Hi Maya

It rather depends. If I’m illustrating a bumblebee and I just can’t get the leg angle right, then I may trace a leg from someone else’s work. However, never without permission. It’s mostly photos of animals in motion I might trace, not least because many of the creatures I get asked to draw aren’t (alas) hopping and prancing outside my studio window. Drawing from life is ALWAYS easier as you can rotate and understand your specimen, but when it’s not possible working from other ref and yes, even tracing elements, is fine by me. I’d not want to do a clear copy of someone else’s work, although I know that’s how many of the great artists in the past learned and honed their skill. And if ever I DID find I had to do such a thing, it would feel tacky not to credit the original creator of the work. So I guess, in a very round about way, I’m probably agreeing with you! Thanks for the comment. yours
Lizzie

Hiya Marialena

You are right about the copyright being more relevant when dealing with animals, and to a certain extent I agree that a plant is just a plant. But with illustrations there IS copying of compositions, and the other problem is that using ref rather than the plant can lead to mistakes made by someone ages ago being perpetuated, or even exaggerated. It seems like lots of botanical illustrators paint, as you mention, half pomegranets and seeds. But mostly the composition is totally different, which makes me think they’ve either gone and bought a pomegranaete, or are being careful about copying. So yes, I guess it’s the composition not botanical details we need to be careful about. But yes, I suppose that’s more to do with best practice than with copyright infringement. And using several references along with research about what to look for really helps avoid perpetuating errors. But I totally agree, the best way to illustrate a plant is to get hold of it! And that is exciting about the vellum!!!! Thanks Marialena, as always, your comments are great, and make me think about stuff. I appreciate it. x

https://www.williamcowley.co.uk/products/

Thats a really good point about the black and white photo showing the tonal values of different colours, and you’re right. A less experienced artist might panica at the suggestion, but yeah, that’s where the value lies. And I know. Copyright and plants. But the bit you do need to look out for is the composition. Sometimes you see a specific growth pattern repeated across lots of flower guides, obviously everyone has been working form the same reference. But in terms of the details of, let’s say, one flowering head? I couldnt agree more and it is indeed a little eye-roly! Thanks, as always, for your insight and comments. x

Copyright now and particularly on plants and public spaces is the stupidest thing ever because there is a limited number of angles that you can photograph a subject. Upwards, downwards, from the sides, back lighted or front lighted. No matter what you do and unless you edit a photo in a more artistic manner, there is not way to have unique photographs of let’s say roses or a public building. If you make an online search you are going to find millions of photographs almost identical the one with the other, because people usually take photos from the same spots and from the same angles.
So copyright particularly on plants’ photos applies more on the creative editing and not the original photograph. If you take aside the editing a rose will always be a rose!

Hiya

Yes, I agree. The copyright laws do need to be understood, but like you say, only if you’re working commercially. Saying that, I do worry that kids at school are taught to make power point presentations, slotting in photos and illustrations from the internet. Fine for school, but I hope when they get out into the workplace they’ll get some training that explains that this isn’t ok if you’re giving a presentation etc to colleagues from a company. And something about crediting the photographer would be good, it’s sometimes the image use fees that keep artists and photographers afloat. But yes, to think photocopying a page from your own purchased colouring in book is wrong, such a shame.

When it comes to learning, and teaching oneself, again, you’re totally right. Use whatever reference material you can get your hands on! Copy the old masters! So long as you’re not planning on selling the resulting artwork EVERYTHING is good to use for reference and inspiration. At art school we had to copy an old master’s work for an etching project. I did Rembrandt’s windmill, and learnt an enormous amount by emulating his mark making. I still use a lot of this learning to this day, in my pen and ink work.

Thanks for your comment, it’s a good point and well made; hopefully it’ll give people the confidence to keep experimenting and to glean inspiration from all sorts of places which they may have thought were “off limits”.

Hi Coral

It’s interesting, isn’t it? There are so many illustrators who claim to never so much as glance as a photo. I don’t know where the idea that using photo ref is somehow “wrong” comes from. As you say, the greatest of the renaissance artists, all the way through to current icons such as David Hockney use whatever technology is available. Why wouldn’t you? I do think saying you don’t use photos, and in fact the whole concept of “cheating” is deeply unhelpful to those starting out, and also unnecessary. I agree entirely with what you say. Perhaps there is some psychological reason that’s not been investigated, some idea of being true, or of a self image tied up with an artificial idea of art and purity? It would be fascinating to read something on the subject.

Thanks so much for your comment, I agree, and I appreciate you taking the time.

Yours, Lizzie

I suspect that the idea of ‘cheating’ comes from the fact that there are so many botanical artists pretending that they do not use photography, when in fact they do use it from beginning to the end of an artwork. Renaissance artists were never in denial of using optical tools and it was not an issue for them. What has become an issue to day, is the denial of the use of photography. It may be more of a complex psychological issue than we have previously thought.

I say to all artists, go ahead and use whatever you need and what you want, but stay truthful to yourself and those who look at your work.