October 2010
Using photographs as references seems to be for many painters a desirable and easily available resource. There are obvious benefits from painting from photographs. Photos can be readily cropped, magnified, altered and mixed to suit your needs. There is no limit to altering digital photos using software such as Photoshop and the results can be both fun and creative. Photos can be a wonderful tool to enhance your creative drive. Of course I would advocate using your own photos and not borrowing someone else’s work. A photograph is a composition that captures a chosen moment in time. Behind the photograph is the photographer who saw a point of interest and made a decision.
I have always liked taking photographs. I remember well the days of working in the darkroom and the excitement seeing the photo emerge magically in a bath of chemicals. Today digital photography offers endless possibilities. I always carry a lightweight compact camera just in case I might come across a captivating scene. When I paint “plein- air”I take lots of photographs for future references since I would often finish such paintings later in my studio.
Regardless how great of a resource photos can be, there might also be some shortcomings to consider. A successful photo doesn’t necessarily mean it is a great choice for a painting. Furthermore, one should not feel compelled to paint everything that is in the photo; somehow I find it easier to leave things out when painting “plein-air”. A friend of mine no longer paints from photos, she prefers to paint from still life installations, live models or on site when possible. For sure a photo doesn’t have either the three dimensionality or the tactility of an installation which add tremendously to our sensory perception. And, if the creative process is mainly experienced as an emotional language, I suppose my friend has a point. Perhaps photographs are too easily used as a shortcut.
Yvette Stenzel
 |
| Photo Boston 2010 |
 |
| February in Boston 18×24, Oil on canvas |