Yeah, Bouguereau's work is not exactly coarse. But trying to put in too much detail is a fairly common error of beginners. Although modern photorealism does seem to specialize in it. Imitating photography seems like something of a pointless artform to me...although perhaps the pointlessness is the point!
My opinion is that relying on "optical aids" is harmful to the drawing skills of the artist if they are used too much...artists need to draw a lot to stay "in training" just as athletes need to work out regularly for the same reason. You hear that heard so often that even many of the guys who do abstract are believers in drawing pretty much daily.
I happen to really like that picture in post 134, been a favorite for awhile. I wouldn't mind seeing it in person.
There is a definite balance between having details that seems extraneous, versus having details that are conspicuously absent.
In the Art Renewal Center 2005 Salon Competition, I found myself in disagreement with the chosen winner in the figurative category. The painting Ryan, which won first place, shows a boy standing in front of what appears to be a painted backdrop representing a bookcase filled with various bric-a-brac. To my eye, the background does not particularly match the subject in front. I'm not quite sure what about the background seems 'off'--the lighting and perspective seem consistent with what they should be, and yet the background looks more like a flat tapestry than a bookcase. What's your take?
Also, how do you like the third-place winner? That one I really do like.