No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by Ebadlun on Apr 25, 2019 2:30:07 AM
Is it more of a compliment to say a photo looks like a painting, or that a painting looks like a photo?

Discuss

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
TinyMcSmallbrain - 25 Apr 2019 02:42:31 (#1 of 17)

Apples / Oranges.

TinyMcSmallbrain - 25 Apr 2019 02:44:49 (#2 of 17)

But, just for the sake of discussion.

A painting that looks like a photo could be accused of lacking imagination.

Also, why paint something photorealistically, when you can take an actual photo?

YouGotTheMoney - 25 Apr 2019 02:45:23 (#3 of 17)

> Is it more of a compliment to say a photo looks like a painting, or that a painting looks like a photo?

I... uh... what?

to say that a painting looks like a photo would presumably indicate that the painter has a significant degree of skill in photorealistic painting.

to say that a photo looks like a painting might mean that the photographer has an excellent command of light.

both are compliments on the artist's skill in their field.

TinyMcSmallbrain - 25 Apr 2019 02:59:13 (#4 of 17)

Also, some of Dali’s stuff (for example) is ‘photorealistic’, but features unrealistic scenes.

On the other hand, I can use a Photoshop filter to make any photo look like a painting in pretty much any genre, in a couple of seconds.

Bonusy - 25 Apr 2019 06:30:28 (#5 of 17)

What YGM said. They are both compliments on the demonstration of skill (assuming that the effect is what was being aimed at), whilst leaving aside the artistic merit of the image produced

TinyMcSmallbrain - 25 Apr 2019 06:59:22 (#6 of 17)

A demonstration of an engineering skill, rather than an artistic skill though.

tasselhoff - 25 Apr 2019 07:53:13 (#7 of 17)

I would say that complimenting a photo as being like a picture could signify artistic merit rather than just technical skills.

returnofthepowermonkey - 25 Apr 2019 10:53:05 (#8 of 17)

On the other hand, I can use a Photoshop filter to make any photo look like a painting in pretty much any genre, in a couple of seconds.

You can also use a filter to make it look like collodion or daguerreotype, or like pretty much every type of film that ever existed. Even if you're not using these methods, though, you're using the emulation built into the camera.

With Straight photography, people like Stieglitz turned away from emulating painting towards working with the medium they had as a way to a greater authenticity. In the digital age, though, there's no basic reality of the medium to be authentic to.

Agaliarept - 25 Apr 2019 11:47:32 (#9 of 17)

Also, why paint something photorealistically, when you can take an actual photo?

Show your skillz innit.

Hyperrealism is a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperrealism_(visual
_arts)

CarlosFandango - 14 May 2019 01:17:36 (#10 of 17)

#8, why is film in any way closer to a 'basic reality of the medium' than digital?

What happens in an image sensor is every bit as real and physical as what happens to a piece of film.

returnofthepowermonkey - 15 May 2019 10:02:34 (#11 of 17)

Film is the medium. Whether it's black and white or colour, hiigh or low ISO, or a particular colour palate is determined by what you put in there. With digital, that's a choice. If you shoot RAW, most of those choices are put off until later.

thisonehasalittlehat - 15 May 2019 10:09:26 (#12 of 17)

Surely that is just the reality of the digital medium? It's not that analogue photographs is closer to the reality of the medium, just that, well, the medium is different? i mean film photography is closer to the reality of film as a medium because that's what you're recording on, but digital photography is closer to the reality of the DSLR sensor, which film can't get close to. No?

returnofthepowermonkey - 15 May 2019 11:08:55 (#13 of 17)

Surely that is just the reality of the digital medium?

Of course there are still constraints to the medium but the point is that they are so much broader as to require the kind of choice that was rejected as inauthentic by straight photographers.

I've got a fuji camera where, if you select the colour mode, you're given the choiice between the emulation of several types of (fuji obv.) film. Were watercolour and gouache added to the list then what's the difference?

TommyDGNR8 - 15 May 2019 11:24:30 (#14 of 17)

The two things aren't equivalents. Normally, referring to photos as being like paintings is a comment about the composition rather than anything to do with it actually looking painted.

CarlosFandango - 15 May 2019 11:25:02 (#15 of 17)

#13, So your point is reification of a particular medium on the basis that being forced to work within its limitations confers some kind of authenticity.

I think that's cobblers in this instance, but probably isn't in, say, choosing a particular poetic form.

returnofthepowermonkey - 15 May 2019 12:15:32 (#16 of 17)

#13, So your point is reification of a particular medium on the basis that being forced to work within its limitations confers some kind of authenticity.



Not my point, Alfred Stieglitz's, at least partially. What I'm saying is that such a rationale no longer applies in the same way.

CarlosFandango - 15 May 2019 13:08:55 (#17 of 17)

Ah, OK. Didn't mean to put words into your mouth.

On a vaguely related note, I do find the term 'analogue photography' to be pretty daft.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Arts