Commissioning a portrait is no longer the complex, time consuming process that it once was - (unless a client accepts to be painted only by those who do not make use of photographs as reference). Prior to and into the 19th century, those who sat for a portrait did so for lengthy periods. These sessions, called sittings, could last for hours with minimal break times. This process was repeated for how many days it took to complete the portrait. Naturally, the subjects of the portrtaits had to have enough time on their hands to sit for these lengthy periods.

Today, few of us are so blessed as to have all the time in the world to sit the old way, for a portrait.

Using photography as a reference tool

Is it legitimate to use photographs to create a painted portrait?  This practice is about as legitimate as doctors using x-rays rather than "guessing" at a diagnosis.

This is not to say that copying directly from a photograph is acceptable or printing the outlines and shades from a photograph onto a canvas - then painting the portrait is acceptable. Such practices do verge on the fraudulent.

The idea is to remember that a good portrait is the result of a skilled craftspersongoing taking his craft to the level of masterwork through professional use of reference material, and having a vision and unquestionable talent. What tools a master portraitist uses is irrelevant.

Today, Most people have busy lives. Even children of various ages sometimes have hectic schedules. Portrait painters, skilled (trained) in the use of photographic equipment make good use photographs as references. The trick is knowing enough about photographs to not make the obvious mistakes this 2 dimensional reference tool tends to force upon us. Using a photograph well is as important as using a brush well. I would wager that Leodnardo da Vinci, as modern and innovative as he was in his time, would certainly not  object to the use of the camera - as long as the user was proficient.

Modern times bring about changes to all professions. And if photographic reference was legitimate for the praised Impressionists I think this technique for gathering information is acceptable to most of us lesser mortals.

All of us have to simply become more choosy when it comes to looking at the work of visual artists. Is their painting tangibly proficient in saying something about the subject in a portrait or does it simply offer up an expensive (photographic) likeness?

In the realm of portraiture or anything in the visual arts it is a question of "buyer beware)