It is okay to use references to make profits? Like using a pose

>>3052479
We're at the point where someone could deliberately copy and paste a "reference" on canvas, use a few smudge brush strokes and add a fuckton of filters and sell it as a "tribute".

There's no integrity anymore do whatever you fucking want.

For as long as there has been fotography artists including pros have been using references. /ic/ is often very uptight about these sort of things and they start yelling it's copying or sometimes flat out tracing. Your post seems like a normal use of a reference.

>>3052479
>is it ok to do what artists have been doing for thousands of years?

Gee OP I don't know, it sounds degenerate....


Shithead

>>3052479
Leave any kind of artistic integrity and values at the door if you're planning on making money.

>>3052479
Long as you aren't just straight tracing.

>>3052479

Yes. It's only a reference of a pose or face expression. If only you take a moment and think about it before posting this thread.

Now that things like daz3d exists you have no excuse to blatantly copy an existing photo. Do your own rendered pose yourself.

>>3052479
obviously OP. are you some newfag that started drawing yesterday?

>>3052545
Mi problem is the moral dilema that carries using reference to make profits. I mean, i want to use some random photos of women from instagram and tumblr, and i'm not gonna just lay on top a photo and just make the doodle, i want to apply what i learned without retards calling it trace.

>>3052479
like legally? you can buy rights to do derivative works, can't you?

also, you could use your own pictures or 3d renderings

File: Mighty-Avengers-2-2013-Page-12-600x701.jpg (280KB, 1082x701px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1082x701px

>>3052479
it's ok only when you are using own photos and not results from google image

File: workshop_demo___using_reference_effectively_by_miles_johnston-d6uyuc2.jpg (562KB, 1571x938px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1571x938px

>>3052479
>>3052580
Yeah, references are important for replicating certain features that you may want to express in an illustration. For example, you could use the expression of a fat man's face to be the expression of a girl you would have in an illustration, like in this example. You'll probably be fine if you don't trace. A famous American illustrator used reference photos for many of his works. As long as you aren't tracing or cheating with photoshop, you'll probably be fine.

The only thing I don't know is the issues of legality. Certain photos are released with licenses that allow them to be used freely, but only require that you acknowledge their use. Using random photos from instagram could potentially cause you criticism, or get you in trouble.

sure man, Norman Rockwell's career depended entirely on photo references, he usually made them himself though

idk, ask marvel

File: 424085 - Boa_Hancock One_Piece Reiq.jpg (299KB, 962x700px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 962x700px

>>3052599
I've seen artists doing this sort of things for a while, and i don't really see the problem about it. I don't think the use of a pose, lights and everything else could be something to be sue for.

>>3052479
There's no problem, it just changes my judgement of the artist's skill. There are different levels to drawing, and I will always hold an artist who can draw expressively and imaginatively in higher regard than someone who has to rely on copying.

This doesn't challenge the practicality, necessity, profitability, any of those arguments for doing this sort of thing. Just my personal assessment of an artist's level, and I think this is part of the divide between people who practice art, and people who do not. We know the process behind art and take that into account, while laymen do not. This is why those photo-realistic color pencil pieces that are a dime a dozen on DA are fawned over by the general public, but find few proponents here.

>>3052661
Well you must think less of da vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo since they all copied and referenced other drawings / paintings / Greek sculptures. Get off your high horse you snob.

>>3052614
The Reiq case is legendary.

>>3052673
>da vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo since they all copied and referenced other drawings / paintings / Greek sculptures.
You mean they drew from life.
>Get off your high horse you snob.
Don't mind me, go copy and trace all you want. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with it. But there will be people who know the process and are going to judge that work accordingly, that's just the way it is.

File: alex-ross-models.jpg (60KB, 736x628px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 736x628px

Almost all artists use references in one way or another. Old masters used other paintings, drawings, etchings, sculptures, casts, etc.. and when photography was invented they started using that too, even artists like Bouguereau used photos. It really depends on how you use them. If you're straight up copying, well you're not going to learn anything.

>>3052677
Don't mind me, go copy and trace all you want. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with it. But there will be people who know the process and are going to judge that work accordingly, that's just the way it is.

Nobody does this...at all.

Only if it's smut like>>3052614

>>3052479
What a dumb fucking question. /ic/ is filled with morons.

>>3052700
>even artists like Bouguereau used photos
[Citation needed]

>>3052503
And before that, artists worked from live models, which is visually the same as using a photo.

There's a argument that's been going on for a while that Vermeers used an optical device to paint as accurately as he did - Tim's Vermeer is a good documentary on it. Other artists used projection devices like the "magic lantern" as well.

It has nothing to do with "artistic integrity" or values. They still painted every stroke of the resulting painting. The only time I've ever seen anyone have a problem with reference is this forum.

>>3052700
While it's not impossible Boughuereau used photo reference, it's unlikely, as cheaper film photography didn't come out until near the end of his life, and glass-based photography was too expensive for this purpose.
Bougeureau came from an are where he was put through intense training early on, and was a master draftsman. He also did many, many, many iterations and studies for each piece, and was using well known artist's models in his studio - he had more than enough live reference at hand at any moment he wanted to draw or sketch. He came from a school that spent months, if not years, studying and sketching and practicing for a single painting.

