This essay really got me thinking. I do like drawing from photographs - mainly my own. I think it's part of the "comfort zone" mentality, because I can take more time if the 'subject' doesn't move. Your essay made some points I hadn't really paid attention to before. I'm going to draw more from life, even if I won't do as well! As always: Thanks for theinspiration.

As someone who does a lot of work from photos--including an entire calandar of women I make every year, I can't help but read this missive and feel if not condemned, then completely SCREWED. Then again, I enjoy it A LOT. I have emotional attachments to imagery, especially old photography and drawing them was among the steps that helped me trust my eye, rather than my mind. I also draw from life and I agree that it is a different experience, but I would argue over one being better than the other. I love what I do and I get excited and happy. The closest I've ever got to a ZEN state has been when I drawing from real life and/or photographs. No matter the source or object, isn't that the point of drawing at all?

I have to agree on some points and disagree on others. I quite often draw off photos (usually ones that I have taken) and I don't get a feeling of cheating at all - the reasons for this are varied:
a) it is still my interpretation of a scene, I bring out nuances and highlights from the photo that have meaning to me.
b) I incorporate elements of real life and photos into my composition so there is a crossover of real and "static".
c) I don't use tracing as a technique I draw freehand.

I'd like to think that my drawings are multi-layered, textured and have a narrative. So in that sense, I agree with you that drawing is more than getting a likeness right, it is a process that gets one in touch with one's self and the environment/subject one is drawing. This also includes the pre-drawing stuff, thinking about the composition, the subject matter, how they are combined, how they link to a theme etc. My point in all of this is (that for me) it is possible to extract the same experience from drawing from photos as from "life". Then again, I can see that for others the experience might be different....that's what makes us all individuals.

Without wishing to add any further fuel to the friendly fire of this topic, the one thing that hasn't been raised is how post-drawing enhancement, via photoshopping, fits into this. Should a drawing from life purist use it? Does it diminish the work and add an artificial filter over the original? Or is it a natural extension of the drawing?

This is a great topic, thanks for raising it, and I look forward to the discussion which will ensue.

BTW - if you read Hockney's book, Secret Knowledge, he hypothesises and makes a strong case that artists such as Caravaggio et al used the camera obscura to trace their subjects onto a canvas to assist them and obtain the realism that they did....in way like drawing off a photo. No one suggests that this diminishes the skill and or way that we feel about the paintings that they created.

please UNSUBSCRIBE

Your drawings are really an interesting experiment. I really haven't ever thought much about this subject, and I don't often draw from photos, but you bring up some good points. Thanks.

I have only recently discovered your blog. I respect you as an artist and admire your views on artistic issues. Nonetheless, I didn't like some points you made up there. I am a photographer. I can't draw, so I don't argue the main point of your essay concerning drawing differences. But, I don't appreciate the way you described photography. Yeah the camera doesn't see like the human eye. I think it sees better than we ever could. Obviously, it doesn't sound like you know that much about depth of field, zone systems, and just basic exposure because that my friend brings a mere two-dimensional picture to life. "We scan back and forth at a varying rate, observing more or less, capturing more or less detail, depending on our degree of interest in the subject." a lens can do that too. "A photo captures a scene without emphasis or subjectivity — it is a mechanical rendering with no human element in the process." That is like saying anyone could take a picture. Anyone at all. It's all the camera. no process. No art. No person behind that camera. No thinking what so ever. no technicalities. no vision. no interpretation of the world. No ideas. No nothing. Just point and shoot so effortlessly. Viola! Photography is the art of truth. it evokes emotions and could stop time. It saddens me that you can't seem to be engaged for long in studying a picture. You're missing out a fine art, my friend, not anyone could just press a shutter and become some photographer. just wanted to clear your view on photography. Now, if drawing off a photo isn't like drawing from real life...that's for you guys to figure. of course I agree nothing beats the real thing. Because just like photography, drawing does require all your senses to be present and aware of every detail at that moment in time. God bless you.

I never draw from photos, partly because all my drawing is for pleasure (no need to satisfy a client with the accuracy of an eagle's head), and mostly because if the camera already flattens the shapes, why should I bother?

Now how about a commentary on drawing imaginary scenes/objects compared to drawing real ones? I often draw imagined combinations of objects I've already drawn from observing. It tells me whether I really *saw* it or not.

Danny, thank you for writing this. You have some very, very good observations, ones that I've never considered, but that definitely should be considered. I think drawing from photographs is much more comfortable for me, but when I think about it, the pieces of artwork that I've done that I'm really, really pleased with were done from life, not from a picture.

