# Are Photographer trying to mimic Painters?



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 23, 2022)

Recently I was a Barnes and Nobles casually thumbing through a few of their photography magazines. I saw several picture that I thought were brush and canvas paintings. My first though was someone was doing an article on famous artworks of the past.   

But this was not so, it seems the authors intentional crafted their photographs to what at first glance they resembled oil on canvas. A second look confirmed they were indeed very well done post processed photographs. Still in the back of my mind I recall the decades of debates, about whether photography was truly "Fine Art" or simply trying to imitate Fine Art.

In my mind a painting is a painting, a sculpture is a sculpture and a fine art photograph is easily recognized on its own merit. But I wonder if I am way behind the times. 

So, the question is, "Is the current trend in photography to mimic and/or blend in some other art forms? "


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Mar 23, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> So, the question is, "Is the current trend in photography to mimic and/or blend in some other art forms? "



In a painting, the artist will only include what he/she wants to see there.
A photograph will offer more that what the artist saw — read wires, dead 
materials and feathers of all kinds and what not.

Often, it is this characteristic that is referred to when comparing both art
forms… me think.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 23, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> So, the question is, "Is the current trend in photography to mimic and/or blend in some other art forms



Seriously, you just noticed, photography has mimicked  painting since the beginning in one form or another . The composition guidelines we follow weren't invented by photographers. Rembrandt lighting a popular portrait lighting technique wasn't invented by a photographer. Chiaroscuro with its signature heavy light/dark mood wasnt invented by photographers, and the list goes on. Photographers have always looked to the masters for inspiration in their work.


----------



## Rickbb (Mar 23, 2022)

Realist’s, impressionists even abstractionists all have a photography analog.

It used to be really hard to pull off, but now you can download an add on to post software and some phones have them built it, just point and click and viola you have a Van Gough “style” photo.

People like a painting that looks like a photo, the other way round is still mostly a novelty.


----------



## SquarePeg (Mar 24, 2022)

Especially in flower photography groups, there is a trend to use textured backgrounds that really gives them that painterly look.  Also lensbaby has a few new lenses that give this look.  The velvets have been around a while but there is a new soft optic that has everyone all in tizzy.  

I like it.  I do sometimes go for the painted look.  This was taken with the Fuji 60mm macro and processed in Affinity photo.  No changes to the background.  I have it printed on canvas and it looks just like a painting.


----------



## Strodav (Mar 24, 2022)

As part of learning about the art and science of photography, it is recommended you study the works of the master painters.  Specifically how they use light and composition.  I have seen many examples of photographers recreating the works of the masters with the tools of photography.  To me, it's a natural thing, not a trend.


----------



## zulu42 (Mar 24, 2022)

Remember that to appreciate and be faithful and practice your chosen methods of the art, there is no requirement to dislike other methods.


----------



## adamhiram (Mar 24, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> it seems the authors intentional crafted their photographs to what at first glance they resembled oil on canvas


If you are looking at composition and lighting, that certainly makes sense - the same principles apply to both mediums.  If you are more referring to the overall look after post-processing, that sounds like what is often referred to as "painterly", a look that is very popular right now.  I think it can look amazing when done well, but I would liken it to HDR - there's a fine line between achieving the desired look and over processing an image.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 24, 2022)

Well I certainly will admit that the "painted look" produces some incredible art work. And, as Square Peg has shown, it would be difficult to say if the flower is a picture of a painting or photographic art work. 

So my question has been answered, yes there is a trend to blend photography with brush and canvas art. 

I realize that photographers have always used the same techniques; lighting, texture, composition etc. as the rest of the art world, but their work, even the abstract versions, were generally recognized as photographic. 

Given the growing technological creativity of post processing and the transfer of this technology from the computer directly to camera body, I guess one could say that yet another photographic path to adventure continues to unfold.


