Studying from Life vs Photos

[NinoKitteN]

So i was listening to the Brad Rigney interview for the 432443252 time and as always he explains how he made it , how he learned all the things he knows , from lighting to form to composition .
And he says that he moved in with his parents and painted from movie stillls and then applied it.
SO the thing is. He practiced from photos and still made it , whenever i do that my teachers and peers want to shove their fingers up my ass and tear it apart because its wrong.

The problem is I'm divided , its far more practical for me to study from pictures , but ( apparently ) better for me to study from life what should i do.

PS- I suck very hard at painting from life , usualy cant get proportions right

[Chris P]

This picture sums up the issue really well:

[Triggerpigking]

Chris P Thats really true XD

I think both methods work fine if you pay attention to what you're doing, painting from life is always gonna be better but it's not always an available or fast enough option and in the case of movie stills alot of them like perhaps Alien for example would have hard lighting to reproduce in life without alot of work.

As long as you pay attention to your ref and if you're applying what you learn from it, then I think it's fine personally, just make sure to go life drawing if you get the chance.

[Gliger]

Step 1: Have questions.

Step 2: Look at photos/real life.

Step 3: Choose the one that answers your questions.

And this applies to every discussion ever.

-Don't copy anime
Is copying anime working for you? => Yes (Keep doing it)/ No (Stop)

-Are master studies useful?
Step 1: Do master study
Step 2: Did you learn anything? =>Yes (Keep doing it) / No (Stop)

-Is studying movie stills useful?
Step 1: Study movie stills
Step 2: Did you learn anything? =>Yes (Keep doing it) / No (Stop)

Everyone is different and there is no point in mindlessly doing something just because other people are telling you so, you need to be aware of what helps you and what doesn't.

Last thing, and take this with a grain of salt because maybe it only applies to me:
Forget about ''exercises'', do whatever it is that will answer the questions you have, sometimes you don't need to draw 50 pictures to understand how lava moves, just look at a video, don't even draw. Many times you just need to take a quick look at life, or read about the topic, or even just think about it.

Srry if this came out rude btw haha

[Adam Lina]

I think a big part of the bias toward learning from photos is that beginners dont understand photography and how light looks different in a photo than to the eye. A beginner might take any photo they find and do studies from it not knowing that its not a well shot photo. It might be over exposed or low resolution which can cause them to learn bad habits. Another issue is that when it comes to drawing a real life 3d object will always be better to learn from than an already flat image. Oh course it still fine to draw from photos but drawing from life will give you more bang for you buck. Now thats all there really is to it I think and once you consider that you can just use your own judgement of what to study from. If Chris P's chart is correct, the time it took for me to type this is way longer than it takes to become a master painter? So painting for less than 3 minutes will turn me into Brad Rigney?

[Patrick Gaumond]

In my opinion photos are a good supplement to your knowledge of how light and form works in the real world. Studying from life is objectively more accurate than studying from photography. It will be more consistent, you have more options as to how you will study it (angles, lighting, specific locations etc), you don't have to worry about whether or not it's properly exposed or whether it's blurry, you can see shadow detail and much easier and more accurately. You have no reason NOT to try at the very least doing a still life. I understand if you can't go out to figure classes or do plein airs, but there is literally no reason you cant toss a bunch of stuff on a desk, shine a light on it and work from that. None. You will get better at it, as you will with every thing else you currently suck at. When Kim Jung Gi studies from life, he doesn't copy the subject directly, but rather translates it using the fundamentals of art to actually learn its shapes and forms in 3D. That's really the goal. it's not to reproduce it to within a millimeter, but to learn about the fundamentals of art

Studying from photographs is better for things that move a lot, things that are at unreasonable angles or locations, things that are inaccessible etc etc.
So think tiger, shifting daylight, foreign/historical fashion, weird angles of the body etc.

But like Gliger said, its really up to you what studies work and what don't. I personally don't see a benefit in doing master portrait studies, but I know they work well for lots of other people. I personally don't like studying directly from my illustration and concept art peers, though I like using them as reference for certain things and though I know that many other people like doing so.

[NinoKitteN]

Thanks for all the insight , im just gonna assess my problems and try both ways . Thanks

[Caisne]

Oh well... This subject was discussed so many times, it's not even funny. And I cant stand aside, where is the slot for my two cents?

There is no right or wrong ways of doing things, its just my personal opinion.

First of all study from a photo is helpful, as far as you actually know what you're doing. There for I would not recommend to study from the photo if you're just starting out as you probably don't understand shit, why this and that does what it does.

Second - it depends. Depends from a subject you want to study. Correct me if I'm wrong but, browsing all this sketchbook for years, I feel like at leas half of students don't understand the purpose of a study. For them its just find a nice Photo, copy it, put it on the sketchbook - DONE! And you cant blame this artists, because thats exactly what they see in all this sketchbooks, and adding more to it - as a result you receive a decent piece, much higher than you skills are.

If you want to get better at color - Life is better, period. Because you have to observe, consider colds and warms etc etc, while on the photo - lifeless leans did that shit for you. You want to get better at portraits, human body - LIFE. Because you cant get you ass off the chair, come closer, check that nose from a different angle, find out what this tit does, why it hangs like this when the chick is laying on her side. I can go on and on...

You want to get better at Creatures, lets say you want to do a series of Underwater Beasts from a far Oceanic Planet. Id say - PHOTO, unless you have a part time job on a submarine as a camera operator for National Geographic. BUT! Do not just copy this beauties you'll find on the Google Image Search, in wont make you better at Creature Design. Get to the Bones of this species, watch a few documentaries, learn why nature created them as they are, what does they eat, where does they live, why they have no need for the eyes? Cause there's fucking nothing to look at in the abyss they dwell. Gather yourself a reference library, do some studies keeping in mind what texture the skin of the species has, what colors are dominant, why they are so shiny etc. Think.

If you don't have an opportunity to study From Life do photo. But for God sake do not just copy the damn things, thats not how the human eye works. People just so used to look at Photos, that we consider Hyper Rendered, Flat, Overall Same Detail Level and Photo Real Piece as the Highest Artistic Accomplishment. Back days there were no photos and Facebook, there were galleries and wine, Photos just spoiled us all. I still do this shit, cant do nothing to myself.

Hope it'll be helpful.

[meat]

One more cent on studying from life and how that's useful:

Let's say with the same end goal of making a copy drawing similar to what you're looking at, how the process of doing that from Life and from Photo begets different walks and collections of fruits of knowledge.

My guess is Photo you can measure and manipulate all you want to on a screen with ruler or Photoshop rather quickly, but Life you can't really do that. You hold up a ruler to that T-Rex skeleton towering over you, then put the ruler down on your paper, but there's a lot of thinking, deciding, and thinking again before you can translate that measurement into something that helps your drawing achieve that feel you want. You'll be forced to think a LOT of why, why, why when studying from Life. And in that slow, sometimes frustrating, mind-churning process, you'll about what you're drawing and how to translate that whole thing into a representative 2D image. You'll learn differently than translating one 2D image into another 2D image.

That's just my extra cent based on distant memories of used to studying only from Life everyday.

Above all, most importantly, it's about learning. If you can't study from Life about something, use Photo, Video, something that looks similar from Life. Whatever you do, do. Then pause and look, and think about what it's done for you, and whether it deserves a contract renewal. If not, fire it and interview a new method, a new setup, etc.

[hadee41]

Both are useful for your life.