Using photo reference correctly

[emily g]

Is it ok to use photographic reference when making art?
Yes. In fact, it can be a very smart thing to do.

This is a scan from Norman Rockwell’s book Rockwell on Rockwell: How I Make a Picture. In his early career, Rockwell created his illustrations using live models. Later on, he adopted photography and projection because of their convenience and time-saving qualities.
Attachment 346939

Because of his excellent drawing skills, Rockwell can use the reference as the basis to create exactly the type of character he wants. Notice all of the small changes he makes. Sticking too close to the reference is often called “being a slave to the reference” and can result in characters that look too stiff or posed.

Also, if there are problems in the photo where the pose is not exact or clear, someone who can only trace will copy these problems into the final image. A skilled artist can solve the problems in the drawing.

Is it ok to use other people’s photos as reference?
It depends. Just like you own the copyright to your art, a photographer owns the copyright to his or her photos.

If you copy all or most of someone else’s photo without permission, this could be a copyright violation. There is no rule that says “if you change it X%, then it’s ok.” In U.S. courts, the test is if a reasonable observer could look at the original and the copy side-by-side and tell that it is a copy. It is ok to copy someone else’s photo as much as you want if it is only for your personal study. It is considered a courtesy to acknowledge your source if you then show that work to anyone.

Here are some examples of ways artists can use others’ photos as reference:
Using individual, generic parts of a photo. Ex. A tree, hills, clouds.
Using individual, specific parts of a photo. Ex. The Empire State Building, a Jeep.
For historical research. Ex. Looking at pictures of WWII uniforms to get the design accurate.
Gathering multiple photos of a subject without using a specific one. Ex. Looking at many photos of lions to see how they are built and how they move.
Using multiple photos for general inspiration. Ex. Gathering photos of different kinds of machinery in order to get inspiration for your own machine design.

If you're looking for good places to find reference on the internet, check out our wiki and references subforum.

[emily g]

General quotes on using reference:

I'm a believer in using refs whenever possible, and shooting your own is best whenever you can do it.

If you're talking non-figure refs, Google image searches can also be a good ref finder for things like, say, what a mango tree looks like, or maybe the sky line of Chicago. For more complex things like detailed images of a V-2 rocket or high quality photos of an AK-47, I try to look more at books (be it library or personal collection, and Borders bargain section can have some awesome deals for the weirdest stuff). Occasionally I'll do a DVD grab if I remember seeing, say, a suit of Roman armor in Gladiator and my books don't have any photos from a rear angle. I generally think a person is talking about human anatomical refs when they ask this, but that other stuff is in a way even more important. You get an assignment to paint a WWI trench scene, you might want to do some research on historically accurate uniforms.

But for refs of people: shoot your own, shoot your own, shoot your own.

I think the goal is to do the best work possible, and most likely no matter how good you ever are, your work will look better when reference was used. Every pro I've ever met whos work I respected was still using reference after decades of drawing and painting professionally. I never saw it as a flaw or weakness, but as humble acceptance that they don't know everything there is to know about light, anatomy, architecture, geology, biology, meteorology, clothing design, automotive design, botany, and about a million other things that you may encounter in doing a job. Some artists can do amazing work without any reference at all, but most any can do better work with, and it doesn't mean that they are not using their imaginations. That's where you have to find the ballance.

While painting from life is the best, it's not the most practical. When working from photos, you're not copying the exact photo, you're using it for what it is.. reference. Look at Norman Rockwell's stuff..he used photo ref, but changed it up to a great extent. If you're looking to get work as a professional, it'd be near impossible to hire a model to sit for the amount of time you'd need, or get all the props, etc. at once. My advice is to practice both photo and life drawing, because neither are cheating... if you can get a live model, all the better, but don't let not having one stop you from making the art you want to make.

edit- and! shoot your own photo reference, that's a million times better than googling it, and relying on someone else's imagery. if you shoot your own stuff, it's all yours.

Working realistically from your imagination is a skill that comes naturally to very few people, and if you were one of them you would already know it. For everyone else it requires years of building up a library of images, a mental model of the world that you can manipulate at will. This comes from drawing from life, yes, but also from drawing from and knowing how to use photos (for all those things you might want to draw that you don't have access to), analyzing other artists' work (including, horror of horrors, copying), and knowing the principles of anatomy, perspective, and lighting inside out. And even then "realistic" is a relative term. You will probably never be able to do work from your head that is indistinguishable from what you do from life, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I will add that THE NUMEBR ONE reason I can't hire someone is that the figure work is off. It's the first things viewers will call you on if it's not right. Time and time again, when I'm asked to look a student portfolios, I ask if they used reference, while knowing that the answer will be "no." Then I gently tell them they should start.

However, and it is a big however, Cotron was right on his point that pros know how to alter their reference as needed. Another big mistake in portfolios is seeing artists copying their reference verbatim, not knowing how to tweak and alter to fit their composition. Classic problems are say, an image of two people talking but they don't quite line up, they are looking right past each other. Or my favorite - a person running and it's clear that they were photographed standing on one leg -- the artist didn't put a little extra bend in the leg, lean in the body, or the hair and clothing hangs down instead of flowing behind, etc.

