Just wondering what board memebers think about comic book artists and the varying levels of photo reference used these days.  It appears to me that more and more comic book artists tend to use photo references for not only scenery but characters as well.  Maybe it is something I used to never noticed when i was younger because a) I was younger and less critical, b) Either I used to read only super-heroes or that was all that was really out there and today we see so many books trying to be 'realistic' or c) it just wasn't done much at all.
Obviously using photo reference for architecture and other scenery is generally better than an artist faking it.  If an artist needs to draw a NY city neighborhood, he/she should cruise the 'net or get some good picture books.  I have seen, I even think maybe in some JB work, what appears to be some kind of photos actually used as city scenes.  You can even go as far as, I believe the most recent issue of Planetary where John Cassady uses a photgraph of a city street and places a drawn character within it.
Many artist, such as Alex Ross, Tony Harris, Greg Land and Tim Bradstreet rely heavily on photo refs of people as well.  I do not know the dgree to which these references are used in each case, but I am sure we have all heard the rumblings of 'tracing' in some artists' case.  We can remember the case with the Magneto/Spanish President issue during House of M, correct?
The question I pose is this: What do you the fans, as well as creators think of this?  Is it cheating?  How far do you think an artist can use reference before you think you categorize it as cheating?  Do you look at these artists' work as less creative than someone like JB or Alan Davis?

I believe many artists use real models. It's a tradition, for example at art school you draw a naked woman, not a photo. Some comic book artists I have seen use models such as a toy car, then they can view it from different angles it etc. When I was at a crappy art school I noticed that when I used a photo I used it as a reference, not to photocopy, which the teacher's liked. For example if you want to draw a skyscraper you don't count the windows 1,2,3,4 and replicate it, you maye want to draw a completely different building. The real bulding might be 70 floors, your drawing could be 170 floors high.

Yes, I'm all the way with Mr Byrne on this one both as a professional artist and as a consumer of work.

Over reliance on photographs without having done the relevant groundwork from real life can lead to a most hideous dead quality in drawing.

Having said which photographs can be a useful aid - if it was good enough for Frank Hanson and Maxfield Parrish - not to mention the pre-Raphelites - then its good enough for me. Usually if an artist is skilled enough you will never know that he or she has used a photograph as a point of reference.

Regarding my own work I use photographs extensively but rather than trace over them I use Photoshop to digitally alter the image until I have something I am happy with - a kind of mark making albeit an electronic one. You may regard that as cheating.