Artists using photo reference

[Trout]

Here's a tough topic.

I would be interested to hear opinions from fellow fans about artists who make heavy, and obvious, use of photo references. The reason this is on my mind is simple: Greg Land.

Currently, my favourite comic book is Mighty Avengers, mainly because Al Ewing is writing it, and Al Ewing's writing is a sheer delight. The art is by Land and, while I'm not going crazy over it, seems perfectly fine for a US comic book. I also liked Ultimate Fantastic Four, despite its ridiculous title.

But I've become aware of the controversy about Land. Some people don't like him because he uses photo reference. Even worse, he uses light box techniques. Still worse than that, he apparently uses p0rn pics. Finally, and worst of all, people claim there are examples that he has lifted the work of other artists. (I stress that I do not know the truth of that, but there are comparisons posted online so people can make up their own minds. I make no accusations here, and it's kind of a side issue anyway.)

But, and here's the question: What's wrong with using photo reference? Arthur Ranson did it and is beloved by his fans. Another artist (Steve Sampson?) used to do it and everybody sniggered at him, not least because he (allegedly, so the story goes) had to stop drawing Judge Anderson after his girlfriend broke up with him.

To sum up:

1. Sorry if I have some of this wrong. I don't really like online scuttlebutt and don't keep up with it. Please correct me if I've said something inaccurate.

2. When is it OK to use photo reference?

3. Are some artists applauded for this approach, and others derided?

- Trout

[TordelBack]

I've no problem with photo ref, some of my favourite work is obviously heavily reffed (e.g. Ranson's Button Man, or Leigh's Defoe), but it needs to be in the service of telling a story or establishing a tone: the things that other image-making techniques do.

Look away now, oh sensitive ones, for a rant is upon me.

I dislike Land in particular because his characters seldom look like they are inhabiting the same space as each other, his compositions look like a prison cell collage, people frequently have exaggerated expressions on their faces that seem to have nothing to do with what they are supposed to be saying/thinking/doing, and his women in particular all look like the same small number of 'celebrities'.  In short it's like reading something you might be stuck with in the dentist's waiting room, and almost every page yanks me out of the story and makes me ponder the process.  When great writers like Ewing and Gillen are paired with him it makes me sad, because I know I won't be able to enjoy the work.

[CrazyFoxMachine]

TB and I seem to share the same brain which is as alarming as it is oddly comforting. This is a discussion that can run and run really as it heavily varies from artist to artist. I use photos occasionally to get ideas of space/proportion - especially if the shot is particularly difficult to visualise. It just makes it easier generally - but I really feel the final image should look more than 60 percent "yours" in terms of composition, additions and colouring (if applicable). So I tend to just use any photo as a basic frame rather than an exact reference. Sometimes if you overly photo-reference you can get incredibly static images - you can definitely tell on some occasions when an artist has just drawn over a photo of themselves... especially in an action scene! Not necessarily a bad thing as I say but it can detract from the overall scene.

Alternatively take a tip from Clint Langley and cut out the middle-man of drawing altogether - liquify tool up the hair and you're done!

Land has bothered me ever since reading this guy's blog. Because... well because that's super fcking lazy. How much does he get paid per page? And how long does it take him to just trace a screencap of some pr0n or an image he's got from a google search? It's one thing a struggling commercial artist doing it without really thinking - desperate to get a project done - It's another thing entirely for a "top of the industry" well-paid type to be doing it on a very regular basis. People like that should be outed really but ultimately as you can see in the comments on that blog there - some people literally don't care. I'm reading mainstream superhero hero comic do I look like I give a shit about originality?!

[Trout]

I'm among the people who don't care. I think it looks fine. I also think plenty of perfectly acceptable artists draw static work but don't use photo refs. Robin Smith is a good example.

I realise I'm no expert, though. I can't draw, and early digital colouring, while angering lots of people, didn't bother me in the slightest.

Sometimes art is just OK, and I don't feel bothered by it. It's a shame it can't all be amazing, but being OK doesn't mean it's bad.

[Professor Bear]

While Marvel still hires some technically-proficient new artists, the last few years have seen that they prefer consistency and distinctive styles over solid or exceptional storytelling chops.  Land falls into this catagory, and is fast enough to meet deadlines - I suspect it's no more complicated than that.

Also, the anti-Land contingent on the internet tend to be a bunch of whining, entitled arseholes indulging what looks to me like cyber-bullying.  Can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped in with that lot, so my opinion is that I don't mind one way or the other as long as the books are on time and he sticks to referencing art owned by the people he's working for.

[Alski]

I like Greag Land's stuff, but then again I'm not an artist, merely a reader.

[Frank]

(Steve Sampson) used to do it and everybody sniggered at him, not least because he (allegedly, so the story goes) had to stop drawing Judge Anderson after his girlfriend broke up with him

I feel bad for laughing at that; then again, I'd be just as bummed as Sampson if I'd split up with Kim Basinger, Liz Hurley, and Cindy Crawford all at once.

Calum Alexander Watt's art for Fog On The Eerie exemplifies the pros and cons of the approach: when he takes the time to fully integrate the main characters and backgrounds, it lends both a solidity and credibility; when he's hacking out crowd scenes populated by Helena Christensen and Kylie Minogue in some very iconic poses from magazine covers, it's just clumsy and distracting.

