would go out and learn some traditional skills so you can get beyond the hangup of painting directly from photos, and sticking with what you see. This new tutorial you did still only shows the makings of a reproduced photo. I am not sure what you are trying to get at with this demo, other than seeing all the bits of colors in a photo, matching them with the color picker, and placing them back down in a new blank field you call your art. Believe me, I have copied plenty of photos in my time to better enhance my drawing skills, but what you might be suggesting here without realizing it is that it is ok to just copy a photo directly, here is how it is done.

I would like to see this same demo done, but with you finding the forms of the figure first, developing them dimensionally and understanding why say the left arm has a harsh redness to it rather than the developed look a form would normally have, then introduce the bounce colors from the objects around that arm.

There is no real value or gratification in duplicating a photograph, there is however, a deeper satisfying feeling one can get when they have pulled apart a really badly lit photo, and reformed the object that was photographed on their canvas, and found it again, with invented lighting, and finding the forms that were badly represented in the first place.

I know that you are helping a bit with these demos, but they really have no lasting value in them if there is something more going on with the individuals art development, in fact, these can become road blocks unless you better explain your thinking process, and explain the reason for copying the values dead on, rather than further extrapolating the subject matter at hand.

I would gladly do a tutorial like this when I have more time to, but as of yet, I am in the final phases of production with Myst. I am going to note this though and set something up, with full explanations for everything.

Pierre, do not get me wrong, I value the fact that you are attempting to help, and possibly show that you are legit, which there is no doubt in my mind that you are, but be very cautious when putting things together that demonstrate to others a process of learning. As I already mentioned, there is no valid learning here, only a technique for duplicating photos which is something an artist should grow out of as he is moving on and gets better in his career. Learn to use the photos to your advantage, do not let them run the show, or it will obviously stand out like a sore thumb.

[Snake Grunger]

pierre : gladiator2 and gladiator3 are the same

[Jason Manley]

well said fred.

If you just copy your photos you will not learn to build images as Craig Mullins, Justin Sweet, Frank Frazetta, Degas, Dore, Rembrandt, Chase, Klimt or many of the other strong artists have done. You must first understand how to see and how to analyze what you are seeing. Photos can help with the process and help with the image but they are only an aid and not the final product.

I agree with fred completely in that your example (while noble) is a poor one. Doing art and understanding light, color, form, space, anatomy, value, and idea is something that gets better if you pursue it to the fullest. Relying on photos rather than understanding what you are doing only hinders your image building skills.

For the first 3 years of my painting studies I was not allowed to use photo reference. From doing that I learned to construct forms and to take from life (which a photo always flattens and distorts). If you take from life and remember what you see then you will grow as an artist.

I use basic art fundamentals every day. Your image creation ability will only get better by understanding as much as you can about art and visual life.

Study the Masters. The answers are there.

Keep pushing.


Jason

[samdragon]

If you want an example...not a good one, but an example of what Fred and Jason are saying, i posted an image i'm working on, along with the photograph I used for reference. here's a quick link to it...

I gave an explination there on how I used the photo, I've noticed this subject seems to pop up, so i thought I would give a try at providing an example of how photo's "could" be used for reference.
http://www.sijun.com/dhabih/ubb/Forum2/HTML/005534.html

[Liquid!]

Well, just wanted to chime in.

Personally, I very much appreciate and enjoy the progress pics that Pierre posts. While I understand what you guys are saying regarding the photo-ref, I think Pierre previously mentioned that the pics on his site are quite old and don't necessarily reflect what he is currently doing.

Just my thoughts.

-c

[Freddio]

Thats well said Fred...

Could we see the photoreference?

