Photographic Referencing for Animal Artists

Let's face it, animals don't stay still at the best of times and wildlife much more so than our domestic pets. So in order to create detailed paintings I find it necessary to rely on photographic references. 

These allow us to create accurate paintings that would be much harder or impossible to create by relying on memory or by painting from life. Wildlife tends to be especially tricky by being elusive and staying some distance away as well as generally not staying still. In many cases it is also simply far too difficult and expensive to be able to see animals in there natural habitats such as say wild lions in Africa or Bison in Yellowstone. Thankfully there are a few options that still allow us to get the references we need for wildlife painting.


DO IT YOURSELF

The best option is always to rely on your own photographs. For wildlife photographs taken on wildlife holidays or accidental encounters during vacations give the best opportunity. But photographs can also be taken closer to home by visiting local zoos and wildlife parks and taking pictures of wildlife native to your patch. In such cases wildlife will often still be at some distance so make sure you have a camera with a decent optical zoom. A tripod or your camera's image-stabilization can help avoid blurred pictures. Also make sure you research the best time to visit such as feeding times or keeper talks for wildlife. Be aware of crowds that come with summer school holidays where zoos may become too busy to get a good photo in some cases. The weather and season is also going to affect levels of activity as well as any animals that go through seasonal moults.

Keeper interaction and young animals make for great photographic opportunities

Another option is to photograph museum taxidermy exhibits. These can also be used for sketching practise. Remember that you might want some plant or vista references to act as elements in the foreground and background of your artwork so photograph these elements too.


FREE ARTIST PHOTOGRAPHS

Thankfully there are a few free resources that are accessible and free for artists to use. Why is this important? Because every photograph is subject to copyright and by just copying any photograph you see you are infringing copyright. Not a big deal for small sketches but much more significant if you are intending to sell your artwork where you run the real risk of fines. Some free resources still require you to attribute the reference you used and you should always make sure to read through the terms of use. Also be aware that some people may post our people's work into some stock resources which are very likely done without consent are still subject to copyright. The most important element of these is that they are allowed to be used for commercial use.

WetCanvas's Reference Image Library (RiL) is one of the best known. WetCanvas is an online art group and the RiL is a shared resource of photographs from its members and only available for use among its membership. 

Other free photographic resources that I'm aware of are MorgueFile, PaintMyPhoto, and FontPlay. DeviantArt also have a section where people put up photographs for stock use but this needs to be checked to confirm what usage is permitted and what attribution is required.

These resources often give you access to broad range of animals that you may otherwise be unable or unlikely to see. Photographs are given willingly and I find it good practise to comment and let the photographer know if you have used their work and where they can see it. I think it's also good practise that if you use such a resource that you help contribute to it.


PHOTOGRAPH STOCK SITES

Usually still advertising as 'Free' (though meaning royalty-free) these sites such as Shutterstock, iStock, Fotolia, or one of the many others provide a massive resource of images that you can pay a license for. Images cost a few £s or $s each which may vary with the image as well as the image's dimensions. Also be aware of licensing restrictions for the images use. There's also one dedicated wildlife reference photo site that I have heard for aimed towards artists called Wildlife Reference Photos
which charges about $5 a photo. 


There are a couple of disadvantages of using stock photographs of both free and paid for photographs. One is that they may be used by other artists so be aware that art very similar to yours may be created, especially if you work straight from the reference with little alteration. Also be aware that using such photos can disqualify you from some art competitions and shows. Other options are to contact a photographer personally or use photographs of people you know. 

Personally, I currently use a mixture of free artist stock photographs and my own photographs. I tend to now work more from ideas now than specific photographs and use a selection to help me create more accurate paintings that usually end up quite different from any one photograph. Even paintings that are largely from one reference typically have some alteration to them such as this red panda portrait.

Putting a price on nature?

Towards the end of last year I caught an interesting debate on the radio discussing how to value the natural world and what price we should put on it.. or indeed should we even be doing so in the first place?
(You can listen to it on the BBC's website here. Debate starts at 11:00 minutes.)

Two knowledgeable experts were on discussing the issue; one a writer and environmental consultant, the other an environmental economist. Both had impassioned and differing views of what would be required to address the state of our biosphere - currently in poor shape with levels of extinction so high many scientists agree that we are in a mass extinction event (known as the Holocene extinction event or Sixth Extinction).