It's a shame when I see someone who can be really inventive with costumes, environments, aliens, etc. but I just can't hire them if the figure wok is off. My two cents -- Learn how to USE reference....which doesn't necessarily mean copying it.

Andrew Loomis
Attachment 346959

[emily g]

Quotes about taking your own reference photos:

All you need is a friend and a camera.
Take the shots yourself.

You don't need to have a single amazing photograph to use as reference.
Take a shot of a single arm in one picture, and a leg in another.
When you get everything you need, piece it all together (with Photoshop is simplest. If you're not computer saavy, use tracing paper and photocopies).
Just be sure your lighting is consistent, and you should do fine.

With a little bit of training, it's really not too difficult to shoot your own refs, and the advantage is huge to using refs that other people shot. The main problem with photos is lens distortion. If you work from photos or learn from photos (which i fully recommend doing) you need to do at least a cursory study of anatomy so that you can fully understand the things which the camera is not telling you/telling you wrong.

Quotes about using other people’s photos:

Don't just draw someone elses gun in your drawing (that breaks copyright), but research guns and find out what makes them look like guns. What are the elements that people see and recognize as "gun"? No matter what peopel may think, but artists are not dictionarys of everything they might ever need to draw, and even if you've seen something a million times there are probably hundreds of details that slipped your notice until you look at them again.

Anything you want to draw, it helps to really research it and make sure you understand it. What really makes it yours though will be what you do with it from there. What you add to it, leave off it, or how you combine it with another idea.

I think the most healthy way of using reference was explained by Ian McCaig. It's a three step process:

First you do imagination drawing without any reference and try to capture the flavour of what you have in your mind. In second step you sit down and find something that looks like this in real life and do tons of studies from photographs or models. In third step you draw your idea without reference again but this time with all the details you remember from the studies.

It's beacause if you copy your reference onto your sketch, you don't process any information any you're limited by what you have on your photo. I also think it's more progressive beacause with studies and testing your memory your visual library is getting richer and you can make something even better in next project.

[emily g]

More pictures:

Nicolai Fechin
Attachment 346946

Norman Rockwell
Attachment 346948

Attachment 346947

Attachment 346961

Attachment 346962

Dean Cornwell
Attachment 346952

Visit Paul Cava's site to see some reference photography from Frank Brangwyn, Alphonse Mucha, and Maxfield Parrish.

Jon Foster process thread.

Photos from Art Out Loud 2 (scroll down): Jon Foster, Adam Rex, Dan Dos Santos, Greg Manchess, Julie Bell, and Boris Vallejo at work.

Art Out Loud 3 (scroll down): Donato Giancola and Todd Lockwood at work.

To see reference shots by CAers, visit the Show Us Your Reference thread.

[arttorney]

I can't see what was so terrible about this thread to merit a one star rating. The star doesn't give me that information, whereas a constructive comment might.

I just figure people don't want to have to read things. That must be why a thread about posting other people's images with minimal commentary gets 5 stars.

I still think some people around here could stand to read a book.

[Nibras]

Lovley thread thanks for posting it.
Dang about the 2 stars i've voted lets just hope more people move it up
I think i would personally follow Iain's way not a big fan of using refernce straight into the drawing

[ECMastersStudio]

This is a terrific thread and more people should read it!!! I have awarded it 5 stars because it is such an important topic. Not only should illustrators learn to use reference correctly, but we should learn to shoot our own (especially for figures).

[emily g]

Thanks for the support, guys.
And I love the pic of "read a book" Handy, arttorney.

Anything I can do to make this thread better would be greatly appreciated.

[PuppyKitten]

Voted 5 to help bump this up. All the quotes were great to read. It's always good to get opinions from people you respect on matters like this.

Plus the Norman Rockwell stuff was just cool.

[Ilaekae]

Helped by giving it a five, too, Luv. Great stuff that we all should have known when we were 10-years-old...

[Elwell]

There's a huge site about the impressionists' (and pre- and post-impressionists) use of photography here. It's in Spanish, but the navigation is pretty easy to figure out, and there's a small sampling in English here.

[emily g]

Thanks guys. And thanks so much for sharing those links, Elwell.
Wow, those are incredible--I learned a ton just looking through the pictures.

[Chris Bennett]

I'm amazed no one has thought of a thread like this before! Great ideas always seem obvious once somebody has one. 5 stars from me.
Emily, is that book on Rockwell's methods called 'Rockwell on Rockwell' and is it still in print? I saw one like this some while ago and couldn't get hold of it - it looks very much like the same book.

[emily g]

Thanks, Chris.
Yep, that's the book and no, it's not still in print.

It's an incredible book, though.

[S.C. Watson]

Emily, thanks for posting this. Great thread (5 stars )

I especially loved the Norman Rockwell stuff.

All the best,
~Shane

[ECMastersStudio]

There's a huge site about the impressionists' (and pre- and post-impressionists) use of photography here. It's in Spanish, but the navigation is pretty easy to figure out, and there's a small sampling in English here.