TordelBack's observation concerning the odd disjuncture between the expressions worn by characters and the emotions supposed to be conveyed (or even the direction in which they're supposed to be looking) applies here too. If the artist has a strong enough style and makes the effort to use reference that both obscures the source and creates a cohesive aesthetic, it's a perfectly legitimate approach.

[Trout]

I feel a bit guilty about Sampson now.

But he must be doing something right if he can produce the likes of this, as seen on Wiggz' blog:

http://thecursedearth.blogspot.ca/2014/02/steve-sampson-judge-anderson.html

Gorgeous.

[Steve Green]

I think it's more if you can use that as a starting point rather than the end (or close to).

There's the danger that you're so reliant on it you can't convincingly draw a pose that you don't have ref for, and what you can find drives what's delivered, rather than what's required.

If you are going to do use it as a starting point it make sense to shoot some yourself, rather than cobble bits together (for example the IDW MC2 cover that uses the body from a photo of Greg Staples in costume with a prosthetic head)

[TordelBack]

... a photo of Greg Staples in costume with a prosthetic head

Blimey, how did he lose the real one?  Rotring accident?

[CrazyFoxMachine]

I feel a bit guilty about Sampson now.

But he must be doing something right if he can produce the likes of this, as seen on Wiggz' blog:

http://thecursedearth.blogspot.ca/2014/02/steve-sampson-judge-anderson.html

...didn't trace that grammar though.

[Trout]

I was being nice! 

Can I also mention Mick Austin, then run away? Mick Austin.

*runs away*

[Colin YNWA]

Oh I was looking forward to this one as its a great old discussion but most of what I'd have said has been covered. Photo-reference can be super and fine I think my problem with Greg Land is pretty much what Tordelback has said. The elements of finding pictures that don't serve the story well to use, inconsistency in look is added to by a style that just looks so photo-referenced, it looks stilted and artificial.

When I look at Alex Maleev, equally photo-reference I get a completely different feeling. To the extend when I first read that was how he worked I was a little shocked and surprised, which in retrospect is daft as it is quite clear. However his work on Daredevil is so well do, so atmospheric and crafted to serve the story that it really works and sulks me a long for the ride.

With Clint Langley I have two reactions I really enjoy his work on ABC Warriors, a few exceptions aside (I remember the wife of the president of Mars really jarring) as that artificial mechanical look really works. On Slaine which I want to feel should look more organic it really just didn't work for me.

... so I guess as with all things art its horses for course but I have to be honest Greg Land's art was ONE of the factors that meant I didn't end up checking out Mighty Avengers.

[Bubba Zebill]

I had to look this guy up. (this may have been quoted here already, sorry if so...) The following page seems to show where this artist has lifted from others. ouch.
http://www.comicvine.com/greg-land/4040-2064/forums/greg-lands-art-why-i-hate-it-take-178-407907/

My 2 cents, there's no problem with photo refs - except the problems it will bring you, the artist, if you're too reliant on it. Artists that are skilled can carry it better, if the drawing skills are not there it'll be more obvious when you go off ref. It's tempting to use photo refs because the idea of creating a cinematic experience is tempting artistically.

But that can so easily deaden the art of the artist by limiting the view to realism and killing what imagination and raw, gorgeous, energy - even poor realisation- can bring to a story. Today I much prefer the rougher visions to the more polished...almost every time and it's all down to energy and imagination!

If you use it...
1. It shouldn't start to look like a traced picture-story from Look-In...(...showing my age)
2. It shouldn't control the story.

The best artists can draw anything to a reasonable degree without refs....perhaps adding detail based on them at the end, if they have time.

Also....poser style tools, these digital mannequins that artists use now. I consider those the same as photo refs to some extent because while they can help in a tricky situation - you can just as easily import  the inherently awkward images that they render. When a poser mannequin or photo ref falls into a certain perspective, one that doesn't correspond to anything else you've drawn, limbs begin to look weird...it goes out the window.
So artists should try and avoid them as much as possible....also, photos date fast. Hairstyles and clothes will date your work in a heartbeat!

Above all, as readers, I'd say just try and enjoy the work for what it is, comics artists are some of the hardest working 'commercial' artists and they are, even now, little respected and poorly paid. So cut them some slack.

...but this parasitic business of copying, tracing, other artists compositions, no no no.
That's creepy and sneaky and shitty and...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18mUlDddCc

[TordelBack]

Just to be clear here, it's not photo ref I object to, it's poor results. I've no real problem if Land or whoever traces or digitally manipulates or just plain cuts stuff out of Hello and pastes it in, as long as it works to tell a story, and doesn't act to constantly distract me from enjoying the comic.

The great Eddie Campbell, one of the small rotating pool of my top comics artists of all time, has always used copious refs (photos and illustrations), despite having an apparently fluid sketchy style.  His harsh light-and-shade technique in particular have always looked like the high-contrast B&W photos they copy. In his recent The Lovely Horrible Stuff simple colour photos of his family and his travels merge and transition into linework and watercolour and it looks bloody marvellous.  His use of snaps are just the visual equivalent of the obsessively filled notebooks that provided the meat of his autobio work.

Similarly Dave Sim and Bryan Talbot, two more from my top artists list, make extensive use of photographs, flipping back and forth between tracing, copying and collage, for all that they are masters of the ink line and accomplished caricaturists.  It's not the technique, it's the product that matters.