"Tracing, lightboxing in professional commissioned works -> unacceptable, unprofessional, non-artistic, and right down fraudulent."

I think we need a caveat here that it is still acceptable if the photos being traced or lightboxed were taken by the artist him/herself.  I am not sure how he transfers the photos to the artboard, but Alex Ross takes photos of people dressed in costumes as the basis for his work.  He is still controlling the lighting and composition, and not stepping on anybody's copyrights. 

Much as LITG is currently being despised around here, this week's column also has some "interesting" examples of swiping from copyrighted sources.  Marvel got into legal problems for doing this a few years ago, so it is surprising to see this becoming so common.

Use the tools you have to do the best job you can. Any tools.

Use the tools you have to do the best job you can. Any tools. "

Call it idiocy, call it morality.  It's embarrassing when you get called out on it by Rich Johnson on LYING IN THE GUTTERS, so something must not be right about it, no? 

The only problem I ever encountered when tracing photos is distortion in perspective caused by the camera lens. If using the photo as reference for a figure of portrait be mindful unless the photo was shot with a 50mm lens (the closest mechanical approximation to the human eye) there will be problems that'll be notable in the tracing.

Best is to use the photo for reference and then redraw using whatver construction techniques you prefer to get the job done.

If youre  using to solve an architectural problem, make sure your perspective vanishing points are consistent with the tracing as you add your figures, machinery etc.

 (clip) "Anyone who makes arbitrary rules about when, where, or how a tool is used it an idiot."

************************

These are the same idiots that decried your use of SHARIPES as an inking tool a few years back.

I still remember what Joe Kubert once told me at a convention..."Use whatever you need to get the line you need on that page!"

Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com

John said it more succinctly than I would have but he's 100% right.  And don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.  In professional illustration, where tight deadlines, hostile clients and shrinking budgets are rampant, the only rule is "Whatever works to get the job done on time and on budget." 

Drawing straight onto your page sans reference doesn't make your dick any bigger than a guy's who does elaborate layouts and uses extensive reference.  And I've learned that many artists who decry the use of tools and reference secretly use them more than they would like you to think.  I can spot them a mile away...stiff figures, unimaginative layouts, unnecessarily over-rendered figures to mask weaknesses in proportion and anatomy...they struggle yet refuse to use tools that will help them, which is unintelligent.

Use of lightboxes and photographic reference has been a tool in commercial illustration for decades.  Learning contour and form by tracing other illustrations and paintings has been a technique in art schools for centuries.  Whatever it takes to get through your gig and make your client happy, short of outright intellectual theft, is valid if it nets you the results you seek.  And anyone who believes otherwise, while entitled, is wrong (I won't play the "idiot" card, but I ain't disagreeing with it, either...).

I've never had a problem with lightboxing on two ply...even three-ply works if your bulb is bright enough!

Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com