Wooow, this ^^^ makes me so happy - and mildly less terrified by the masters LOL

[Rocul]

Awesome thread, and I learned a fair lot.

[Mark Bot]

excellent helpful information.
thanks bunches for posting this.

[Queen Nehalania]

Thank you so much for the great information!
I really needed this.

[Chris Bennett]

Here's something that might interest people - I was asked to do a 'portrait effect' of the british snooker referee Michaela Tabb. I could take a lot of liberties so it was not one of my 'straight portraits' and is therefore interesting in that it willfully departs from the reference yet has to be a reasonable likeness. I thus made the drawing you see from the shown reference photograph and then made the painting entirely from the drawings without once looking at the photograph at all, releying entirely on the information that was important in the drawings.

P.S. Emily, if you do not wish people to put their own examples in this thread then please feel free to delete it, I quite understand.

Attachment 363309
Attachment 363310

[emily g]

No, thank you so much for sharing Chris. This is wonderful!

This is an excellent way to work from photo reference and I want to thank you being willing to share it with us.

[J Wilson]

Emily G, thanks for this thread! I'm constantly surprised at how many young artists seem to think that reference is some evil crutch that "real artists" don't need. The truth is not only is it ok, it's a damn good idea, and if you aren't using reference you are doing yourself a major disservice!

[ArtznCraphs]

Emily G, thanks for this thread! I'm constantly surprised at how many young artists seem to think that reference is some evil crutch that "real artists" don't need. The truth is not only is it ok, it's a damn good idea, and if you aren't using reference you are doing yourself a major disservice!

Well, I think alot of young artists are using Frazetta, concept art, myths about old masters or superhero comic book artists as their guide, but I don't think they realize that:

1. Frazetta's stuff, while superb in its own right, is nowhere near as specific as Rockwell's. Superhero comic work is even less so. Fraz also used reference when he needed it. Alot of environmental concept art is realistic in general effect, but compared to a well researched landscape by the Hudson River painters it lacks in truthful information and subtlety of effect.

2. Unless a person has photographic memory of the highest order, it would be impossible for their work to match the work of a pro who renders realistically using models, props or photographs. Try doing a Dru Struzan-like poster without reference of the actors...

3. Yeah, maybe Michelangelo was knowledgable enough to draw the figure as well as he could from imagination, but at the expense of other subjects. He worked pretty much exclusively with the figure all the time, in 2D and 3D. Artists are not Batman where they can have absolute mastery of 10 different disciplines at a writer's whim.

4. The final result is what matters. Master artists have used models, photography, copying other art, camera obscura, projection, figurines, sculptures, mannikins,etc. to attain the quality of work they were looking for.

[ArtMonkeyWorld Dave]

This is a great thread with a lot of usefull information. The Rockwell stuff was especially enjoyable. Photo refernces have been used for years, even the master used camera obscuras to help them get the details right. When all art is comprised of copying images either fromthe imagination or form life is there really a need to argue of the level of copying? Besides, I think it was Picasso who said that "Amatures Create, Professionals Copy" lol Of course that may be slightly out of context but you get the idea... : )

[Elwell]

Besides, I think it was Picasso who said that "Amatures Create, Professionals Copy" lol Of course that may be slightly out of context but you get the idea... : )

First of all, it's completely out of context. Secondly, it's "good artists borrow (or sometimes, copy), great artists steal." Furthermore, besides Picasso it's also been attributed to others, including T.S.Eliot and Stravinsky, although I can't find a definitive source for any of them. And finally, it has to be one of the most misinterpreted quotes of all time.

[Serpian]

I've learned that the whole 'the old masters used the camera obscura' thing is a myth, or at least largely exaggerated.

[ArtznCraphs]

I've learned that the whole 'the old masters used the camera obscura' thing is a myth, or at least largely eccagerated.

It is if you group Old Masters as a whole. But it's been widely accepted that Vermeer was one who did on occasion. To say that any use of it was a myth is the same as saying real artists' don't use photo reference.

[Serpian]

Yeah some, on occasion, but I've understood that there's this wide misconception that nearly all of them used it, all the time.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not speaking from experience here, only what the internetz has told me...

[ArtznCraphs]

Yeah some, on occasion, but I've understood that there's this wide misconception that nearly all of them used it, all the time.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not speaking from experience here, only what the internetz has told me...

Yeah that misconception exists in the mind of David Hockney.

[Chris Bennett]

I think it was Picasso who said that "Amatures Create, Professionals Copy"

As Elwell has pointed out you have got the quote wrong. However, I rather like it as you have put it. For this reason:
Whenever we witness something 'new', as we do in great paintings, however old they are, there is always a certain kind of awkwardness about them, or rather an ineloquence that is very difficult to put one's finger on - I guess it is that when we surprise ourselves we are in a similar state to the amature in that we are of neccessity on unfamiliar ground. Slickness is almost by definition, lack of surprise.
As a professional, I am always trying to find the amature in me or, to put it much more accurately, and to paraphrase Isaac Newton (har har), trying to stand the amature on top of the professional's shoulders.