Photography has evolved into a big tent. Film and gel coated glass plates are still commercially available; and wet plate photography still has its followers; albeit they are dwarfed by popularity of the latest and greatest post processing programs.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 25, 2022)

Applying graphics, watercolor, ink, oil, and other kind of strokes to a photos is old news.  My Photoshop Elements of twenty years ago has all those Filters. Here's just one panel of dozens I can select from to create the "art" look.  THis one is Palette Knife.  There are all sorts of options as to size of knife, stroke detail, etc.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 25, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> my question has been answered, yes there is a trend to blend photography with brush and canvas art.



As Alan pointed out its been around in digital software for awhile, but the "trend" to make photos look like paintings started back in the late 1800's with hand coloring black and white photos using everything from dye, watercolor, oils, colored pencil, and pastels. Maybe the reason you see more now is that software has evolved to the "one click" age where effects can be applied with very little effort.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 26, 2022)

I just thought of_ paint-by-the-numbers _painting I used to do as a kid and thought that someone should write a program that does that for one of your photos.  So I Googled it and sure enough, someone has.  There are loads of companies that do this.

Here's one. Custom paint by number - Make Your Own Photo - Numeral Paint


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 26, 2022)

I guess I should not be surprised by the advances in the technology. I do remember early versions of Photoshop having a painting option but it seems to me one could still tell it was a photo. 

I probably does not help that I spent a significant portion of my engineering career behind a computer monitor, starting in the 80"s with tower units, 5 1/2 inch floppy discs and the early versions of AutoCAD. This was long before laps tops, cell phones and the ubiquitous internet, were just a arms reach way.

Naturally when I got home, the last thing I wanted to do was sit at another monitor and play with photographs. Don't get me wrong, I love digital because it allows me to experiment with everything from pinhole to astrophotography and it is cheap. Still, I am a button and lever guy; and there is a feeling of satisfaction comes from reading the light meter, setting the aperture, and the shutter speed then ducking under the dark cloth of a view camera and successfully framing an upside down and reversed image on a piece of ground glass. 

Success is sweat, but at over a dollar a shot, failure is a blow to your pocket book as well as your ego.


----------



## mrca (Mar 27, 2022)

Grandpa, you mean like this?   8 hours of painting then printed on Epson Cold press bright, a heavily textured mat paper.  My printer will print canvas, but the paper is way better.   Event shot with a 50' bounce to L wall in the school all purpose room  with ugly florescent lights to place shadows for shape and form, back ground was ugly school wall.   So that is a hand painted background... by me digitally.   I got to pick the colors based on the colors I painted on the subject. Some folks may want their work to look like what is in front of the camera and that is fine, it is their style,  I want to have many techniques at my finger tips and be able to make unique images.  I studied painting techniques, brushes, blending, and even the traditional painted portrait technique of lightening the lower iris.   I don't think many folks make event photos like that either in capture or editing.  I ridiculed my Dad who colored many of his photos in the 30's. I still love his b&w portraiture.  He's looking down getting the last laugh.


----------



## mrca (Mar 27, 2022)

Here's the original out of camera.


----------



## mrca (Mar 28, 2022)

mrca said:


> Here's the original out of camera.


I don't post photos often and just realzed I can go between the 2 photos using the lower thumbnail.   Reminded me of Ansel's quote, the negative is the score and the print is the performance.  Yup, the original has all the notes, but the final has my interpretation, my vision as a traditional painted portrait. This is more than paint by the numbers or a 1 click plug in.  Color palette for an image can be chosen, which details are important and left which can be softened and how much,  painting with chosen color or image flowing from  one of hundreds of brushes, knives with a half dozen modifications for each.   It was my first few months  of covid project and it was my second run at it because the first time I just threw up  my hands as the program makes photoshop look like childs play.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 28, 2022)

mrca.

Yep, you have it. A good photo takes a lot of thought and time.  Some folks love the challenge, others not so much.

When I was growing almost every young man was interested in cars. They were easy to work on and required new points, plugs, chassis lubrication, oil changes etc. on a routine basis. All my friend and I did it, it was just part of owing a car.

Of course some of my buddies went a step of two further, customizing, chroming, bigger carburetors etc. to make dragsters. show cars, or muscle cars and the like.