I think I am going to take ten minutes or so and draw something (from life) before hitting the books. :)

Having been an artist turned photogapher, but never having drawn from a photograph, and also having never photographed a drawing I can offer another perspective on perspective.

If you are drawing from a photograph think of where it is. On you lap? Desk? Clipped to a sketchboard? Wherever it is, it is going to be smaller and at a different perspective than it's origin. Spatially it is going to compete with the other elements in your environment (things around the photo).

In Danny's "life" example he would have been viewing everything life size, with all the detail there for exploring. The "photograph" version would the subject at 5-12 inches away and is probably no larger than 4x6, which probably gives you something like 1/10th the scale or smaller (sucky).

So I guess what I am saying is you should draw from life because it is just better resolution and I should start drawing again because I made a New Years resolution.

Mahalo

-Garth

I agree with you wholeheartedly that drawing from life results in gutsier, more real, livelier, stronger drawings. You are, by defintion, not wholly present with your subject when you draw from a photograph. There are times for all of us when drawing from a photograph is useful, I guess, but it isn't the same. It just isn't.

It's an interesting argument, although I don't necessarily agree with all of it. I think you can spend lots of time on, and be equally contemplative with photo references as you are in drawing from life. Perhaps it speaks more to personal sensibilities as to which you may choose.

I'd like to respond to a few of the comments posted above, in part because some of them seem to be quite inflamed by what I have written. I thought I made explicit early on in the essay that in order to probe further into my own experience, I would take some extreme anti-photography positions. In doing so, I seem to have pissed off some photography lovers and drawing-from-photography lovers.
Mai: I have hired photographers for twenty years, I have studied photography, I am a great fan of the art form, and know a fair amount about it. My points was made not to diminish photography but purely to discuss the difference between it and reality as the basis for drawing.
OttoBlotto and Detlef:
De gustibus non disputandum. Your drawings are terrific but in pursuing the sort of tortured looking things I began making in Everyday Matters and in trying to have that near out of body experience I get when deeply immersing myself in a drawing, working from life is where it's at. If your experience differs, cool. I wonder why that is exactly. Are we wired differently? It is also clear from your work that you have far more patience and discipline than I do.
I love Hockney's book and the controversy it provoked and, in the end, prefer his work to Caravaggio's but I'm a Philistine.
Garth: I sat in more or less the same place relative to the subjects, shot the picture with a 24 mm lens and printed it out at 8x10, 300 dpi. And by the way, your photos are simply amazing.
L strawbridge: without an email I can't remove your from the list. I hope my views on drawing from photos didn't turn you off.
Summer: your work is always fantastic, no matter what you draw from. What on earth did you mean by "feeling screwed"?
Here's the bottom line: everyone should do their own thing. Part of my thing is trying to dissect what I do and understand it better. Drawings done from photos, particularly my own, often seem to lack a certain something that appeals to me. I feel the same way about Celine Dion, Dan Brown, cooked peppers, unshaven young men, the Upper East Side of Manhattan, post-Hannah-and-her-Sisters-Woody-Allen movies, Wes Montgomery, the NFL, wet tissues, stretch fabrics, baseball caps, and drawings colored in Photoshop. Some of these opinions are indefensibly subjective, others are just common sense. If you disagree with me on any of these topics and want to set me straight, please write me an illustrated letter, laying out your objections.
Your pal,
Danny
PS It's probably not a good idea to respond to comments on your blog after watching American Idol. Then again, it's probably not a good idea to watch American Idol in the first place.

try making drawings from a microscope

Danny - you'll have to stop quoting Latin at me (didn't learn it at school so had to google the translation..lol)...yes agree, each to their own tastes. I too have always wondered why I gravitate to realism and not a more looser style - can we explain the inexplicable? And my final word on this - a great thought provoking post.

Hmm.

When I am moved to take a photograph, if I like the result, there isn't anything more to add to that experience for me. So I am not really inclined to draw it. If I don't like the photo, I'm probably not apt to want to spend the time looking at it in order to make a drawing.

And because life is handy and all around me, I do tend to draw from life.

I have heard that it can be interesting to draw from details of your own drawings or paintings. I'm curious... Has anyone tried that? Is the experience more like drawing from a photo, or does it have the uncertainty and immediacy of working from the world around you?

