| Author | Message | ||
  marie |
Eugene, thanks for posting the photos. It was useful to see how you adjusted the values on his face. I also like the way you added the lights on the chair; the lights weren't visible at all in the photo. The quilt is awesome! | ||
Eugene |
Forgot to mention--- If you take photos to paint from, never use the flash. Flash wipes out all the interesting shadows | ||
Eugene |
The quilt is from an old pattern called sunshine and shadows. I invented the colors, but they are colors used by the Amish. | ||
greg |
We now that, but others will see a cute little Amish boy. Without seeing the photo, I would think that. I really like it, thank you so much for sharing!! did you have another photo of a quilt or have one in the studio with you? or just invent it? | ||
Eugene |
Greg The model is my grandson. Definitely no Amish. | ||
greg |
COMPOSITION......sorry | ||
greg |
Eugene, this is fantastic. The quilt is very nice and gives it a real lift. Everyone who sees it will wonder how you got an Amish boy to sit for a painting, or how you were able to take his picture!! wonderful work and conpostion. | ||
Eugene |
 | ||
Eugene |
MARIE, To sow you how I use photos, I going to try to post again, my painting folloed by my reference photo. Hope it works.  | ||
marie |
Thanks, everyone, for all the feedback. This is really helpful. | ||
Robert |
I agree--plein air painters often use photos to finish the detail in the studio. The actual making of a painting from a photo, a painting that looks like the photo, does little for me. One must admit that there is a lot of that going on. | ||
EUGENE |
MARIE, I’ll try to answer your questions by telling my experience, I learned to paint by painting plein air and from models and still lifes. I had a terrible time trying to paint from photos. However, when I reached old age and had trouble walking, I was forced to paint from photos. But by then because I had enough experience, I was able to fake a lot. Now I think I know what shadow colors should be, and what goes on in those dark indistinct area of photos. I never just copy a photo. I use them only for reference...I often change the colors. I often combine parts of different shots. I usually add figures to landscapes. I try to keep my photos sorted by categories-- flowers, landscapes, buildings, figures, boats, trees, textures, etc. I have tons of photos, and sometimes the poorest, make the best paintings. I use only my own shots. I used to use a 35 mm but have now gone digital. It’s much easier and cheaper. I can blow them up to any size I want. When combining photos, be sure the light source is from the same direction. Some artists with super computer skills manipulate their photos until the have a good composition and then just copy it. I’ve seen impressive result using this method, but it’s not form me-- too mechanical. And I don’t have the computer skills. (thank goodness) | ||
John Preston |
I tend to agree with Greg, you need to work outside to see just how a photo distorts reality. | ||
greg |
there is a difference in copying a photo and using them for reference. You can still be quite painterly and paint loose with minimal well place brushstrokes. I do rely on them heavily, but others do not. They use them for compostion, sometimes combining 2-3 photos into a piece of work. A tree from one, background from another, etc. My way is not the best way, I want a mix of both. I am really going to try more outdoor painting. The workshop I am attending will get my feet wet. ALSO, I mentioned my workshop instructor is John Fawcett, and now another teacher will be there as well for interaction and training....two for one so to speak. He is the President of the Plein Air society I believe, John Budicin , beautiful landscape oil painter. I am soooooo excited for this! | ||
Linda |
tachee, a resource for you: There are iris farms in California where they seem to have every (rare)species available on the planet, in every color imaginable, all growing in rows. They will email you when their crops are in bloom, and will mail tubers (or whatever) because that's what they want to do most, sell them to those who will propagate them. Look online and I'm sure you will see such a farm. They can provide you with pictures beyond your wildest dreams when you love irises. You may have already known about this. I hope all iris lovers learn of these places. I'm NOT an iris lover (they're simply a beautiful flower to me) and !!MY!! how I floated through those rows in delight and sensual joy (before I was even a fine artist)! | ||
Robert |
Back to the pros and cons of painting from phots--I think the bottom line is how the painting makes you feel as a viewer. Though I may be wrong, I like to think I can always tell if a painting is done. With obvious phoito referenced work, I am left cold, as if only the analytical side of my brain were invited to contemplate the picture. A good painting direct from nature POTENTIALLY can have a lot of personality, and spontaneity, a lot of action and playfulness that invites the intuitive side of brain to the party. I have gotten very bored by paintings from photos that seem to want me to admire them for their accuracy while I have delighted by the free play of brushtrokes and artistry employed by paintings freed from photographic copying. | ||
Robert |