[Chapel]

Cool.. I think I'm learning something finally hehe. I thought the progress pics were missing a few things like the original sketch and sketch with shading. They just looked odd and then Fred spoke... all is clear now. (insert choir) I will not follow this process, and I will not use the color picker! (except for comic colors)

[Frost]

Fred/Jason:
Personally, I ALWAYS draw freehand from my imagination without reference, which I find a challenge, however I have lately found that my values and hues usage and knowledge deserves an update. Studying unfinished paintings by Spooge and Pierre in their unblended, basic values/hues gives me a better chance to see how the lighting works in a scene and on characters. Seeing a photo with all the blended tones can be confusing, so, seeing a small reference of someone's interpretation on a real image can get me to focus on their color choices and methods. That is what *I* find interesting in all this, hoping to get a decent grip on more realistic or cinematic lighting.

Chapel:
I don't think Pierre used a color picker to accomplish this image, if so, that would be a poor decision, considering JPG compression (which changes values/hues on a per-pixel basis). I think Pierre has shown us what he is able to do with Micke's face pic (although not perfect). Just my 2 cents.

[This message has been edited by Frost (edited October 17, 2000).]

[Chapel]

Frost: I didn't say he did. Just said I wouldn't use it in reguards to Fred's post.

[Christer]

Pierre,

as much as I enjoyed the film, i really liked your picture. I'm also grateful you took the time to put up your step by step pictures.

I would very much like to see artwork from you which has been created just from your imagination too, I think your rendering technique is great and I am sure you could pull off some pretty nice stuff.

Keep posting!


-Christer

[Joachim]

seems like pierre's threads always ends up with a discussion in one way or another I don't want to be mixed in, so huhm, I will stay out of it. keep your head up pierre

chapel, I was just curious about what you said about lineart. I hope you don't think you need to make a linedrawing or a shaded linedrawing to start off a picture the "right" way. Because, there's plenty of ways to do it, and infact, when making a painting were you're not keeping the lineart in the final image, it can be just as good to start with letting the basic colors shaping the image. there's so many ways to do it, no rules, just that it's healthy to try out different ways of approaching a picture. But, I'm not sure if I've totally misunderstood what you wrote, as I probably did, hehe

------------------
Joachim's Place

[BooMSticK]

nice picture, Pierre. Please go and do an original picture...at least to show those who critize you in every single post...geeee...

and to note, I actually liked Pierre's rendering of mikie's femalehead better than Spooge's. yeah-yeah..I know..I might be the only one...


;B

[TENMAN]

Let me start off by saying I really respect Pierre's ability to copy an image and I like this image inparticular. But, Frost the point Fred is trying to make is that Pierre is not breaking the form down into gross generalizations of light and dark(a blockin) because the lighting is already established in this very well lit photograph he is immediatly breaking it down in to small strokes and then proceding to break it down in to smaller strokes. All this is fine, but when working from poor reference or inventing an image you are going to end up with a poor painting.
A better tutorial is Spooges with guy in the armor and the big guns. I would like to request (not challenge) Pierre to do a similar tutorial using A poorly lit, perhaps even out of focus piece of reference and cleaning it up and making it look as good as the gladiator pic. And include even the earliest rough block in the steps of the breakdown. I also can learn much from you Pierre.

------------------
What?

[This message has been edited by TENMAN (edited October 17, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by TENMAN (edited October 17, 2000).]

[Chapel]

Joachim: That isn't really what I meant. I meant that the first pic he has in the process is blocked-in colors. I would think that there would have to be atleast a rough silhouette or something done first to get the shapes. Jumping right in and blocking in the colors with no guide lines to me seems like it would cause problems in the long run.

By the way, I hope nobody takes my criticisms and remarks too seriously. They are just my opinion. I've never taken an art class in my life, and I've only just skimmed through books. All my knowledge comes from watching my dad paint and even he was a self learner.

[Jason Manley]

If...and this is a hypothetical if...if I were to copy a photo than you all would see marks from my underdrawing on the final image. Now here is the big if....if I were to copy the photo with the actual photo on a layer underneath my painting(so I wouldnt have to draw it) and then I deleted the layer and showed you the process pics you would find no underdrawing or gestural block in. You might also think I was amazing.

