Citing References - a commissioner's opinion?

[sabarika.livejournal.com]

Not sure if this has been asked here and I am posting because this seems an appropriate place to do so, especially because of circumstances where artists have drawn commissions and referenced or copied photos and the commissioner became angry thinking they were receiving "original" art and it was actually copied.

Commissioners - if you commission someone and they [legally] reference a photo, pose, or other art do you feel ripped off?  Say you commission someone for your character in a laying down pose - the artist uploads it/emails it and you find out they referenced/copied a pose from a stock photo - do you feel like the art is worth less/you didn't get your money's worth because it wasn't 100% from their head?  Say they TOLD you they referenced--"oh, I used this pic I took of my S.O. because I couldn't get the angle right" or "i used a stock photo for the pose of your wolf"--do you care?  I'm doing a commission right now where I am using a photo I took of a friend with her permission to help me nail my anatomy and perspective - I intend on citing this when uploading the work and showing the commissioner.  I worry that the commissioner might feel disappointed because I couldn't draw this "by myself" and if "i wanted a copy of a photo I'd print it myself and draw my char's head on it".

Do you as a commissioner care if the artist is referencing from life/photos to do your work?  Especially if the artist does not normally do this or has not before cited references?  Would you feel disappointed or would you be glad that they are making the effort to find a resource to ensure the drawing is "better"?  Does how much they copied make a difference - if they took an entire photo, copied it exact but made changes to colors/markings would that be worse than using it as a starting point and altering it significantly to make it up to your wants? And finally, does the difference lie in how much like the reference it looks like?  Due to stye, ability, and all sorts of factors some people can reference a photo line for line while others you may not tell due to their style that they even saw a photo. And of course, what it is they're drawing. Hard to copy line for line a photo of a real life gryphon or anthro, eh?

Sorry this was long but I'd love to hear from commissioners as well as any artists who may have faced an issue with having referenced/copied* a photo and had a commissioner complain.

*when I say copy I mean legally, from a stock site or citing their references, their own photos, etc.  Not just the first pic that turns up on Google without permission.  Obviously it can be a whole different matter if a commissioner discovers their commission was a traceover of a Google photo.

Comments

[kriscynical.livejournal.com]

I always try my hardest to NOT use reference because for years I thought "copying/reffing = bad and unoriginal"

That's a major part of the problem overall, I think. As someone else already said further down, there is a HUGE difference between referencing and copying. Not enough people know the difference and thus lump them into the same category. Referencing is in no way bad or unoriginal. Directly copying/tracing is.

[sabarika.livejournal.com]

It started when I first found the fandom, actually! In grade school and some of middle school before I was internet-savvy I'd sit around and copy photos of horses and dogs all day or Balto and Oliver & Co. screenshots. It's just how I drew. Then I got online and noticed that copying and "using help" for your art was looked down upon because the "super good artists" didn't seem to use references and if you copied it was seen as cheating. I know I didn't want people to think I was unoriginal and a copyer, so I stopped altogether and completely stagnated IMO artwise because I drew limited subject matter and did nothing whatsoever to improve through referencing life or photos when I needed help. I asked for redlines but that didn't teach me how muscles REALLY looked under skin or how fur REALLY laid over the muscle. I think a lot of young artists now could USE the benefits of referencing but don't because they either reference other artists or they copy a distinct style which doesn't teach them what their subject matter REALLY looks like.
My favorite way of "teaching" someone to draw is tell them to copy from life and [legal] photos until they can practically draw it by heart, but do it REALISTICALLY. Don't worry about defining your own "style" until you can master your subject in realism, or as close as you can. You'll find that your style will come naturally and develop on its own more freely and easily when you know how to draw it realistically first. When I started that I found if I could draw a gerbil from photos or my pets really well that cartoon-izing it came SO easy because I already KNEW what they were SUPPOSED to look like so I was able to stylize it correctly and still make it look like the original subject without starting from "scratch" - trying to copy it stylized first and THEN learning how to do it realistically. I like to use TLK or Balto artists as my reference point..how many of them STARTED by copying shots and poses from the movies versus drawing REAL lions or huskies? Some find it much more difficult to draw the real thing now because their point of reference in their HEAD is the cartoon - not the real animal. In "the making of" of TLK I remember watching artists sitting in a room with a lion furiously sketching for hours the same pose so they could animate it in a simpler style. I think it's an excellent way to learn now and more people should do it.

