As a realist artist, I am constantly scouting dA for possible reference images to use. Some I find are all right, some are terrible, and some are so fantastic that I immediately add the url to my favorites to come back to it later. What, exactly, defines the line between a fantastic reference image and one that is not "up to par?"

The purpose of this article is not to emphasize being picky of reference photos, but to just be aware. Artistically speaking, art is not something we copy, copy, copy from a realm of perfect reference photos. Nope! We need to understand what we are drawing. Think 3-dimensionally the next time you are drawing 2-dimensionally.

"What? How do we do that?" you may ask. Excellent question! For example, take the reference of this teapot by ~nayyade-stock



Although the photo appears 2D on your monitor, you can tell by the shading and highlights that the teapot is actually curved. Take this into consideration the next time you are drawing: art is not a matter of taking a 2D resource into another 2D manifestation. Art will be much more successful if you think from the beginning "Hmmm...by George, that teapot is round!"

Also, some people think using reference means you are not an artist. I was surprised and midly amused the first time I heard this. The ability of an artist, in my opinion, does not rest in how well they memorize something, but how something is communicated to the viewer. That's all I have to say on that topic; don't be ashamed to use reference! It means you want to learn, and be the best you can be!

Since I am an equine artist, I am going to use equine stock to guide you through the importance of picking a reference photo.

Lighting/Quality

I often get myself into this mess. I find an absolute "perfect" reference photo. The anatomy is amazing. The pose is spectacular. I have my linart, I'm ready to shade, when.... I realize the lighting in the photo is poor. Darn. How am I going to shade when the values are sketchy? (no pun intended) It will make my life a million times harder.

Let's take this wonderful photo by ~xHELLBOUNDx007



Isn't this a great pose? The anatomy is excellent; a definite "learning experience" if you're interested in seeing horse anatomy in motion. However, the lighting on this image is not the best. Do I mean to say it could never work? Absolutely not! This photo is fantastic for a manipulation because of the overall shadow on the horse. But if you're a graphite realist, look for the high contrast, interesting highlights, etc. This photo by *kittykitty5150 has a little more variation:



Not only is the horse a gorgeous color (not to say the one above wasn't; I love the "peaches and cream" look ), but can you see the interesting highlights on his shoulder, the high contrast on his neck and chest? Not only that; the pose is still intriguing.

Now, I realize that mostly people use reference for anatomical help, not lighting. However, if realism is the goal, the quality of the light source is immensely helpful. Remember our first friend? Mr. Peaches-and-Cream? He would still make a fantastic reference because frankly the horse is beautiful and photo is captured at the right moment! Just be aware of the lighting/values before you jump in all the kool-aid of a photo just because you love it.

Oh, and if the pose of a photo is great but the lighting is not up to par, don't be afraid to pull a few other references together to get multiple detail shots of the horse you want. If the lighting on the shoulder, for instance, is fuzzy, it's okay to find another reference of a perfectly good shoulder and "substitute in" for the fuzzy one.

Angle

Angle is probably one of the more important qualities of a reference photo. While it's true that the pose and perspective of the horse are probably what makes a piece full of impact or not, the angle of the photo taken is often tossed aside. Take these two photos by *Secrets-Stock and ~Colourize-Stock:



When we photograph animals that are below us on a height level, we tend to forget that specific point. They are beneath us. Therefore, taking a picture of them from above is going to make the anatomy a little skewed. See the horse on the left? His legs look shorter than they really are because the photo is taken closer to the top of his head. Again, this is not to say the pose could never work. It takes the right situation and right artwork, just like any other reference image.

On the other hand, the horse on the right is at ground level with the camera. The proportions are correct. Keep this in mind the next time you're browsing through reference gallery after reference gallery.

Color/Size

The color of a horse when you start may seem irrelevant to what color you plan to "make it." And for the most part that's true. Turning a bay horse into a chestnut horse really only requires lightening the mane. But what if, per se, you want to turn a white horse black? Or vice-versa?

Let me tell you a trick: White horses do not have sheen. I know, shocker! Here's an example by =Syeiraxx:



The horse is beautiful, right off the bat. And the lighting, pose, and impact this photo could make in a piece of artwork is undoubtable. However, if you wanted to draw a dark chestnut horse from the white horse reference, take a look at this by ~littlenake:



Wow! Do you see the sheen all over this horse's body? While some people have to uncanny ability to know where to place sheen, I, for one, do not. Therefore, it's going to be harder to turn our friend Mr. White Draft, into a sparkling dark chestnut.

Note that it's not a requirement to have sheen. Some horses are photographed on a cloudy day and may not have the intense sunlight on their coats. That's fine. What matters is your goal: do you want the startling contrast of a fine-shining coat, or the cool power of a subdued one? The choice is yours.

Oh, and while we're on color, I'm going to send out a tip. Never, ever reference a dappled grey horse unless you are DRAWING a dappled grey horse. I ran into this issue with a Christmas present for a dear friend of mine. I referenced a dappled grey, similar to this one by =SalsolaStock:



Again, the horse is lovely. But if you haven't, please full view it and point out where the shadows/highlights are. Can't do it? Neither can I! The general shadows are easy, but for details...forget it. Dappled greys mix their color with the shading and value. It's a nightmare to figure out. It's not impossible, but quite the challenge.

And a quick note on size. Serious reference requires big photos. Period. You need to see the details that make a reference amazing- the veins in the head, the slope of the withers. If the photographer requires a form of contact to receive a larger photo- do it! 'Tis better to go the extra mile and end up with an amazing piece of art, than substituting and ending up with err-not-so-good.

Also, one more thing. It's recently come to my attention the possibility of someone stealing reference photos. *moodymand wrote a great journal on this here --> [link] It's worth reading! On that note, remember to properly credit any stock photos you use in the way the photographer specifies. Thank you to the stock providers whose references I have used here; I hope I didn't beat anyone down, it's a learning experience, and ALL stock available on dA can be used one way or another. Be creative!