Digital photography has ushered in a similar situation in the photography world. Nearly every cell phone can take and do some basic picture manipulation and easy to use post processing aps are free just for down loading. For those who want to go a step or two farther, more sophisticated programs are available to let your mind run free.


----------



## mrca (Mar 28, 2022)

Ron, we date ourselves.  Remember how 32 ford hot rods  were painted with  flames?  Just got an expresso machine that is like that, all sorts of modifications so am adding flame decals.  It isn't important whether folks want to take on the challenge to progress in photography, it is important that folks are taking photos and capturing those moments.  I love the line from the movie Kodachrome.  You shoot film and probably know Dwaynes Lab in Kansas famous for processing the last roll of Kodachrome off the assembly line for Steve Curry of Nat Geo.  In it, the curmudgeon photographer on a last journey to get his 30 yr old un developed kodachrome developed before the chemicals were no longer available said:  You ever hold a pair of fake breasts in your hands? No matter how good something looks, you can't beat the real thing. People are taking more pictures now than ever before, billions of them. But there's no slides, no prints. They are just data, electronic dust. Years from now, when they dig us up, there won't  be any pictures to find. No record of who we were, how we lived.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 28, 2022)

mrca

That reminds me of a post not so long ago, where someone's grandkids wanted to know what those old books were. They were decades of photograph albums.    

His grandkids were fascinated by the photos of their parents, aunts and uncles and grandma and grandpa when they were young.

Heck I still get a kick out of looking at my old family photos. I actually has brown hair.


----------



## mrca (Mar 28, 2022)

I  have a 16x20 on my wall taken in 1919 with my father at age 5 and his family .  It survived because the print was made and although cracked, stained, torn, after a scan and 8 hours of digital repair I printed it on Epson legacy platine good for 400 years.   It is stunning.   Funny,  it is toned similar to much of my work today.   Yes, those albums are priceless.   As Dylan said, I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 28, 2022)

What's interesting is when they colorize those 1919  street scenes of people walking and doing things.  It's really weird.  It actually seems like it;s up to date and you ask why are they driving around in horse carts?  The movie conversions are even more strange. 




   stills




 video


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 28, 2022)

mrca said:


> I  have a 16x20 on my wall taken in 1919 with my father at age 5 and his family .  It survived because the print was made and although cracked, stained, torn, after a scan and 8 hours of digital repair I printed it on Epson legacy platine good for 400 years.   It is stunning.   Funny,  it is toned similar to much of my work today.   Yes, those albums are priceless.   As Dylan said, I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.


I have an original large print of my parent's wedding with them in platinum print or silver print, not sure.  It's absolutely gorgeous how the print looks.  It glows and it's over a hundred years old.  Here's the one of my mom - the dress glows although it's hard to capture its true beauty from a scan.


----------



## mrca (Mar 28, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> I have an original large print of my parent's wedding with them in platinum print or silver print, not sure.  It's absolutely gorgeous how the print looks.  It glows and it's over a hundred years old.  Here's the one of my mom - the dress glows although it's hard to capture its true beauty from a scan.





AlanKlein said:


> I have an original large print of my parent's wedding with them in platinum print or silver print, not sure.  It's absolutely gorgeous how the print looks.  It glows and it's over a hundred years old.  Here's the one of my mom - the dress glows although it's hard to capture its true beauty from a scan.


Alan, it's gorgeous, you must treasure it.   I shoot a mamiya rb67 and am getting set to test a 150 mm "soft focus" lens.  What it does is you can adjust by inserting discs, how much it blends the highlights into the rest of the image. It doesn't throw the detail out of focus.  Here, her eyes, eye brows, lips are sharp.   Lenses that rendered that way were popular in the early 1900s.  What an appropriate dreamy effect for a wedding shot.   Love what appears to be back lighting through the veil giving chiauroscuro, dark against light separation and driving the viewers eye to her face, the area of highest contrast.   Folks like to say eye goes to the brightest, like white dot in black bg, but the eye goes to highest contrast, here, darker face against  white bg.  Beautifully crafted image and beautiful bride.   Looks like something out of hollywood.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 28, 2022)

Thanks.  That was very nice of you to say that.


