Since I started this thread it has taken on a life of its own. I think it might have made me appear to be anti-photo and that is not the case.
I think what prompted me to start this was a discussion about elaborate photographic studio lighting and the question it brought out in me as to why the use of all this fancy photographic equipment was necessary to become a portrait artist. I just figured that if many of the best paintings ever done were done without the aid of any camera or artificial lighting why should we need it?
I am not against anyone using any of this stuff. If you have the inclination to buy a complete photo studio full of strobe units and fill lights and umbrella flash heads then, fine, if you know how to use these things and it helps you produce good work.
I just do not want to get into all that stuff. If I did I would have become a photographer and not bothered learning to paint at all. I would probably be making a better living if I had, though. If you look at publications, photographic images are used much more than illustration these days.
Hmmm, maybe that is it! I have some deep seated resentment against photography taking illustration work from illustrators. Maybe I should call my analyst about this. Maybe I have that Photophobia Mike referred to. Or maybe it is contagious. You can get it from over exposure to scanners and working in Photoshop all day.