I feel there are elements of 'I am right, you are wrong' in your comments. I used to draw from photos primarily but I won't look back in anger. The observations I made taught me a lot about light and anatomy. You have time to really slow down and study every element of what you are drawing without the light changing.
When I joined EDM I started drawing from life and yes, I love it. Drawing bananas particularly was interesting because not only was the light changing but the bananas were deteriorating. Life and death right there. But I now draw (excuse pun) from all the experience I got from observing photos. At the time (in my twenties) my drawings got me through some difficult times, just because they are realistic and from photos doesn't make them any less worthy.
David Bailey said that anyone can take photographs of people but only he has the chemistry that that portrait captures. Another photographer could take the same photo of the same person but they wouldn't be able to capture that. As for cheating, I don't know, that's a can of worms. Perhaps it's only the artist who knows whether something they are doing is cheating or not.

Wow, Danny, you sure do know how to get the blood bubbling! While I doubt whether your essay will stop me from drawing from photos entirely, it certainly will make me more aware of the whole experience when I am drawing from life. When I come in to NYC from my rural Burg I often come home completely exhilerated. That feeling is akin to what I want to feel when I am absorbed in a drawing. I want the total experience.

What a great article you have written so clearly on how the eye and brain see when we draw from life and how differently we see and think when we draw from flat photos. I fall on the draw from life and leave the photos to the photographers side of the feild. I run a figure drawing group and that experience of drawing from a life model for the past 11 years has been a delight and I can't get excited about drawing them from photos, even ones I make myself. Guess we need training to understand that process and how it works just like drawing from life. In anycase it is very interesting to see the discussion and hear all these points of view. Thanks Danny for your thoughts on drawing and photography posted to the world to read.
Frederick

When I taught art, this was always a hot topic with folks getting a riled as they seem to be here. My Dad was a professional photographer and I had my hands on a Hasselblad when I was nine. What I personally, felt about the process is that the lens, the camera itself gets in between the creator and subject. This was even more obvious when I moved to New Mexico and attended several events on the reservations there. The Native Americans request that no photography be done during the ceremonies. Part of the reason for this is that these events are spiritual events, not tourist attractions. The other reason is one explaned to be by a man on the Taos reservation: The camera distracts from the event itself and the very best way to experience the ceremony was to experience the ceremony and not interupt the participants or the other observers. I thought that might be good advice for life in general. Drawing a picture of a picture taken through a filter to begin with is a pretty watered down experience when there is so much life around us just waiting to be noticed, examined and incorporated into our journals as well as our lives with agoal of experiencing life even more acutely.

I am on your side, Danny. I want the real thing to see, to smell, to hear, to taste and feel.

Synchronisity - not even in seeing and drawing, Danny. ;-) Just read the pages 44/45 in TCL and YOU blog this here, too (see your last "here"-link ) ;-)

Regarding the differences between drawing and photgraphing you wrote: "A photo captures a scene without emphasis or subjectivity — it is a mechanical rendering with no human element in the process." As far as I could see the process and the pcitures of my friends (photgraphers) I wouldn't really agree to that. If they would do so, there would be no photos in the end, worth the paper they were printed on.

But there must be somekind of missunderstanding, 'cause in the end you turned somehow your POV and wrote about Arbus and Co. at the end of that paragraph - if not I would have really wondered about your turn in thinking about arts/artists ... ;-)

In which I agree: yes, there defintely is a real big difference between photo/life drawing - not allways to be put in words. Well, what for anyway? ;-) If we would have wanted to find words, we might have just written down the scene we saw. Instead we draw ...

Thorsten:
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion about my line about "mechanical rendering" so let me clarify.
First of all, I love great photography. It is an art like any other. Great photographers are great artists.
Second of all, that is not what I was talking about. Photographs are mechanical renderings because, regardless of how much human input there is in creating the image — focus, aperture, shutter speed, lens choice, etc — in the end, photos are made by machines, by complex devices made of steel and glass.
I can do a drawing with my finger in my spit but I can not make a photo, only a camera can. That may seem irrelevant but I don't think it is. Just as I feel differently when I draw a glass skyscraper than when I draw tree, I believe that looking at a photo is different from looking at reality. There is an intermediary in the process and that intermediary is a machine. I feel the same way about having a computer come into the process. I love computers but they have a particular flavor that impacts the way images look. I can tell the difference and I feel it when I draw.

Your pal,
Danny

Thank you, for that fast answer Danny!

