Is there any reason to study from photo references instead of

File: march-24-2016.jpg (574KB, 728x1000px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 728x1000px

what if im both too autistic to leave my parents' basement AND i have friends who come over to be drawn? feels good anon

How do I pick something to paint? I can't stand to look at myself so self-portraits are out of the question and I don't have any friends.

Massive variety of subject matter not immediately available.
Convenience.
The subject doesn't move.

Either you're shitposting or you're retarded, the reasons are obvious.

>>2460882
why do i keep seeing this painting

>>2460898

It's that faggot Brian again.

>>2460898
it's brian, our lord and savior

>>2460898
Because you have working eyes.

>>2460898
I ask myself that same question every day my friendly neighborhood nigga

>>2460917
>>2460921
>>2460941
>>2460970
alright now everybody go to the draw thread i posted more hand drawings

OP your thread sucks

>>2460898
Because it's been on reddit.

>>2460871
models are expensive

>>2461728

I don't have a problem with reference but that looks like trash.
Look at that hand with the katana. Is this real?

>>2461771
i always cringe at sideburns

File: pglYFrt.jpg (348KB, 960x924px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 960x924px

Heavily using references legit looks to be more trouble than it's worth a lot of the time, at least when it comes to copying them almost directly like most people seem to do. If I want to draw a giraffe (or something else I don't really know what it looks like for sure) yeah I'll grab a few pictures, but I'd rather not be completely limited by the pictures, I just want to be informed of what the fucker looks like in a holistic sense. I mean, looking at some of the stuff in this pic >>2461721 for example. It's like, really nigga, you couldn't draw a man lowering his head and putting his hand on his chest without taking a picture of it, and the hand STILL looks retarded? ffs tbhfam.

>>2461787
It's just a tool. If you need or want it, why not? Most artists extrapolate on reference and just use it to help them to figure out form, blocking, posing, light, modeling, color, etc. so they're not completely bound to the picture.

Sure you can probably draw a straight line if you were careful, but if you have a ruler there's no shame in using that.

Some realist painters scrupulously avoid photo reference altogether, including Jacob Collins and his group of artists studying with the Hudson River Fellowship. They get fine results by concentrating on purely observational work.

Other artists in the comics and fantasy field, such as Moebius and Frazetta, achieve extraordinary artwork by drawing entirely from their imaginations, creating forms from their visual memory.

And some artists use photo reference extensively and unabashedly, especially for action poses and effects that are difficult to observe, such as water effects, explosions, or action poses.

>>2461795
nobody can draw anymore, it's just lazy fucks that come up with excuses instead of putting the work into a masterpiece

An interesting historical note is that some realist artists, including artists in the academic tradition, have been using photos for nearly a century and a half. According to art historian Ross King, forty percent of all photographs taken in Paris in the later part of the nineteenth century were commissioned by artists, usually taking photographs of nude models for “academies” or figure reference studies.

When Pascal Dagnan Bouveret painted “Breton Women at a Pardon” in 1887, he took photos of women sitting outdoors. But in his final composition he clearly didn’t use the photo literally, and was in control of the design of his picture.

My own views on this topic are moderate and pragmatic. There’s no right or wrong method: the final result is the test, and you should choose a process that will give you the results you want.

File: death.gif (2MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x270px

>>2461802
>masterpieces didn't use references

>>2461802
lol what

Leonardo da Vinci and other Renaissance artists used camera obscuras all the time.

>>2461810
>it's okay to do plagiarism

kek, I can outdraw all of these shit artist. they're gonna sweat hard once I go KJG on them.

>>2461817
Have you heard of Andy Warhol?

Also a lot of artists take their own reference photos.

>>2461807
>>2461811
>>2461833
>>2461795
>>2461790
>>2461780
>>2461776
>>2461768
>>2461771

you do understand these photos were taken consciously copying the drawings right?

>>2461721

again, this is just justifying the use of references not explaining why it's preferable to using real life, so the question in the op still stands, an the author of that post likely has no friends and is as pale as a baby fish because he never leaves the house.

>>2461844
>you do understand these photos were taken consciously copying the drawings right?
do you have a source on that? I'm like 90% certain alphonse mucha used photographic reference. and I cant remember the source, but the last two images was taken from a site that specifically asked artists to share reference they used in their works.

http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/283253
>An amateur photographer early in his career, Mucha used photographs of carefully posed models to supplement preliminary sketches for larger works.

File: Joseph Christian Leyendecker bond ref.jpg (86KB, 648x796px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 648x796px

>>2461847

File: Pin_Up_before_after_50.jpg (79KB, 700x459px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 700x459px

>>2461844
They aren't Mucha used photographic reference often. A lot of pulp fiction and pin up art used photographs as reference because it was faster to work like that than from purely imagination since those illustrations were more about speed then showing your artistic balls. The source for a lot of the amateur art Im posting was provided by the artists themselves, that's who;s usually in the reference image, the actual artist trying out the pose. You can tell the paintings are referencing the photos due to the transfered details such as clothing folds that would be insanely hard to replicate so exactly if the photo was based off the art.

File: Mucha-Scaling-Up.jpg (64KB, 534x349px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 534x349px

>>2461855
He did.

File: norman rockwell.jpg (155KB, 954x536px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 954x536px

>>2461844

>>2461844
>why it's preferable to using real life
-Easier to obtain than a model, especially for specific poses/situations

-If you were to hire just a model, you'd have to pay for the whole live drawing session. With a photo it only costs how much time it takes to set up the shot

-You can use yourself in photographic reference

-You can capture things like action/movement, falling water, fire, wind in cloth etc. it goes on

-You have access to more information. It might be hard to find someone to pose for you in full plate armor in various positions, but it's easier to find photographs of that. Sure there are museums, but the positions the armor are in is limited, you can see it only under museum lighting conditions, and not everyone has access to museums. Also easier to get photo references of environments you do not have access to than buying a plane ticket, renting a hotel, etc.

-Sometimes if you just need quick reference for something and don't have time to go out into the world to find it, study it, bring your studies home, replicate your studies in your finished work, photographic reference does just as well.

>>2461802
By that logic no one should ever use the undo key in photoshop or the eraser tool because the old masters didnt have the same tools as we do now.

>>2461844
I don't know about you but where I live, there is only one or two places that gives art lessons, they rarely have nude model sessions, and you have to sign up for the full round of courses in order to get in them which costs hundreds of dollars. Photographic reference is a godsend for people with limited time, money, and resources.

>>2461903
>strawman the post

How do you guys feel with using paintings or existing art as references?

>>2461801
>Moebius
>drawing entirely from their imaginations

Moebius was great, but he was still a human. Scroll up and look at some of the posts above yours. I know you weren't arguing against the use of refs, but it might be worth noticing that even Moebius used them.

>>2461942
you expected a serious and well fleshed out response to a post like that?

>>2461967
Not that guy, but I think I missed those. I'd love more moebius and a finger back up towards the right posts my nigga.

>>2461817
have you saw even one image in the whole thread? do I plagiaries if I draw my own back? do you know what correctly using a ref means?

for your own sake I hope you just baited me

>>2461921
time and money are resources, not negating what you said tho

File: moeb1.jpg (470KB, 1199x610px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1199x610px

>>2463003
These are the ones I was talking about:
>>2461732
>>2461733
>>2461736
And pic related. I don't know how often Moebius used refs, but probably not to a greater extent.

>>2463525
IIRC, I read this translated interview where he talked about not being a slave to your refs when using them. Don't remember where I found it though.

>>2460871

How often can you study things like say, military aircraft or exotic animals from life? How about asian architecture if you live in europe? As long as you can draw from life using photo references is a great tool.

>>2461721
NICE JPEG ARTIFACTING RETARD