To everyone who has contributed to this thread, a thank you.
Now, an apology!
Yesterday, in searching for the work of “Scrawnypaws” in the portofolio’s or galleries I found nothing. Thinking of his work as “paintover” I’m a great admirer. My complaint was his attempt to claim so called traditional skills in getting his results. As a paintover artist his work is sublime. That said, if he’s been removed or has removed his work from this site because of my original question, and the threads that have resulted, I am apologetic, both to him and the rest of you. It was not my intention to cause pain to anyone. I didn’t realize then (as a newbie to this site) that this was such a contentious issue. Again, my apologies!
gnarlycranium
In particular this bit:I do that all the time! I draw a detailed sketch, then go photo-hunting and piece together chunks of things that match up with what I’m doing, and other chunks of things that help with the lighting, often mashed together in several layers on top of each other, mixed together, and sometimes bits of it match well enough that people would probably say I traced it, with a direct comparison… what do I do with that? What do I even call that? Showing all the photos used would take a while.
Being a more traditional artist (primarily sculpture) this method is how I’ve been learning work with digital 2D and find it very compelling. I hope the forum eventually provides direction that makes it useable as an acceptable method.
Stahlberg
The purpose and character of the use. Transformative uses are favored over mere copying. Non-commercial uses are also more likely fair.
The nature of the copyrighted work. Is the original factual in nature or fiction? Published or unpublished? Creative and unpublished works get more protection under copyright, while using factual material is more often fair use.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Copying nearly all of a work, or copying its “heart” is less likely to be fair.
The effect on the market or potential market. This factor is often held to be the most important in the analysis, and it applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, it’s unlikely to be a fair use; uses that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely fair.
These statements and the others you made are very helpful and can be used as a guide I think.
Blessing
That said… tracing is not referencing. Color picking is not referencing. Painting over a photo is DEFINTIELY not referencing. I don’t care if people trace or paint over photos, but if they’re going to do so they better not call the end result a painting. I think the issue with references is not the references themselves, but the digital community’s ability (or lack of) to be up front about how they use their references and how it relates to the artwork they show.
This was the heart of my original question about references as I found too much fibbing about the work. Another thing. I was simply staggered by the quality of some of the work and found it almost impossible to believe that anyone could possibly have such understanding of light/shade/values/shadows. It seemed otherworldly. I was both disappointed and relieved to find that overpainting was being used. It both brought down the artist to more normal human abilities, and meant that I wasn’t such a waster after all.
Arlekin
well i think taht human mind can simulate photorealistic lightnig you just have to develop an imagebase to refer to in your mind…yes it means countless observations etc…if this is referencing then you are correct but what i mean is taht artst does not nessecarily have to use ref in the time he/she is painting the current painting. Hehe but i guess that every last one uses ref from memory and if taht counts as a ref well lets call all the guys with photographi memory cheats?
You must know some interesting people! I’ve never met any artist with those sorts of abilities and question their existance. Without some sort of reference to view I can’t imagine understanding how light would fall across all the shapes found in on a figure with clothing for example, with the shadows and bounce light that is found in nature. It’s just too complicated to imagine cerebrally.
Rebeccak
Clearly everyone has a different idea about using references, but I think the key thing to remember is not to lie about what you do.
Yep!
Quadart
If it hasn’t been mentioned yet, the art of painting over photos is sometimes called Photo Illustration. If the main subject of a digital piece is a worked over photo it should be called a Photo-Illustration, IMO.
Maybe that’s one catagory that could be used. I personally think anything should be a Go. Just be up front about it and put it into the correct catagory. The problem should be simple/difficult. Give each catagory a name and follow that with aggreed upon rules that make it as straightforward as possible. (that would be the difficult part)