Seems like that we agree in everything and I got you right understood RE: rendering. ;-)

When I was talking about "the human side" in photography I was mainly thinking of 'portrait' and 'reportage' - in fact, I found that only SOME photograhphers get the character of a situation just because they have the same way of seeing and getting into the pciture as "us" ... no matter what knowledge about "manual/human" shutter speed and so forth they have to implement while making - I hate 'shooting' or 'taking' - a photo. Maybe that's why in some cultures making a photo of someone means "taking" away the peoples souls. That won't happen while drawing. ;-) Though some people have been drawn (away) ...

Thanks again for the nice blog-talk you started off with this post - which was on a totally different subject, ... ;-))
Thorsten

I would argue that photos are so TOTALLY subjective and thus don't make very good models for drawing. Take for example, black and white photography: the eye can see hundreds of gradients between black and white. Black and white film can only pick up 16 gradients and photo paper can only show 8. Your eye is much more sensitive.

Drawing from a photo (unless it's by necessity -- I too have needed to draw something for work in a hurry) is like making a copy from a copy. Photographs are beautiful in their own right but working from life creates a certain beauty of the imperfections seen through not one, but two eyes that see slightly different things at the same time.

And tomorrow, I'll be playing hooky from work to sneak into the city to draw and paint in the Natural History Museum... My subjects won't be alive exactly (unless I draw the turtles) but they won't already be flattened into 2 dimensions before I get a chance to do it myself...

I believe, yes, we probably are wired differently. I also think that's a good thing. Good conversation.

But do advise you lay off the American Idol.

Thanks for that Danny - just what I wanted to know about

But just to throw a spanner in the works for everyone... what about drawing from the TV? Or what about people who wear glasses? Are they not seeing reality due to there being something between them and the subject? Or what about drawing inside being done in artificial light and thus not "natural"? How far do we restrict ourselves?

Personally I think that if theres a choice between drawing something from a photograph or not drawing anything at all then just do the drawing, no matter what the subject matter - aren't you always telling us that its the process that matters and not what the end result is like? - if so then it doens't matter how different your above images are - its the fact that you put something on paper that matters

You make excellent points, and I have nothing to add to your points on drawing, as my skill at that is weak and I'm a photographer (actually, a cinematographer) by trade. I will, however, comment on this series of questions, answering in the rhetorical style that analyzes photography on an aesthetic level, in keeping with the philosophical tone of this discussion...

"Is photography more accurate or more authentic than a drawing? Does the average snapshot actually capture what the picture taker originally noticed in the scene? Does the camera see as the eye does? Does the viewer look at a photo and see it as one does reality or as one sees a drawing’s depiction of reality? How long can you look at a photo and remain connected? Compare that with the experience of looking at a drawing or painting, particularly one you made."

Photography has the potential to be the most powerful visual artistic meidum man has created. Of this I feel certain. Why?

Photography is, quite literally, the capturing of moments in time, in perfect detail and with the feeling of perfect reality.

By this I mean the following: photography is by its very nature a medium which a spectator perceives as reality. The moments captured are, very much, undeniably true. The sense of reality captured is undeniable, as the image was formed by the actual light reflected off of the actual subjects. One cannot deny this fact.

A good photograph, then, presents reality, but it does much more than this. A good photograph also interprets reality. Was the shot taken with a long exposure or a short shutter speed? Is the color representation accentuated by the selection of filtration and film stock? What does the composition say about the subject? How do the aesthetic properties of the photo (all things that are not composed simply of the light reflecting into the lens) comment on the scene on the behalf of the photographer?

Photography has power because even though it is frequently a lie, it carries the power and weight of truth (Jean-Luc Godard called Photography truth). A viewer immediately recognized truth in the representation, and so, if a photograph challenges the spectator's preconceptions of reality, he is fed with evidence that feels unrefutable.

This is not as heady as it seems... on a base level, all I'm saying is that a good photograph can present a highly-interpreted idea of reality that nonetheless feels like reality. For all of the wonderful innovations of, say, impressionist painting, none allow the artist to make a statement that connects as well because none have the sense of authenticity that the photographic medium inherently commands.

To WIll and VioletRose ---
Will: I don't really feel that one medium is necessarily "the most powerful" or "perfect:" but simply different tools for different purposes. The objective of drawing is not to reproduce reality (hell, cheesy photomural wallpaper can do that) but to distill it, to show how reality appears from the artist's POV, to give you a chance to put yourself inside another's skull and peer through their eye sockets.
But as Violetrose points out so well, my interest is less in the final product of what I create than in the process of creating it. And to that end, Violetrose, I offer the following formula:
drawing from life> drawing from a photograph> not drawing at all.
Legal disclaimer: this formula is based on extensive research with a single laboratory subject and may not be applicable to all cases. Consult a professional before disposing of your camera.