>>3053720

Boguereau was certainly a great draftsman but I've read that he did collect photos especially nature shots which he would use as reference for some of his work. The thing is some users here think that using something as reference is somehow cheating or straight up copying. There's a proper way to use a reference and certain degrees to how much you rely on it. It can be from getting a general idea of how something looks when you don't have access to that something all the way to doing a near 1:1 replication.

>>3053743
He might have - he had the money, but Photography during his life was so expensive, it really wasn't available commercially as reference. More likely he had specific things shot for a fee - remember, until near the end of his life, it was all glass plate photography, and it was really expensive.
Maxfield Parrish built props for his paintings, either a scale model or full size. I honestly don't see the difference between that and using a photo. Mucha posed his models and took photos. So did Degas, and most artists, once photography became affordable for that use.

Doesn't not using a reference just amount to having a good enough memory of anatomy?

>>3054617
this.

"Drawing from Imagination" is just referencing memory.

no everything with reference is forbidden
dont use any crutches
its illegal and my mum say I am much better because muh imagination

>>3052479
Yes. Painting is copying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94pCNUu6qFY

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-10 at 22.02.12.png (153KB, 641x496px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 641x496px

>>3052479
>>3054662

>>3052479
>It is okay to use references to make profits?

No. You should never be able to make a profit drawing anything that has ever existed in real life. It's only ethical to make a profit from art that depicts something that has not yet existed. And then you can never make art of that thing again because then it exists.

PS: you're a fucking idiot.

File: 18157305_1545494155461973_7392423177746598687_n.jpg (84KB, 960x857px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x857px

>>3052479
I guess it's okay as long as you aren't tracing or using someone else's work without their permission. You can also take a photo of yourself and use that as a ref

Speaking of which, what do you think about this? It looks traced but idk

>>3055701
anatomy and face looks too fucked to be traced

ref is fine just as long as you're not beholden to it and making your own thing.

>>3052614
vaginas are gross

>>3055742
>vaginas are gross
i wanna stick me nose inside it and breathe it in.

>>3052700
>>3053720
>>3053743
>Bouguerau
>Boughuereau
>Boguereau
Stop this!

>>3055976
A lot of you kids really need to get past puberty before tackling art.

>>3056046
Boger-o.

I can't spell his fucking name, either.

>>3056048
it'd depressing to share a board with these retarded kids. these are the people giving critique and advice

>>3056102
Back in school, every figure drawing class would start with a couple of nervous, pimply faced dudes, usually overweight, who'd be acting all creepy before the first model - and when they started, would just sit and stare, or run out of the room, if it was a dude. They're just there for tits, and most likely virgins. Our teachers were really good at chasing them out of the class.
I feel like at least 75% of the people here are that guy.

>>3052547
but op already posted this thread! YOU CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME YOU SILLY BITCH

>>3052479
Who cares, illustration really serves only one purpose anyways.

>>3056440
Which is?

>>3055742
as an heterosexual male is weird to admit it, but objectively, vaginas are unapealing af.

the most aesthetically attractive part of the female body is, by far, the face.

>>3056482
I don't know how anyone could be attracted to human pussy, it's fucking disgusting. For me the attraction comes from literally everything else. Personality, the face, the body, etc. The pussy is just a pleasure hole, it's aesthetically displeasing.

>>3052479
yes just change some elements.

Listen, it's all been done before. Try coming up with an original idea, no one's unique, no one owns a pose, expression, look, whatever. It's all fair game. Creating something from scratch inspired by something or not makes it new, it's not plagiarized nor are you trying to sell or use someone's "intellectual property"

>>3052482
What the fuck are you even talking about?

>>3052503
It's because no one here actually paints.

>>3052479
you can't copyright a pose.

>>3056482
no, it's the fucking midriff.

File: 1435709123683.gif (2MB, 500x402px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x402px

>>3052479
The trick is to use at least 5 different references for one image.

You'll never get caught

You can always take your own reference photos and use them as base, and modify the final product as you wish. The basic anatomy and pose works for any body, then you apply your knowledge of muscles/body types/whatever and that's it. Nobody can accuse you f tracing or using reference if it's a homemade picture of your own neet fatass.

>>3052479
It's always ok to use ref you dumbass.

>>3052479
As long as it's your own photography or something like a screencap from a video there's usually no issue. The problem lies with artists copying promotional imagery or photographs/illustrations made by other people.

>>3054662
>I did thing awesome painting but sorry I am not showing a side by side comparison in decent resolution
>want to see it in person? sorry it's in my bedroom but I swear it looks like the original
>I had a whole film crew making a documentary with me but sorry no timelapse of me painting. You can see how I make a few strokes here and there though.


Maybe he actually did pull it off in a respectable manner, but the whole thing smells just like many other hyped up documentaries who act all science-like but in the end just make up shit for money.

File: C_1zNBdUwAEH7rf.jpg (37KB, 375x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 375x600px

>>3058782
why do i feel guilty for doing this

The internet just gives me limitless props and I WANNA FUCKIN USE 'EM

File: theft.gif (73KB, 604x339px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 604x339px

this is HxH, he steals from the same magazine over and over

do it faggot everyone does it just do it