Friday, September 23, 2005


In the art world, there is a difference between using a model-reference and a freaking rip-off.

Do these type of artists ever send royalties to the original photographer or model?



  1. No they don't.

    And the difference between using model reference and a freaking rip off is that usually the pictures that rely overly on photo reference don't work. Comics, and specifically superhero comics are rarely drawn to naturalistic human proportions and so images that are photo steals tend to stand out like a sore thumb, or the poses are incongrous to the context, like the New Mutants panel you pointed out a few days ago with Dani looking coy as a tentacle monster attacks her.

    The current image works because there are actually many subtle differences between the original photo and the illustration.

  2. I agree in part, but I don't see the subtle differences. She's holding a sword, has black hair, white dress has a flowing edge and she's looking the other way? It's better than He-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named but I don't see much diff here. It may come down to artists intentions. The Shi artist may have been honest in his work, but HTSNBN rarely is.

  3. The subtle differences I meant are things like the width of the ankle, size of the foot, definition on the muscles, width of the waist, width of the wrists, angle of the hand, shape of the shoulders, tension on the neck, and that you can see the back leg at all, when it's virtually invisible in shadow on the photo.

    The real problem with photo reference on people is that photos capture an instant in time and while comic illustrations appear to be doing the same thing, they are far more representative of a more complex action, and are drawn to suggest the beginning and end of a movement.

    Artists who rely too heavily on photo reference tend to produce very static and wooden images.


Moderation enabled only because of trolling, racist, homophobic hate-mongers.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.