"drawing from life> drawing from a photograph> not drawing at all"

I'm glad you added that.

I read the post as "this is how drawing from life differs from drawing from a photo," and understood that your preference is to draw from life.

From the comments, I see that there are strong opinions about what's a better way to draw.

But I keep coming back to this, as a relative newcomer to the practice of drawing: it is better to draw than to not draw.

Also, as a new guy, it's helpful for me to try to copy a flat image (e.g. a photo or someone else's drawing) precisely because I'm making a 2-dimensional copy of a 2-dimensional thing. There's less to interpret, it's easier to see where I've made a mistake, I can always compare the actual source to the actual drawing - even months later - and learn something new from how they differ.

I hope other folks starting out don't read this as "don't draw from photos."

First, I completely agree that drawing from life trains the eye, or more accurately, the brain, in ways that drawing from 2D sources just can't. The mental gymnastics it takes to flatten a 3d object into two dimensions while maintaining accurate proportions and a dynamic composition can only be refined by hours of practice. But part of your argument against drawing from photos seems more like an argument against photography itself, and an unfair argument at that.

You ask whether the average snapshot captures what its maker originally noticed. And, as anyone who has clicked around on flickr knows, the answer is a resounding “No.” But what you don't say is that the average person's drawings usually fall far short of the mark as well.

These average people use photography and drawing for utility, not to create beauty or provoke thought. Their cameras are documentary tools, a means to prove that they took that dream vacation or that they had a great time on Saturday night. When they draw, they draw rudimentary shapes and then supplement with words to get their ideas across.

You had to learn to see differently before you could draw well enough to express on paper the feelings inside your head. You learned to evaluate the interplay of shadow and light, to analyze proportion and the intersections of lines and angles, the way that each element relates to the others within a composition. Snapshots are like drawings made by people who haven't learned to see that way, and snapshots are what you described in the first part of your essay.

So, you are comparing the quality of a drawing done thoughtfully from life, with a thoughtlessly created photo, and the drawing made from that. Of course the drawing from life, done by someone with some skill, will be more pleasing. My take on this? Two things: First, if you must draw from photos, draw from good ones made thoughtfully, not from any old photo that happens to be laying around. There's a lot to be learned from looking at and rendering line, tone, texture, mood, etc, whatever the original medium may have been. And second, to make a fair comparison between drawing and photography, I think you need to compare images made by people who are accomplished in their respective media.

I don't know which is more interesting, the original post or the lively comments that have followed! I guess they are one and the same. And it is kind of the same way with drawing from life and a photo, I think. Danny, I know exactly what you mean about there being more energy when drawing from life, and I couldn't agree more. I've found that there are times when drawing from photos can be helpful practice for study (like page after page of quick figure drawing when you don't have pages worth of figures around to practice from...) There are times when I'll start a drawing or painting from life, then have to take a photo in order to finish, and am usually able to keep that feeling of immediacy about the whole thing, but not always! Drawings from photos alone usually have a much more static feel to them, unless I really work fast and with that feeling of "I don't give a da**" about the outcome. Some things can best be appreciated with a great drawing -- other things are best appreciated with a photograph. It all works out in the end, with the point being to see, observe deeply, record, and remember. :-)
Great post!

Its not the tools that make the art --
Its the artist!

I'm new at drawing and trying to pick it up. While I understand that photography is essentially 2D and life drawing is 3D, and the way you see it is accordingly different, for me drawing from life and drawing from a photo are not much different at this point in my drawing career. I'm still training my hands and eyes to work together, and learning about perspective and proportion. In that regard I do think photos retain some perspective and proportion and thus can be helpful to draw from, at least initially.

I do wish to make it clear though that I'm not just drawing from photos -- I'm trying to draw from real life as well. The point is, I think drawing from a photo is still a learning experience up to a certain point, although maybe not as great a learning experience as drawing from life.

Interesting debate. I think drawing from other people's photos is not to be recommended, however when I have needed to use such photos as reference (for instance when drawing a famous person or a location that you cannot photograph yourself) I gather together as many photos as possible to try to get a 'feel' for the subject and then produce a drawing that is a completely new piece and which is not a slavish representation of one of the photos.
I don't think there is such a thing as 'cheating' but a photograph taken by someone else is their work of art and they should be acknowledged if you're copying their subject matter, lighting and composition.

