[gbritnell]

In my lifetime I don't know how many times I've commented on discussions of this type. Having had some art school training at a time when photography was a whole other medium the accepted theory was that as an "artist" you didn't work from photographs. Then as the years went by I saw what fine artists used for reference, pictures out of magazines, photos, personal sketches, anything that you could refer to to portray the subject accurately. I think the true feeling behind it is that if you copy a photograph shape for shape, color for color you never look beyond that to see what composition, light source, perspective etc. is all about. If you are an artist that specializes in drawing trees, you study trees. If you are an artist that specializes in cars, you study cars. You learn shapes, perspective, reflections, elipses etc and know how to apply them, but to do specific subject, a Ferrari, a Corvette, a Mustang or a VW how can you remember all the peculiarites about that subject, you can't so you use some type of reference material. Personally I take tons of photos for reference but when I get ready to compose my pictures I use bits and pieces from several photos to assemble my work. Sure I know what a cloud looks like in my mind but a reference helps make it look more believable when I do the finished picture. I don't worry about what other "artists" say about how to create a picture. If you know the basics and are happy with your work, or better yet if the customer is happy with your work that's all that matters.
gbritnell