Well, according to me, lightboxing photographs out of magazines is simply unethical, and according to Glenn Brown, those who do so produce work that features "...stiff figures, unimaginative layouts, unnecessarily over-rendered figures to mask weaknesses in proportion and anatomy" although he also says it's necessary and perhaps idiotic not to trace photographs of Cindy Crawford out of VOGUE and sell them to a comic book publisher.

Using photographs is important.  Referencing aspects of proportion, anatomy, and just plain life in general is extremely valuable.  Take your own photographs to work from. That's even better.  The problem isn't whether or not an artist should use all of the tools that are available to him, the problem is that tracing the work of another photographer and then reselling it, I mean literally TRACING it, not learning from it, or referencing it, is wrong.  And it's cheesy.  If the deadlines are so crushing that you'd be willing to sell out your craft like that, I don't know what to tell you.   Maybe you aren't a monthly comic book artist afterall.

-EVS

Ha ha!  Hey, Chris.  Thanks for the chocolate, we just got it today.  Haven't gotten your books though...(?!)  I'll look into that tomorrow.

Oh, and come on.  There's nothing wrong with copying photographs, etc.  It's more like there's something wrong with copying someone else's work and selling it and having it published as your own.  In whatever manner.  It's just as bad to lightbox panels from John Byrne's X-MEN run, in my opinion, as it is tracing a Victorias Secret catalogue and turning it in.

It's a subtle distinction.  I think the problems are the lack of craft involved, the fact that money is accepted, and then the fact that the work is credited as your own. It's deceptive on so many levels.  But then I think about whether or not this disrupts the enjoyment of the comic book by an average reader, and I'm not sure it does. 

I don't know.  It's a question of ethics.  But I don't think the word 'idiot' is applicable no matter which side of the fence you fall on in this case.

The difference between what Neal is talking about and what is being done is that the un named artist, shall we call him Craig Real Estate?, presents almost exact versions of the photos he has traced and presents it as original work. He even denies that he traces pictures though photoshop can prove that quite wrong. Photo referencing isn't tracing, photoreferencing is using an image to understand or help you complete a drawing. Say you don't know how to draw a bird wing and your new assignment is Hawkman, you can use pictures of a birds wings in various scenarios to reference, not trace, the wings for Hawkman. Tracing tthe work and then using it to gain a profit is illegal.

Jason

Matt: I never have had a problem with artists using photo reference. If they didn't thee only shots we'd see of Paris would be a badly drawn Eiffel Tower (from those who didn't live in Paris, that is), because they'd have to rely on memory alone.

Matt: Now, swiping (as opposed to homages), in professional work is another matter. I believe that is stealing someone else's vision, so to speak. Using the Eiffel Tower reference, two people can look at the same thing in real life, or in a photo and come away with accurate, but very different interpretations of that object.

Yeah but HOW is "swiping" any different from referencing a photograph for a pose? They both amount to the same thing, using another persons work to capture a pose. Is there really a difference? I tend not to really think so in the big picture...

Jason

I just came across an interview with Klaus Janson that touches on the subject at hand.

http://www.comicfoundry.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?ar ticleid=147

"Well, according to me, lightboxing photographs out of magazines is simply unethical, and according to Glenn Brown, those who do so produce work that features "...stiff figures, unimaginative layouts, unnecessarily over-rendered figures to mask weaknesses in proportion and anatomy" although he also says it's necessary and perhaps idiotic not to trace photographs of Cindy Crawford out of VOGUE and sell them to a comic book publisher."

Hey, Ethan!

Do me a favor...if you're going to attempt to comment on something I've posted, at least try to address what I've actually said without attributing some other bullshit to my name.  Thanks.