First I want to talk about the drawings that you made. Both drawings are good. The main differences are:
-the life drawing is flat and cluttered.
-the photograph drawing has depth and a good use of negitive space.
So Danny, what makes the first one better then the second?
Second, It seems to me that you got bored with the photograph and started to draw faster leaving behide your skill at drawing.
Drawing from a photograph can be just as good a learning experence as drawing from life. The artist has to know what he/she wants to accomplish with both.
You said, "Stealing someone else’s vision may not land you in court but it will arrest your development." That is a very short sighted statement and is Not True. Trying to see what someone else sees and learning from them will not arrest someones development. Examining art from different media can help the artist see in different ways.
Throughout history studying drawings from Master artists was considered the way to learn how to be a Master. You take what they show in their drawings and paintings add your own feelings and experiences and you create your own art. Drawing from a photograph gives you a chance to examine the photo in greater detail showing you what you may not have seen in real life.
Anyway, the drawing that you made from the photo tells me that you used the on-camera flash which will make photographs seem very flat compaired to off camera flash. Also, put the camera on a tripod and that should help you compose the scene better.
In other words, working to make a better photograph should help you feel better about drawing it. The photograph will have more interest for you.

Hey Danny,

I'm doing research on drawing from memory and came upon this site. I found your article and comments interesting. However, you never responded to VIOLETSROSE's comment on 1/26/06. You totally ducked her arguments about drawing from TV or with glasses on or with artificial light - and whether that natural or not. She totally blew your arguments apart and you had no response. Do you care to respond to her points?

Hi Danny -

As a painter, I personally prefer to draw from life because of a few of the points you mentioned. I used to draw from photos actually when I was younger as practice actually. When I starting taking courses, my professors discouraged drawing from photos because the move from 3D to 2D is a pretty challenging process which is good exercise for your eye. You need to consider perspective lines, value changes, and nuances in color among other things.

However, that isn't to say that drawing from a photo is an inferior method of drawing. I don't think the two can be measured on a scale of "artistic worth." I think that as a student artist one may learn more about perspective and the traditional pillars of rendering by drawing from life. However, I think that drawing from a photo is a perfectly acceptable form of painting or drawing. Photo-realists and painters like Gerhard Richter have deliberately sought out photos as models in order to achieve the flatness and stillness such a method provides.

In my opinion, whatever the inspiration of your work may be: life, a TV, or a photo, etc., the human aspect of a work is the intention of the artist. Someone who draws from life and reproduces a scene in front of him is doing nothing that a Photoshop effect couldn't do. He would be guilty of the same mechanical execution of someone who mindlessly copied directly from a photo.

I aim to improve upon the photo(s). I do depend upon my clients to give me feedback, because they knew or know the person or pet I'm drawing in real life. I prefer to draw from candid photos and avoid studio photos - because studio shots, (besides copyright infringement)usually don't show the person's personality as well as candid shots...and the personality and spirit is really an important part of capturing a likeness.

Was doing some digging via Google re: thoughts on photography versus/alongside drawing, and found your site. Whew! Sorry I'm so late to the party, but my $0.02 before I dig a bit deeper (and more recently.)

You wrote:
A photo captures a scene without emphasis or subjectivity — it is a mechanical rendering with no human element in the process. It also captures just a fraction of a second of time.

I'd have to say, "What?!" A mechanical rendering with no human element in the process? Even if you're referring to the anonymous intrusion of always-on surveillance cameras, a person sets the point of view, or what's salient for the seeing; a person chooses (if the control is available) what focus/depth of field is used, and thus what's emphasized; and finally a person chooses to carve that bit of time and hold it separate from others. In every photographic image that's shared, there are two self-portraits occurring -- that of the person who set the point of view (usually but not always what we'd term the photographer) and the person looking at the image.

You wrote:
Every time I draw from a photo, I feel like a bit of a cheat. When I’m done, covering the content of the photo, transferring it to the page, and I look back to find more, there is none. It’s done, emptied of content, wrung out.

I reply, "If it's that unsatisfactory, change the process." But I think the issue is not with the photo-to-drawing conversion/conversation, but something else. Vermeer used a camera lucida, as did many others during his time -- and his images don't seem wrung out, but seem very alive (to me.)

Hhhm. Will need to read more here -- thanks for stirring up some thoughts!