Is it really a bad idea to paint from photographs?

Question

My art teacher was telling me to stop painting portraits (and other types) from photos. Is it really that bad to do that? I find that it helps me to better observe details sometimes.

Answer 1

I believe if you want to make money from painting, then you want to paint with the maximum likeness. I'm sure no one is interested in buying a Picasso portrait of themselves. Besides, I think photos are better because they don't move and you can actually plan out where everything 's are.

If you want to paint a portrait for someone, then I say take a photo to get the maxium accuracy.

Answer 2

I am in an art class where, although quite a few are very good at painting, they continually work from photos and have no interest in drawing. I personally began drawing going to figure and life classes which is a real challenge and although I now draw anything, it was extremely difficult for a long time. However, I find that drawing from a picture already done by somebody else is a lot more difficult! Lots of bits are missing. For instance, you can't see where the colour of skin changes from a photo but you can see it working from life because of the different light. That goes for any sort of photo as far as I can see. I experimented with this just a few weeks ago. Drew from life sitting in the garden, then took a photo of the same scene. When I looked at the photo, it was 2d. rather than 3d and to me it looked flat. My advice would be to draw from life as much as possible and use photos only as a reference

Answer 3

MANY artists use photo references. When I use a photo reference, I rarely try to DUPLICATE it; it's just a tool and I might leave out some elements or tweak some others. But painting isn't photography :) which is a lot of the fun. However, if your teacher did not explain why she was suggesting this, ASK HER.

Hopefully, her reasons are inspired by concern for your development as an artist. Part of really improving in art is tackling challenges in new ways. She might be concerned if in your attention to detail, your spontaneity is dying, or you are neglecting other artistic considerations like overall composition, using color creatively to make a mood, learning tone, or your lines seem awkward rather than naturally flowing.

To really learn some technical skills, you should paint from life at times, or step back from relying on ANY shortcut. For example - unless one learns to draw, one's painting suffers GREATLY even if using close photo references can seem a shortcut. And if you want to get taken seriously by art schools and the professional art community - you have to be able comfortable painting and drawing from life.

Answer 4

As a photographer I'd be honored to have someone use one of my pictures for a painting. While many paintings are made from photographs, I suspect that your teacher is trying to help you develop your artistic talents beyond just using a photograph. e.g. A photograph only gives you a 2 dimensional image and by a continued reliance on photographs you may be limiting your 3 dimensional perspective.
If you really want to know, tell your teacher photos help you "better observe details sometimes" and ask them why they feel it is better not to use them.

Answer 5

Both of you are right. Teachers don't want you to start out with pictures because they want you to develop your ability to understand color, shape, composition, etc. And in a way, they are right; too many young artists produce work from photos that are flat, colorless, and lacking in energy.
On the other hand, many artists have used photos and other memory aids with masterful results, Degas being just one.
If you are a beginner and all you want from your photos is a reference point for your paintings, my advice to you is to not keep the photo in front of you while you make art. Look at it only occasionally when you need to remember something. But keep in mind that, the minute you cross over to wanting the painting to look just like the photo it's time to put the pic away and insert your own personality.

Answer 6

Like others have said, there is more there than a photo captures. Like personality and expression. It may be a good technique to get the little details right, but the image you are replicating is already "flattened out" for you. It leaves little to artistic interpretation. Portraits from real models are more expressive and representative of the person's personality to me.

Models are either unavailable, expensive or impatient. Try this...self portraits! Get a big cheap mirror from a thrift or discount store and set it up and go for it! You are an available, cheap and patient model.

Answer 7

No it is not bad...but photo's have limits. They don't show it all.

You are not painting somebodies portrait...you are painting a photo. May look like the same thing but until you did the real thing you will notice there is a big difference. (And I don't mean that the real one moves around)

Answer 8

Photographs arent as good.

If you paint from life for a while you will notice that photos just dont have enough information.You cant stick you head to the side to check something out with a photo.
You will develop a lot more by painting from life.
.

Answer 9

Hi

painting from pictures may be a good idea-sometimes.
Some people are photogenic, they're not the same
looking like in pictures in real life, believe me. So its not accurate to do, for example portrait, looking at his/her pictures.
Its really cool to explore doing painting from life because it teaches and practices you life drawing.

Answer 10

Actually, many artists do paint from photographs for that reason...I can't see why your teacher would have a problem with it.