[kriscynical.livejournal.com]

Eyeballing is an excellent way for young artists to learn. I don't think it should be posted online since it's a copy, but it's a good learning tool. Tracing, no. Tracing is following a line... eyeballing at least makes you think about what you're drawing. To me, the people who say referencing is bad have no idea what they're talking about. When I was in school (God I say that a lot on here... sorry!) the professors had to spend a great deal of time beating the misconception out of our heads that referencing was bad. In our first year of illustration classes we were REQUIRED to turn in a process book to the professor that included reference images for the assignment (poses, a dress, props, etc).

Like I said, though, copying is a completely different thing than referencing. Shooting your own photo reference of a pose and then drawing from it (not tracing!) is fine. Finding photos of a hairbrush or a table or whatever and looking off of them to make sure you get the details of a prop is perfectly fine. Directly copying or tracing is a completely different thing. Tracing, especially, becomes a crutch.

Tracing as well as drawing everything strictly out of your head does cause you to stagnate, just like you said. Tracing does because you become dependent on it, drawing out of your head does because you have no way to improve without observation. Referencing is like a happy medium.

Everything in your second paragraph is completely spot-on. Art schools usually have first year students take still life and life drawing classes in order to draw things realistically by looking at them. Once you learn how to draw something realistically, you can stylize it. Once the foundations of drawing realistically are mastered, then you can work on developing a style.

To me, drawing from life first and drawing realistically before stylization is a MUST for any artist who is serious about their personal development.

[sabarika.livejournal.com]

Ah, I don't distinguish between "reference" and "observation" - could you define a little more? When I draw and use a "reference" I guess I just observe it..I don't make a point to follow it exactly and unless I am TRYING to copy the photo I sometimes even make it thumbnail-sized so I CAN'T just outright copy it exact. I "eyeball" it and then use what I learned from seeing the photo or real life thing to incorporate it in my drawing. Especially recently with my hands or canines, I watch my dog and see how the muscle structure looks or I pose my own hand but then don't copy it exact, I try to memorize how it looked or functioned and then use it in my drawing. Is this referencing or just eyeballing it? Do you mean "reference" as in "I have this photo and am basing my work off it but I am not copying it line-for-line"? I like to take photos then since I want it perfect I'll try to replicate it as closely as possible but alter it (like, a photo of a friend in a certain pose, I try to get the pose as exact as possible but it will become an anthro dog, so.. is this referencing, copying, or what?). Ack..sorry..I'm confused but I don't mean to sound snarky about it!

[kriscynical.livejournal.com]

Reference and obsvervation are the same thing. You are looking at something in order to reference it correctly in your piece. Copying would be looking at something and drawing it identically or tracing it.

Do you mean "reference" as in "I have this photo and am basing my work off it but I am not copying it line-for-line"?

Yes, pretty much. And what you said about tranferring the photo into an anthro dog is also referencing. Copying would be replicating the photo exactly as in drawing your friend exactly.

It's pretty confusing when you get into all the little gray areas and nuances of it.

[sabarika.livejournal.com]

Thanks very much for the explanation. :P I thought for a moment there was some huge chasm of a difference between referencing and eyeballing and it made the inner-me cringe hoping I wasn't somehow outright copying and calling it something else.

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

Hm, I think it's possible to "eyeball" and still "trace". I think the difference is whether you are looking for an understanding of what you are referencing vs a copy.
For example, once I was drawing a character with glowsticks. I wasn't satisfied with how "glowy" my glowsticks looked; so I looked at some photos online. I realized, from looking at the photos, that glowsticks tend to brightest at the center and have dark corners - so I colored my glowsticks that way. Or another time I was drawing hyenas and wanted to figure out how their ears looked - so I looked online, and doodled ears till I got a feel for them. But I did not find a photo of a hyena in the approx pose I wanted and drew while looking at it XD

It's the difference between saying "I do not know how the symbol 'three' looks; oh here it is two hemicircles joined together, prongs facing left!" vs "okay, the 'three' in my piece will be this sans-serif, 24 point purple symbol exactly like I found on google"

:B