----------



## mrca (Mar 28, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> Thanks.  That was very nice of you to say that.


Alan, I think you, grandpa and I all are shooting film and appreciate  the beauty of it.  I have been putting off some tests with the 150 soft focus and will try to make time to do some, develop, scan and post unedited.  Will be testing 2 of the 3 discs.  But when I shoot boudoir, I do it on satin sheets and you have inspired me to try that lens on some of those shots which are also lit with fresnel hot lights.  I have a fire extinguisher on hand and try to keep them a safe distance from the lace surround on the canopy bed.  They aren't called hot lights for no reason,  I keep gloves handy but inevitably, try to adjust the barndoors without them, ouch.  Rocket hot.


----------



## webestang64 (Mar 28, 2022)

mrca said:


> People are taking more pictures now than ever before, billions of them. But there's no slides, no prints. They are just data, electronic dust. Years from now, when they dig us up, there won't be any pictures to find. No record of who we were, how we lived.


Even most film shooters will have nothing in the future. We are one of the few labs that give you your film back BUT 80% of the film shooters that come to our lab get their dropbox scans and never come pick up their film. After 90 days we dump the not pick up film in the trash. Sad.


----------



## mrca (Mar 28, 2022)

webestang64 said:


> Even most film shooters will have nothing in the future. We are one of the few labs that give you your film back BUT 80% of the film shooters that come to our lab get their dropbox scans and never come pick up their film. After 90 days we dump the not pick up film in the trash. Sad.


I was one of those with Dwaynes to keep the $3.00 a shot medium format cost down with one less mailing fee but now develop and scan with my d850 so save the negs  and cost per shot about $1.30.  et mm per shot cost down to a quarter inc film and developing.  But prints are so important as well and will teach folks so much.   Problem I was having was a 3 week turn around, now it is it is nearly "3 hour photo."   But like printing, it was a skill to be learned, a far cry from my darkroom work in the 60s.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 28, 2022)

webestang64 said:


> Even most film shooters will have nothing in the future. We are one of the few labs that give you your film back BUT 80% of the film shooters that come to our lab get their dropbox scans and never come pick up their film. After 90 days we dump the not pick up film in the trash. Sad.


In the old days, you got prints when you brought your film in.  So it made sense to include the negatives. However, when I moved a few years ago, I threw out all those old packets I held with the bad prints and negatives.  In all those years I just didn;t bother going back to the negatives except at first if I wanted a larger print.  But afterward, I never bothered.


----------



## mrca (Mar 28, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> In the old days, you got prints when you brought your film in.  So it made sense to include the negatives. However, when I moved a few years ago, I threw out all those old packets I held with the bad prints and negatives.  In all those years I just didn;t bother going back to the negatives except at first if I wanted a larger print.  But afterward, I never bothered.


For my personal work, I shot slides because it was cheaper.  I could then only print the ones I liked. They were grain free like digital. It's why  today, i don't shoot transparencys, I shoot film for grain and the colors of portra.  Had wonderful colors, liked ektachrome not kodachrome, but that's personal taste. Sorry Paul Simon, but I do shoot nikon camera, just don't take my Portra away.  It was back ordered couple months ago.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 29, 2022)

My color photo processing is simple, for film it comes back from the developer on a disk or electronically and is transferred to the computer. For digital it is transferred to my computer from the camera. I copy those photos I want printed to a thumb drive and pick up a Walgreens photo sale flier, to get 4x6 prints for 39 cents each. 

My wife on the other hand, rarely reviews her photos, she just takes the SD card to Walgreens. At Christmas she had about $20.00 worth of 39 cent 4x6 family snapshots.    The grandkids are even smarter, they cull the pictures on their phone or camera them send them by email them to the photo printed at Walmart.  They pick them up on their next trip to town.    
Black an white was been my issue. I can have a great Black and White photo on the computer screen, but when processed by a photo lab it will come back as a shade of black and a shade of white. I finally realized that I was comparing the reflected light from a photograph, to the back lit brightness of the computer monitor; definitely an apples to oranges situation.  I will still do some dark room work, but it is mostly with my 4x5 view camera.


