It’s always good to work from life when you can so you learn to extract the essence of the model, working from a photo you tend to paint the intricate detail.
While working from life produce a more primitive and simplified work, too much detail can cause preciousness and you become to literal, while the simplification of working directly brings power and elegance, this is probably what your artist friend is picking up on.
Art is all about learning to see, the more you work from life the richer the world around you will seem as you learn to observe and develop a fresh look at ordinary things.

Dave.

I paint from photos because I have to. For the last dozen years, I’ve painted free for parents portraits of their children killed in the war. They can’t sit for me. One thing you learn from working from photos is that photos clump values, and blow out the lights. You either have to manipulate the photo in photoshop (this helps), or just know that, generally speaking, you’re going to have to lighten the darks, and darken the lights. Sometimes, a little, sometimes, a lot . . . and every once in a while, not at all.

Photos can be great references if you already know what’s in the unclear parts. To know that, you can observe, sketch, and photograph the real thing when possible. Doesn’t have to be the exact subject, but a similar one, like people in general, dogs in general, etc.

In order of preference, this is how I like to work if I am depicting a particular subject:

1. From life when possible. You learn the most and get the most accuracy from this, and you remember more than you’d think, from having ‘been there’ and sketched it live. Even if you don’t think your life drawings are very good, it gets better with practice, and the end result has more life, accuracy, and character, IMO.

2. From photos I take, again because being there yourself means you learn and remember more of what you observe. Your reference photos might have a dark area where you can’t see the detail, but if you took the photo, you remember what was there.

3. From photos supplied by permission. Most pet portraits would be this.

4. Photos from multiple sources, as many angles as possible, different lighting situations, etc, where you only reference a detail of any one photo. E.g., looking to see how the stripes and spots are placed on a particular species of wild animal; proportions of a horse; details of a saddle; color pattern on a bluebird. There is a difference between infringing (copying) and reference, and the thing that generally spots it as infringement is when it’s recognizable as being copied from a particular photo.

Beware of numerous sites offering “FREE” images; many are infringing on thousands of artists/photographers, and some are ‘scraper sites’ which can also infect your computer with malware. Find the real owner and get permission by searching the name associated with the image. I have gotten permission a number of times just by asking.

3ig, i agree with everyone above, but it’s noteworthy to add – Many artists don’t go for the accuracy of ‘photo realism’.

a big part of the reason for artwork, is to express beyond realism.

and yes, plenty do it successfully

la

Reality is [vastly] overrated.

Stop working from photos; stop working from life.

Work from imagination…

There is nothing “wrong” with working from photos, although your portraits will benefit from having multiple point of view references of the person in addition to the main one you are using for reference. It’s helpful for example to be able to see how far back the eyes are set or the depth of the nose from a side view even if you are drawing more frontal.

The main thing with using photo’s is that the work of flattening the image from 3D space to 2D space has already been done. On the one hand this makes it easier, on the other the art takes on the aspects of the photo, including effects of the lens and focus settings, etc.

Working from life will end up with different results than working from a photo.

Also, many cities these days will have drop in life drawing sessions you can attend for a small fee to the model. It’s worth searching to see what is available.

Hello,

….
And do you think that, an expereinced artist would distinguish between a painting that was painted from life and one that was painted by refering a photo?If so how? Because an artist I met told me that he can understand but he did not tell how exactly he can. Do you think that it is possible? [/quote]

Generally, yes. Most people who paint from photos are far too dependent on the photo image, in which case it is easily detectable.

Think about what happens when you create a portrait from life. The sitter shifts and breathes, their attention wanders so their expression varies, the light changes; you as the painter shift your head and hence your point of view; you have to deal with your own binocular vision and the incredible complexity of visual perception. For example, the image in your mind is actually made from a complex and evolving mosaic – the actual focal region of your eye only covers a visual area about the size of a full moon, and it’s those little bits from which the full image is primarily created. On top of that you have to deal with what you think you see, rather than what is there, as well as your own personal habits.

How you integrate all this into a single, static image is very individual, like a fingerprint. It’s also what gives a sense of life to a work of art.

OTOH, someone highly dependent on a photo has little or none of this to deal with; the actual subject (the photograph) does not vary. And because it doesn’t vary, there’s no place for the artist to engage his or her integrative skills. Some people try to tart the image up with stronger colour or selective blurring or “painterly” brushstrokes, but still they all kind of look the same, deindivualized and static.

[QUOTE=3igAnt]What are your thoughts about working from imagination? Is it an upper level? For nature, still life and portrait paintings? Do you think that an experienced artist can paint all those concepts from imagination with no ubsurd shapes?

All the best )

Personally, I love work from the imagination and tend to regard it as the highest level of representational, particularly figurative, art. Not to say that it doesn’t also produce some of the worst
BTW, what’s an absurd shape? Whether a shape works in a painting is all that really matters.

Cheers;
Chris