In "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters"--David Hockey shows that many of the old masters used a primitive invesion lens called the camera obscura to capture their subject in 2 dimensions to paint it--in effect using photography: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670030260/sr=8-2/qid=1140611740/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1860451-8268657?%5Fencoding=UTF8 | ||
greg |
I'll bet the old masters would have had them if the technology was available. Still life is sort of the same idea. The light does not change, the weather does not take a turn on you, and you can work all night if you wish. Imagine taking pictures at a famous battle and not having to actually stay there and paint it or take the time to sketch it, risking your life! I would not have the patience or the fortitude to sit on a hill watching people die and document the event.... wow.....they really did that.... | ||
sarita |
Marie - I use a digital camera then load the photos into the computer. Photoshop is an amazing program to manipulate the photos. Most of the time I zoom in to find interesting shapes. The zoom I find invaluable because (having poor eyesight), you just find some amazing inner worlds that the naked eye just can't see. There is one draw-back, the colors really don't read the same as they do out in nature. So I will make a note to myself (warmer red like qu. coral and not qu. rose). I also flip the photos upside down and look for abstract shapes. Sometimes I will print out a grayscale photo to study the values, if needed, change some of them. But having read time and time again, painting outdoors is soooo important. Something, sorry to say, I have yet to do. | ||
tachee |
i do, mostly, flowerscapes. iris is my most used. i know, i know most people are sick of them, but that is another story. but the iris has a very short bloom time. i have to take pix to capture them. everyone knows that when the local irises are in bloom to call me. i paint paint paint while they are here, and take many photos for reference. same with other flowers. no tracing, no grids for me. i use photos more as, say, i want to do a white iris, i pull up a pic of one on 'puter cuz i need to see perhaps how the inside color of the flower changes or stops on the petals. how do they look when the flower leans? i write notes with my photos in the computer- stuff like 'cloudy day in wanda's yard- rained some'. perhaps silly, but it helps me conjure up the feeling of being there. | ||
Eric |
Marie, I paint mostly landscapes, which I don't know if you paint. I know you paint portraits. (And you're very good at it.) Anyway, I used to use 4 x 6 prints, but now with a digital camera I usually don't have prints made. I just load the images onto the computer and maybe print onto regular copy paper or just draw looking at the computer screen. It's nice to be able to zoom in on the subject and play around with it. Even though I haven't done it, I like the idea of making a DVD and using the TV. For me the photo is just a reference. Usually, it's just a jumping off point and the finished painting looks nothing like the photograph. The photo can simply spark an idea. Or I can use two or three photos in one composition. Taking many photos of one subject from different angles is also a good idea. Helps you really know your subject. Also, I believe as it's been discussed many times here, that painting or sketching or at least carefully observing outdoors is much better for understanding your subject than using a photo. But a photo has it's advantages. At home with photos, you have more time for deep thinking and can really plan and design and put together a composition. Outdoors, I think you can be tyrannized by the subject. There might be more of a tendency to paint exactly what's there. And to paint everything that's there rather than focusing on design. | ||
greg |
well....I have a little experience with this.....HA! normal print, then I make large color copies for details I can't see in the photo. then a large black and white to get the values a little more defined. then I draw the image free hand on the WC paper. adding all the detail. It takes me a while with my style of painting. Then I begin the painting, using the original photo as a color reference. many pitfalls...I am lucky my wife is a semipro photographer and takes all of my images and she has nice composition. lighting is sometimes an issue, and especially the juxtapostion. Things get distorted when they are taken too close up. better from a distance with a zoom lens if you need a close up. there are a million variables....for your style of work I would just capture a feeling, or a moment, a unique sky, beautiful wash of light and shadow, something that will change in an instant. It is impossible to paint that from life....the earth just won't stop spinning.....the figures and animals won't hold still.... with a photo it can be preserved for a later date Maybe if you get a certain expression or gesture on film you can have a live model re-create it? | ||
marie |
Although painting from life is probably more suited to my nature, I would like to be able to paint from photographs from time to time. I think it could be a valuable learning experience. For those of you who do paint from photographs ... how do you do it? * Do you use a 4x6 print, or larger? Do you make a slide and project it on the wall? An opaque projector? Maybe make a DVD and and project it on your television? * How do you use photographs? Do you use them as a reference? Do you trace them? Do you draw a grid and then match the grid to your paper? * Do you use Photoshop to manipulate the image? * Are there any gotchas or pitfalls to look out for? |