----------



## mrca (Mar 29, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> My color photo processing is simple, for film it comes back from the developer on a disk or electronically and is transferred to the computer. For digital it is transferred to my computer from the camera. I copy those photos I want printed to a thumb drive and pick up a Walgreens photo sale flier, to get 4x6 prints for 39 cents each.
> 
> My wife on the other hand, rarely reviews her photos, she just takes the SD card to Walgreens. At Christmas she had about $20.00 worth of 39 cent 4x6 family snapshots.    The grandkids are even smarter, they cull the pictures on their phone or camera them send them by email them to the photo printed at Walmart.  They pick them up on their next trip to town.
> Black an white was been my issue. I can have a great Black and White photo on the computer screen, but when processed by a photo lab it will come back as a shade of black and a shade of white. I finally realized that I was comparing the reflected light from a photograph, to the back lit brightness of the computer monitor; definitely an apples to oranges situation.  I will still do some dark room work, but it is mostly with my 4x5 view camera.


Ron, I struggled for a year trying to get my monitor to match my prints.  I finally purchased an IOne studio that sets the monitor brightness to a brightness I always create when editing.  Then it  calibrates color.  This is done every few weeks to keep it accurate. But what made the real difference was using it to creat custom printer profiles  for each printer for each paper.  I had heard the same back lit monitor/reflective monitor bs for the year I chased my tail with a dozen expensive test prints.  Now, my prints MATCH my monitor.   I spend up to a half hour per image getting it looking exactly as I want it on the monitor and I want the print to match.  Now I might do a 5/7 test print for a crop at print size to check sharpening and may even do a test print the other half of the 8x10 to double check color if I am making 16x20 or larger.  The IOne also created a black and white profile for each paper.


----------



## Bob O (Mar 29, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Recently I was a Barnes and Nobles casually thumbing through a few of their photography magazines. I saw several picture that I thought were brush and canvas paintings. My first though was someone was doing an article on famous artworks of the past.
> 
> But this was not so, it seems the authors intentional crafted their photographs to what at first glance they resembled oil on canvas. A second look confirmed they were indeed very well done post processed photographs. Still in the back of my mind I recall the decades of debates, about whether photography was truly "Fine Art" or simply trying to imitate Fine Art.
> 
> ...


Google "Adams vs. Mortensen." Realist vs. Pictorialist.  Here's a link to an interesting article from Smithsonian Magazine. The Photographer Who Ansel Adams Called the Anti-Christ


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 30, 2022)

Mrca 

That is good information. several of the members of our club calibrate their gear for the same reason, they put a lot of time getting the post processing just right. They do not want to mess thing up along the way.


----------



## petrochemist (Mar 30, 2022)

Sometimes photographers will go to extra lengths to make their images look more like paintings, but other times we capture images that it would be hard for a painter to see (though not necessarily particularly hard for them to paint).
I think the shots I took last night fall into this category, here's an example:


Wire spinning at dusk by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr


----------



## PhotoHobbyist (Mar 30, 2022)

In the late 1800s photographers created "crayon portraits" combining photography with art.  They are quiet common and often mistaken for art instead of photography.

*Crayon Portraits - *This is a particular type of hand coloring that is actually a photograph enhanced to have the appearance of a charcoal portrait. Sometimes these portraits have color added as well. These images were produced from the 1860s until c.1900. Many were oversized and framed for display.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2022)

Bob O said:


> Google "Adams vs. Mortensen." Realist vs. Pictorialist. Here's a link to an interesting article from Smithsonian Magazine. The



It's pretty much a given that any art form outside the norms of the current social majority will find most comments to be negative. "Shock art", has been around for a long time. Look at Caravaggio's "Death of a Virgin", or Manet, Sargent, Duchamp, or more recently Serrano. Here on TPF, images that don't fall in the narrow boundaries of a "perceived" good image rarely get good reviews.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 30, 2022)

So are we re-experiencing realism vs pictorialism?  Are many of us like me for producing sharp, high-contrast, "straight" or "purist" photography vs the others who are for open-ended pictorialism of adding effects and objects that were never there to create what may have been made with oils on a blank canvas?