I saw his pics and they dont look like they are just copied...the marks are fresh (which is a good thing and I like that part) but...


jason

[spooge demon]

Hey Pierre,


Let�s see some of your newer things as you were alluding to in the other thread. This photo stuff is not what you are capable of, I think. Work like this used to be done by illustrators called �luci-jockeys.� Did you trace this? The photo overlays perfectly. If you did, I am even more in the dark as to what you are after. As I hope to point out below, tracing can be done well or poorly, and sometimes there are real reasons not to trace (exaggeration, caricature, even slightly) The colors are not varied from the photo in the slightest. Why not? You could do so much more with this...

Forgive me, but it seems that all your work and actions seem to be aimed at impressing those who have little training in art. I think that perception is what has irritated some. Also, it is apparent that you have quite a bit of experience, and you are held to a higher standard than some of the more beginning people here.

Does it really matter that it took you two hours? I am not sure what this information is supposed to tell me. I think some look at as bragging. The work is what it is, yes?

I don�t find your painting as pointless as some would say. It can be a study in shape design, as much illustration is. That�s what I mean by even tracing can be done well or poorly. Is what you pull out of your reference helping or hurting?

I really like the breakdown of the griffin on the chest plate. The variety of edges, shapes, strokes etc are all very entertaining to look at. Where the head turns to shadow has some nice shapes as well.

The 1,2,3 line refers to the edge of the tunic. In your painting you straightened this out and it flattens out quite a bit. You are seeing this cylindrical form from and angle, so I would suggest exaggerating the elliptical nature at some point. If I were doing this, I would have broken that edge into 3 pieces, 1, the top of the ellipse, a faster curve, 2 a straighter area, to contrast with 1 and 3, and 3, an accelerating curve that really shows the arm turning under. I realize you did this quickly, but this is so basic to form that it should be the first thing you put into the image, no matter how brief your sketch. I can�t emphasize this enough.

The same idea applies to the armor. The ellipses are not completing, and it flattens out. His right shoulder armor does not wrap around the shoulder. I exaggerated the openness of the ellipse with my little red scratches to make the point. Most of the turn happens in the upper point of the shape.

His right arm has really lost definition, as I say, there is a chance to ignore some of what is there and push the forms a little to entertain the eye a little better. See the top plane of the forehead, cheek and nose? You could push that a little to make not only his head a little more chiseled, but increase the feeling of strong reflected light coming from the sand.

And so on....

I shut up now.

[phreaknasty]

i'm a bit lost here. i've noticed this argument bouncing around here and there on a variety of threads. i myself am in the midst of struggling with this very idea in my own work. i have serviceable drawing skills and a very firm grasp on photoshop. however my weakness in form is a huge stumbling block. if i don't use photo reference i'm at a complete loss. therefore i end up relying on photo reference too much. short of attending figure drawing classes (which i have little time to do) the only option i feel i have is to rely on photos to learn about form. i'm not sure how else i can move to the next step. however i agree to overreliance on photos limits ones creative output.

spooge, your most recent gladiator picture was from photo reference (minus the helmet). what do you see as the difference between your use of photo reference vs. pierre's. is it that you've already have a strong grasp on of form, shape, contour, lighting and the like so you aren't fooled by what you see in photos or is it that you take more liberties by rendering it with a very loose style. in no way am i trying too call you out, i'm just trying to discover how you know when you feel the use of photo reference is a creative aid and when it becomes a crutch. the shoulder of your gladiator seems to very closely mimic the still, but overall the the pose and camera angle seems to have been altered.

what can someone like me do to get past the mechanics of photo-reproduction and closer to artistic expression? i what cases is it a good idea to use photo references or is fasting like jason was instructed to do the best way to go.

fred and spooge - am i correct in assume that your main complaint its his strict adherence to the original photo and his emphasis on lighting and color rather then form, thus indicating that it is an exercise in reproduction rather then dynamic drawing since that would necessitate the initial delineation and development of form which then and only then should progress into lighting and the like.... oh lord help me for i am so confused... i want to get better but i'm stuck. i've fallen and i can't get up.