So, should we put a price on it? Here are the general arguments:

#FOR
The arguments for putting a price on nature stems from the fact that so much of our world is seen in financial terms by governments and economists and the only way to make visible what we are losing is to express it financially. That way taxes, subsidies, and laws can be built around it in order to protect it. It is also the case that many people are not well-informed or indeed prepared to vote for more radical alternatives. In a democracy these are not vote-winners so we need to work with what we can.

#AGAINST
The counter to this was that pricing nature is a near impossible thing to do and would depend greatly on who was doing it and how? Ecosystem relationships are a complex web of inter-connectivity providing materials, food, medicine, tourism, and ecosystem services such as water purification that make it hard to pin down and value. Putting a price on natural does not address the growth problem which has led much of the environmental loss that has occurred and could simply act as a way to 'market' nature such as what has happened with climate change and the carbon market where credits are traded and offset; making profit for speculators and polluters but simply not addressing the problem. As such a more radical rethink of how our society's success and wealth is calculated is needed and that chasing GDP now was bringing us little in terms of better lives and happiness and furthermore it was unable to value such things. 



It was an interesting debate and one I'd like to add a couple of thoughts to:

Seeing as how so much of our economy and lives is depended on the natural world (its products and services) it is surprising to me how little it is thought of. Here's a vague list of ecosystem services the natural world provides us for example:

• Food
• Medicine
• Raw Materials
• Fuel
• Tourism
• Recreation
• New Technologies
• Carbon cycle and storage
• Nitrogen cycle
• Soil formation
• Water cycle
• Water and air purification
• Flood regulation
• Oxygen production
• Pollination of crops
• Decomposition of waste
• Pest and disease control
• Genetic diversity
• Energy production
• Seed dispersal

Valuing this and more would certainly be a tall order and how would you take into account potential unknown discoveries or value a failing keystone species? What about a capacity to recover? Even a single food source can rely on a complex ecosystem arrangement. Take the Brazil nut for example: 

Brazil nut trees rely on pristine forests; attempts have been made to grow the trees in orchards but with little succes. Here in the rainforest the tree's bee pollinators live, which in turn depend on orchids that grow in the forest canopy.  Male bees use the orchid's pollen as attracting scents to entice female bees, meaning many of the orchids have species-specific pollinators. Once the nuts  of the Brazil nut tree are ripe they fall to the forest floor. Here the agouti, a large rodent, has the teeth strong enough to break through the thick hard shell. For food storage it buries some of the seeds, some of which are inevitably forgotten thus playing an important role in the germination of Brazil nut trees.

In regards to working within the current system it seems that often this generates slow or little progress - global warming springs to mind, as does stewardship schemes. These were introduced in the UK to persuade farmers to take up more wildlife-friendly measures by negating their financial costs. These came into effect due to large population declines observed in farmland-associated species, particularly birds, and were brought in to reverse the declines. There has been around a 60% take up of the basic form of stewardship (ELS) but the declines haven't been reversed or even stopped but only slowed.

It's because of this that I do think big changes are necessary along with a radical rethink to improve the situation. But at the same time I can appreciate that by valuing nature in monetary terms is perhaps the most realistic option in what is a stubborn status quo. History has shown us that it has been mainly through large upsets and catastrophes that we have adjusted the course of our progress.

My foundation argument when it comes down to it falls back to 'If we don't do anything, ultimately, it will be us who will eventually suffer the consequences of broken ecosystems'. Through over-consumption, pollution, habitat removal, climate change, et cetera we have lead to the extinction and the future extinctions of many species. By doing this to such inter-connected ecosystems on which we rely we are effectively sawing the branch we are sitting on.

I don't like to use this argument though. I'd rather argue the more romantic notion that something can exist for its own sake rather than based on how useful it is to us. But sadly I don't think that will work. Maybe I'm wrong though. I hope I am.

Pet Breed Focus: The Beagle

I thought that for around once a month I would do a focus on a particular pet breed - mainly cats and dogs but I'm open to looking at more unusual pets. Where I will produce some artwork as well as give a little info about the breed.

This month it's the beagle.

Size: Small to medium
Origin: Modern breed originates from Great Britain around the 1830s
Appearance: Long rounded ears, long tail with a white tip that's held upright. Medium length smooth coat that's usually tricolour (white, tan, and black)

History/usage: The beagle has a fantastic sense of smell and has been breed to be determined and often single-minded in order to track game such as hares and rabbits. It's sense of smell has also been utilised in airports where beagles are used as detection dogs looking for items such as food and drugs - they are even used to find signs of termites in Australia. They are also used in pet therapy and, more controversially, are the most common dog, by far, used in animal testing.