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> So are we re-experiencing realism vs pictorialism?  Are many of us like me for producing sharp, high-contrast, "straight" or "purist" photography vs the others who are for open-ended pictorialism of adding effects and objects that were never there to create what may have been made with oils on a blank canvas?



I think you're mistakenly assuming they are two distincly separate genre. My understanding is they aren't, Pictorialism doesn't add elements to the image, it enhances what's there. Here's a good article with examples - How Did Pictorialism Shape Photography and Photographers ? | Widewalls

As to how we each view our photography, I believe it starts at birth. As we grow we develop individual personalities that carry over into everything we do. I tend to be a very detail oriented person  (DW claims I'm OCD LOL) as a result my art (woodworking, carving, drawing, painting, photography) all reflects a level of detail that many overlook. However the artistic side of me realizes that there is more to detail than just sharpness, contrast and lines. Pictorialism allows you to color outside the lines, without obliterating  the lines.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 30, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> I think you're mistakenly assuming they are two distincly separate genre. My understanding is they aren't, Pictorialism doesn't add elements to the image, it enhances what's there. Here's a good article with examples - How Did Pictorialism Shape Photography and Photographers ? | Widewalls
> 
> As to how we each view our photography, I believe it starts at birth. As we grow we develop individual personalities that carry over into everything we do. I tend to be a very detail oriented person  (DW claims I'm OCD LOL) as a result my art (woodworking, carving, drawing, painting, photography) all reflects a level of detail that many overlook. However the artistic side of me realizes that there is more to detail than just sharpness, contrast and lines. Pictorialism allows you to color outside the lines, without obliterating  the lines.


Your definition probably is better than mine of what pictorialism is. My point is just along the lines of "what's new is old".  The fights we're experiencing now with photoshopping things seem very similar to the argument a hundred years ago with pictorialism vs straight photography.   Which is right?  Nothing much has really changed in all this time other than the methods.


----------



## mrca (Mar 30, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> It's pretty much a given that any art form outside the norms of the current social majority will find most comments to be negative. "Shock art", has been around for a long time. Look at Caravaggio's "Death of a Virgin", or Manet, Sargent, Duchamp, or more recently Serrano. Here on TPF, images that don't fall in the narrow boundaries of a "perceived" good image rarely get good reviews.


Smoke one of my favorite books is a   coffee table series that has an excellent full page of the painting but with a cover page with cut outs isolating and explaining the parts.  The Caravaggio one is outstanding.  His high contrast and deep, hard edged shadows are one extreme I love and the reason I pull out fresnel hot lights.  . At the other extreme, Vermeer with soft contrast, soft edged shadows.  There the other extreme of gear, an 7' octa bigger than I am that lives on a rolling stand attached to the stand and when used, I just hang a light off it.   We saw photographers who shot what folks can take with a cell phone or entry level digital camera go out of business.   Someone is less likely to pay good money for something they can do themselves in seconds.   In the video Daves Vermeer, an eye doctor supports the theme of the video that Vermeer used a machine to make his paintings and Dr. says no human eye could see the gradual tonal transitions.  When 2 photographers who tried to establish photography as an art form in the early 1900's, Steglitz and Steichen, brought over the works of the impressionists, the paintings didn't sell and you could have bought one for a song that is now worth hundreds of thousands.   When I paint my photos, Sargent is my inspiration and I try to emulate his work.   How does the saying from Moneyball go,  the first one through the wall gets bloodied.


AlanKlein said:


> So are we re-experiencing realism vs pictorialism?  Are many of us like me for producing sharp, high-contrast, "straight" or "purist" photography vs the others who are for open-ended pictorialism of adding effects and objects that were never there to create what may have been made with oils on a blank canvas?


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> The fights we're experiencing now with photoshopping things seem very similar to the argument a hundred years ago with pictorialism vs straight photography. Which is right? Nothing much has really changed in all this time other than the methods.