[This message has been edited by phreaknasty (edited October 17, 2000).]

[iNaNe]

Thank you Spooge. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks pierre quite literally traced over the photograph. Doesn't anyone else wonder why his tutorial starts out with all the shapes already laid out?

[Jason Manley]

Phreak...

I wanted to say that it is possible to use photos as reference and still define your forms. Look at Bridgemans books and see how he pays close attention to massing forms. Also keep at least two or three anatomy books on hand. Draw your friends, strangers, people in restaurants....there are people all over...make notes on how arms attatch and how clothing hangs on anatomy and get quick gestures etc...

there is no shortage of people to draw...do self portraits (I am sure Mullins has done his share) and draw your own hands.

Here is the easy part...and the hardest...study and learn all the bones, and muscles that show on the surface of the figure. You will need to know all of the major muscle groups and also what the origin and insertions are (where the muscles connect to the bone and what muscles overlap etc...) If you memorize all this by drawing from anatomy books on a very regular basis then you will do fine. You have to understand what you are drawing. That is why it is more efficient to work from life. All the info is there. When you work from photos, the information about color subtlety, form, light etc..is all lost...or almost all lost.

LEARN YOUR ANATOMY.

Period.


that is my advice...too much maybe.


Jason

[Fred Flick Stone]

phreaknasty-as far as the photo thing goes, it is one thing to look at a photo, and have to use it for the reference, it is another to use the photo for a launch point and develop that into a new image, your image.

An example, the gladiator here on this page. Starting with this gladiator, given there is no back shot, but you should now be able to draw a gladiator in pose, say, fighting the big tigers in the arena. From your imagination, you would plot out the image you see in your head, remaining fairly primitive in shape and form. Then as you solidify the action, you then need to rely upon detail to get you through the next phase. Here is where the photo reference comes in handy. Ever know how to clothe a Gladiator? Probably not, unless you have a hobby with gladiator apparel, or that time period really fascinates you. That photo reference is now going to give you the stuff you need to complete your image, filling it with life and correct detailing.
Another use of reference would be using them for figurative poses. Say you open a sports illustrated, you see a baseball player in a really interesting pose, that looks more like he is clubbing someone, you would borrow that pose, anatomy and all, and insert it into a new image, with a new context to it, we will go with the gladiator theme again. This baseball player will now be posed in the reference you found of the gladiator in armor. So in fact, two pieces of reference are being used...See the point?

Early on in the learning phases of art, photos are one of the greatest sources of inspiration to copy, since we still have a hard time discerning reality, and the 3 dimensions we see. As your training expands, and you recognize more rules/tools to use, and your experience and library of info fills up, basically, you are becoming a full fledged artiste, you start, or should start to see the limitations of the photographs. The biggest being, most people do not see a photo as objects shot with a camera, instead they see a framed composition to copy. THis is bad because through the film, the processing of the film, the experience, or lack there of of the photographer, and the printing phases, the objects you shot are no longer going to take on that realistic quality, or that live quality they had as you stood next to them in real life. CMYK prinitng blends subtlety, film and the chemicals that make it up are limiting on what they can effectively reproduce, mostly due to the mechanical nature of processing and developing. Much is gone before you get to see the final image shot. My point here being that photos aren't bad, but not understanding what it is you really should be doing with them is. I only know a handful of artists who use photos effectively. It took them years and years to finally see through the photo to the forms in them. Now, I can't tell when they use photos and when they don't. Their interpretation of form is flawless.

This is where you should want to be with regards to your training. Photos aren't an evil, just the misinterpretation of them. That is where the debate really heats up.

"Sir, if you'll not be needing me, I'll close down for a while..."-- C-3P0