Depends which old masters we are talking about but presuming that it’s the Classical period of the High Renascence it’s a mistake to assume that they only worked from the live model..
To illustrate the point I’ve chosen two drawing studies by Raphael.

The first of a Horse and Solders fighting.

There is no way he could get the horse to pose like that with the solders, from long study of anatomy and drawing Rachael could draw a horse or men in any position he wanted.

The next is a study for the Virgin and Child.

Again it’s from Raphael’s head.
The lower of the two larger studies is the same pose as the Michelangelo statue of the Holy Family but in reverse.
He did not stand in front of the statue and draw it backwards but drew it from memory along with the other studies as he worked out the composition for the paining known as the Bridgewater Madonna.

Dave.
PS Here is the painting The Virgin and Child (‘The Bridgewater Madonna’)

Bouguereau was part of the Academy in nineteenth-century France and although different to the Renaissance some of the training was similar.
For myself I don’t find Neo-Classicism or Romanticism very appealing so haven’t studied Bouguereau in any depth.

His work was heavily influenced by photography, he had a large collection of photographs from which he developed the quality of light in his paintings.
But Because of his academic training he didn’t paint directly from photographs very often.
Like Rachael he would usually start with a quick drawing sometimes from a live model but often just from his head.
Then work things out further with oil sketches and studies of all the different elements in the composition he wanted for the finished painting.
Only when he was happy with all that would he make the drawing for the final painting.

Here are a series of drawings leading up to Nymphs et Satyrs.

Rachael and Bouguereau could draw anything from imagination which is just as well as it’s very difficult to find Satyrs who are willing to pose.

Dave.

Glad you found what I had to say useful, perhaps we should look at Leonardo Idealisation to further our understanding but if you really want to understand the old masters you must do your own research.
Just to get you started here are some Leonardo da Vinci portraits.

You will notice how simular they are. The similarity is not because he is using the same model but because he is idealising their beauty.
The Italian Renaissance was all about emulating the Classical (Ancient Greek) philosophe and art. To understand the Renaissance you need to read the Ancient Greek Philosophers in particular Plato and his thought on the Ideal.
In the same way if you want to understand Post Modern Art you have to read the Post Modern Philosophers such as Jean-Francois Lyotard.

Part of the Academy training that Bougeureau would have gone through was to draw the Antiques, these were plaster casts of Classical Sculptures. As well as learning to draw accurately and to see tone in the casts the idea was to absorbs and understand the Classical Ideal as we see with Leonardo.
Eventually you would be allowed into the life room. Here the student was not expected to slavishly copy the model but to interpret what he saw.
So what you see in Bougeureau is Neo-Classicism, he is interpreting beauty to make a statement, he does not need a model to do that.

Enjoy your research, Dave.

Re: How did the old masters paint babies?

Well, quite often……..very badly! Not all (of course), but many paintings of babies by the old masters look more like 40 year old midgets than real infants.:lol: I don’t believe that they worked from live models for the painting of infants, because if they had, their paintings would probably look much better.

For example, some of the infants depicted in Leonardo’s “Madonna” paintings were atrocious, in terms of appearing as realistic-appearing infants. I wold like to paint portraits like Leonardo, but I his renditions of infants are not something for which I strive.

Thanks for your input WFMartin! I suppose that is why I am interested in Bougeureaus work, since the babies he painted look very believable (not creepy).

Yeah……You are certainly correct on that!:)

I would love to have a Bougeureau painting in my hands for just about 1/2 an hour, or so. Just to get a “take” on his colors.

When I was a color separator for a lithographer, I once had an authentic, Rubens in my hands for about a week, but sadly, it was before I had even begun painting. I actually found the painting that I had handled in an art book that I own. The Rubens was “Judgement of Paris”–one of them. I understand that there were 6 or 7 of those paintings with the same title, and some were attributed to his students.

No babies in this one–only his voluptuous women.:lol:

Hahahahahahaha…..GOOD ONE! In fact, EXCELLENT, brianvids!

[IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/wetcanvas-hdc/Community/images/26-Mar-2016/142294-enhanced-15692-1418127385-8.jpg[/IMG]

I’m so thanksful that no of my grands looked liked this, I would be very scared.
:smug: