There's something It's been bothering me. Even while

It's pretty common, yes. It's natural for images produced with a real-life reference to look better than stuff produced without. That's why there is so much emphasis on studying references. As your skill increases, there could well be less of a gap, but all the old masters used life models.

File: ARRef.jpg (296KB, 700x988px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 700x988px

Alex Ross uses live models for everything he does and he's constantly regarded as the best Marvel comic artist.

Stop giving a fuck about "pride"

https://www.google.no/search?q=alex+ross&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmpb2yoezNAhUGECwKHWrPAB0Q_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=979#tbm=isch&q=alex+ross+models&imgrc=3u0OJLYBSGcvrM%3A

>>2598096
>does all the masterpieces in old master paintings were done using models and props?

not always props, but many of them did use models. But they could draw convincingly without them in many cases.

how do you avoid it looking the same as the photo reference if you copy though? i mean sure if you freehand it will never be exactly the same but can you really take credit for it

>>2598343
unless you're tracing it wont look like a traced photo.

>>2598096
You learn from copying. You apply that knowledge to make your art from imagination. That simple.

File: Male model posing at the École des Beaux-Arts in the 19th century.jpg (90KB, 792x519px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 792x519px

>>2598208
There is nothing wrong with models and referenced work m8

And to answer OP, yes, many used models and references.
>which ones?
I don't know but I'm sure all of them did some work with models or still life. I mean, that stuff is as old as art itself

>does all the masterpieces in old master paintings were done using models and props?
until the end of romanticism and impressionism mostly yes