I'd say the arguments on art style goes back to the first time man painted stick figures on cave walls. It's not hard to imagine two cavemen arguing over which work is better. Our appreciation for beauty is what separates us from the animal world. 

What's right, what's wrong? I see two types of photograpy, the snapshot, (nothing more than a slice in time), and the creative image. If you have an artistic side then you need to keep an open mind. I have preferences, I have dislikes, but they don't prevent me from viewing a creative image and trying to understand what the photographer (digital artist) was trying to convey. 



mrca said:


> Caravaggio one is outstanding. His high contrast and deep, hard edged shadows are one extreme I love and the reason I pull out fresnel hot lights. .



One of my favorites for inspiration as well. One of my pet peeves is the advent of Cell Phone apps that stylize photos, it gives people an unrealistic opinion of how difficult it is to create a really good image.


----------



## mrca (Mar 30, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> So are we re-experiencing realism vs pictorialism?  Are many of us like me for producing sharp, high-contrast, "straight" or "purist" photography vs the others who are for open-ended pictorialism of adding effects and objects that were never there to create what may have been made with oils on a blank canvas?


Why is it "vs?"   It is just a different vision.   There was the Romanticsim period emphasizing emotion followed by the Realism period  having great attention to the detail of the subject that coincidentally started in the 1840's when photography was invented.  Growing out of Realism  30 or so years later was the Impressionists who were interested in the play of  light.   Kind of like photographers interest in light and less interested in detail in the subject?   Some photographers like showing detail.  That is a valid vision.      Many of us moved to digital in the  early 2000's  not only for it's convenience, but for the "clean" sharp grain free images.   And where the image calls for that, it should be used.  I shoot a 46 mp d850 with zeiss glass for that.  However, the images became more and more "sterile and clinical" and many folks missed the character of film.  As we speak, I have 7 rolls in progress!    But when my vision for a shot, like the impressionists,  is less detailed and conveys a feeling with the way the image is  lit, rendered or edited,  then I use  post or even go to film like 3200 with a dreamy grain in 645.  Is a detailed oil painting any more virtuous than a soft water color that doesn't render detail as sharply?   An image should have everything about it, composition, lighting, sharpness, grain etc supporting the idea behind the shot.  Of course, that requires HAVING an idea for taking the shot, using all the controlls on that $3000 light recorder we call a camera,  then finishing it in post.   What I find annoying is people who still believe the only way photos  MUST look is  copying exactly what is in front of he  camera then criticizing others that won't follow THEIR preference.   I'm sure the Impressionists, or say surrealists Picasso or Dali wouldnt care if someone told them their  paintings didn't look like reality.  Surreal photographers Man Ray or Philippe Halsman also departed into the dream world.  But, Halsman's headshot of Marilyn Monroe is still one of my all time favorite portraits so he tailored the photo for the inspiration or message.    Photographers fought hard to have photography recognized as an art form but because anyone with an index finger can press a shutter button and get a recognizable image,  they believe they are photographers.  Chess master Alekhine  told of having a dream of dying and getting to the pearly gates but St Peter wouldn't let him in saying they didn't allow chess players in.  So walking along the fence he saw one of his regular opponents inside the fence so asked St Peter why his competitor was there if chess players werent.  St Peter responded, he only THINKS he is a chess player.  Everyone with a cell phone thinks they are a photographer and most don't know the first thing about photography or art.   Notice nearly every post with the cliched "is photoshop  evil" is from someone who  just picked up a camera for the first time, doesn't know what it does or why it is used.  It is an opportunity for them to see the world in a new way perhaps as an artist sees it.  As Ernst Haas said, I dont want to photo new things, I want to photo things in a new way.   Because photography can ape reality closely doesn't mean it must.


smoke665 said:


> I'd say the arguments on art style goes back to the first time man painted stick figures on cave walls. It's not hard to imagine two cavemen arguing over which work is better. Our appreciation for beauty is what separates us from the animal world.
> 
> What's right, what's wrong? I see two types of photograpy, the snapshot, (nothing more than a slice in time), and the creative image. If you have an artistic side then you need to keep an open mind. I have preferences, I have dislikes, but they don't prevent me from viewing a creative image and trying to understand what the photographer (digital artist) was trying to convey.
> 
> ...


