[nontextualmatter]

I was just wondering what every ones take on this subject is.
I don't see anything wrong with it as long as your not trying to pass it off as your own work, but if it were just a study for values, color or what have you.. then I can see the usefullness of it.

I wouldn't consider tracing a photo under that nice little clear flap on my wacom tablet, and then coloring it...ART!!
How could I ,now spooge brought up a good point about Drew Stuzan..and I also know Boris Vallejo(boring anyway..but) traces, but they are both working on deadlines I'm sure, but they can draw, and would be able to fix any proportion problems caused by projection or tracing.
Now put that in the hands of the less experienced and you get out of proportion phototraced...........I don't know what you call it!!
Well... what do you all think?

[waylon]

I think that without a question, if you take the photos yourself, or recieve permission to use photos from someone you know, you can make valid art. The photographs become analogous to a concept sketch - you're trying to come up with good composition and accurate form, and for all intensive purposes, a good photograph accomplishes this just as well as a concept sketch.

You can obviously run into trouble when you start working off of other peoples' photos... But in my mind, that's more an issue of copyright infringement than whether or not it's a valid form of art.

As far as your comment about tracing a photo on your tablet... If the end results look nice, and you didn't break any laws (or moral codes), who cares how you got there? Of course, if you have to rely on tracing a photo to get proportions right, chances are your picture is NOT going to be very pretty. ;)

[spooge demon]

I do have a lot to say on this subject because it is so misunderstood.

1)"If you trace it, it MUST be perfectly drawn with no mistakes." Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don�t know how to draw, tracing won�t help you. There is more to drawing than the accuracy of the silhouette.

2)"Using photography means duplicating it." Photos are used for so many things besides xeroxing them by hand. On one hand they can be used for information only. I have not been to the Taj Mahal, and verbal descriptions just don�t quite do it. Use photos. The matte departments I have been in have very large photo collection for just this purpose. I don�t think many would disagree that this is a legit use of photography.

There are a lot of photographs that have had considerable time and expense and skill put into their creation. A good photographer does what an illustrator does in many respects. If you were to take that image and duplicate it, shape for shape, not only would it be pointless but illegal. At what point does it become an original work? How good is your lawyer?

I�ll add more to this as it comes to mind.

Please chime in if you have anything to add. I know this subject has come up before, but it still is interesting to me.

[AliasMoze]

I don't have anything against copying photos in general. I just wonder what can be gained from doing a perfect copy of a photo.

I do believe in using photos as reference. I have gotten more and more into the habit of referencing photos for architecture, values, textures, etc.

------------------
AliasMoze
:) :) :) :)
"That activates my hilarity unit."

[Rinaldo]

I am curious as to how much time using photo ref actuialy saves. I mean sure if you have a really tight deadline as an illustrator. But all that stuff that Boris Vallejo does to get the picture on the paper, taking the photo getting the model, planing it all out, then using a projector and tracing. Belive me I've done a lot of this in Illustration class. And besides being nowhear near as fun as working it out yourself, it's very time consuming.

I have a digital camera and suggest that anyone without one of these little contraptions.......well gets one.
I think that struzan has much more of a leg to stand on as opposed to Vallejo, simply becase of the way that his work turns out. Boris Vallejo has these shiny women that look exactly as if they are under artificial light in a studio, only they are on top of some mountan. It looses me imediatly. Photo ref is invaluable, but is is the word "referance" that is the problem. How much and how is the artist refering to that photo. Imediatly you are straight-jacketing yourself if you use the anatomy of the pose, simply becase it is then hard to breath life into the character by exagerating. If you use the lighting....well all I can say is that unless you copy the whole photo or really work on the lighting in the studio, it isn't going to look anywhear near right. I can post a slew of pics done by what could be considered "pros" which have this stupid lighting on some characters that totaly doesn't work with the other elements.
If the painting is mainly character based then it can be quite effective though.

There is also the "you can't draw" thing that pops up from time to time. Althogh people often say "it's for comercial purposes" thus implying that the most important thing is the money and pleasing the client. There is however I feel a bit of discomfort on the part of people like Boris Vallejo. On one hand he is often heard talking about the creative and expressive side of art, while at the same time he says that most of his stuff is comercial and therefore the end defying the means. Few people actuialy seem to wholehartedly defend the use of referance.

I would mention that up until now I have not meaningfully thrown a positive or negative opinion on the subject. The question of whether it is valid or not to use a photo is a bit of a frivilious venture. It goes hand in hand with what I was getting all red in the face about in the "should I worry" thread (sorry about that). If people will pay for something that uses photo referance, the artist enjoys doing it, and (maybe) most importantly the viewer enjoys it. then what is the point of getting all philosophical about it?
There are however a lot of problems acciciated with the practice. I know of a few people who can draw perfectly from a photo but are not all that good without it. Having a camera around to go play wizarads and warriors in front of the mirror is a really good idea. as is being able to take a picture of exatly how the light plays off the objects in an intersting scene. To be able to take that home and study it, by whatever means necessary, is something that an artist simply cannot do without.

In theory the means shouldn't philosophicaly effect the end product. And it doesn't.
This is not to say however that photo ref gives good results.
I often see artifacts of photos in spooge's pic, and not just ones to give texture (correct if wrong spooge). And it doesn't bother me. The image in itself is holding together and the idea behind it is powerful enough to make me not even look at the way it was done.
And I love the pictures Struzan does.
But I really....really hate the vast majority of Boris Vallejo's stuff. And I am almost certian this is because he uses photo ref.




[This message has been edited by Rinaldo (edited July 29, 2000).]

[dgordon]

I say "reference" is just that. Reference that helps hold the mental picture of the artists vision. (something to lean on, not to be used to walk with)

I hope that makes sense.

If you copy a photograph as closely as you can. I say, Why? You have a picture of it. Now if you look at that picture and see somethig that isn't actually there,(i.e. inspiration). Maybe you see a color a better a different shade, something else in the picture, etc. I say go for it.

I use reference with my figure drawing because, my mentality of drawing the human figure cold (without reference) is weak. And I have been busting my ass in sketching to build up my skills. Soon enough hopefully I'll beable to stand on my own.

Reference isn't a bad thing. The definition or perspective of the word is were I think the argument stems from.

[micke]

Interresting thread.
I don't have much to add except for my personal wiew and taste.

When i copy things from a photo mostly it's just when i wanna try something out or improve a technique like pencils or whatever. Sometime we use scanned photos of for example a gun and use it for a texturemap on a 3d model. who cares? it's the result that counts and it take less time to do it so why not.
I think it also has something to do with the ability to observe and memorize what you see
and be able to use it when needed. To rely totally on reference and not be able to create anything without it would be a shame.It exactly the same thing with figure drawing, you're copying right? And for what?To memorize and to be able to use what you've learned. In commercial illustration
i doubt many people cares how it's been done anyway as long as the result works for the customer.
-Micke

------------------
-Mikael Noguchi-

http://www.katode.org/noguchi/