When I judge competitions, I prefer each work have a title.   Some photos may be inspired by the subject in a way unique to them and without a title to give a clue, the message might be missed or misinterpreted.  Because everyone with a cell phone calls themselves photographers, I see myself as an artist who uses a camera to work in light.   I had some of those cell phone painting one click aps.  They are like doing a global adjustment in photoshop, not working specific areas.  It makes a change, but pretty crudely.   It's why I posted the before and after photo, there is more than one global adjustment, like 8 hours worth.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2022)

mrca said:


> convenience, but for the "clean" sharp grain free images. And where the image calls for that, it should be used. I shoot a 46 mp d850 with zeiss glass for that. However, the images became more and more "sterile and clinical" and many folks missed the character of



I agree with you on so many things except this. I'm afraid it's another of those cliches that gets bantered about frequently. Digital images are only as sharp/sterile as the photographer wants them to be. I have a large library of of Presets, Profiles and LUTs that give me the grain, look and color of my favorite films . Actions that mimic the microcontrast of film and filters/lenses that change the tone of the image. I would be willing to bet most people would not be able to tell the difference between the two, unless they were comparing actual prints. On the subject of sterile some of my more profitable work in the 70's was forensic. Talk about sterile.

Another thing that gets an eye roll from me are film shooters who talk about the advantages of film then convert it to a digital scan at a lower resolution than most modern day cameras are capable of, then printing on an inkjet printer, totally  negating any tonal advantage of film. I dont begrudge them their hobby, if that's what they want more power to them, but to me the work/reward just isn't there. Now if they're printing 11x14 or 16x20 in darkroom on Kodak or Illford paper, they  have my attention.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 30, 2022)

mrca 

You are correct. It is unfortunate that folks tend to think in terms of "this vs that", when in reality it is simply ones opinion about a piece of art.  "As shot" vs post processing is just one more advance in the practice of photograph. 

I do not think those those who argue that post processing makes the photo enhancement too easy, would enjoy giving up their DSLR; for a camera with fixed focal length lens, 35mm film, a view finder with a separate prism focusing attachment and a separate light meter for shutter speed and aperture. Yet the Argos C4 and C5 "bricks" were extremely popular. They gave way to the TLRs and SLRs for those who could afford them. 

Making thing easier does not make things better. It is still the photographer who puts the "art' in photographic art.

As an aside, one of my hobbies is photographing with a 1909 view camera I restored. Believe me when I say, that when I am under the dark cloth trying to compose the upside down and backwards image on the frosted glass. I as really really glad that I have 4x5 cut film and do not have to prepare an albumen wet plate.


----------



## RacePhoto (Mar 30, 2022)

Grandpa Ron said:


> So, the question is, "Is the current trend in photography to mimic and/or blend in some other art forms? "


Everything is what it is. Documentary, creative, reality, impressionist. The list is endless, as anything else someone wants to use as a label. Photography as art can take any form that the artist wants it to take. Sometimes I just make what I see and I'm not trying to be some past school of anything, just myself?

Someone says, photographers didn't create the rules of composition. Well let me say, neither did painters or sculptors or anyone else. The rules (guidelines) are not created to tell us how things should be, they are observed and notes on how things are. Composition is based on what is pleasing to the eye, not the other way around.

Wait a minute, painters were originally trying to create images of the world to illustrate in images, for someone else to see, what they had seen. We just have a much better medium now in photography.   On the other hand, a jug is just a jug, until it gets transformed into a form that's more than purely functional. Then it becomes art as a form of personal creation.

Same for photography. Capturing a realistic color photo is just the start, after that, anything anyone wants to make, in any vision of what they see, is their own work and creation. If making the picture look like brush strokes is their goal, then fine. Everyone is free to do what they want in the form they see it.

I don't see any right or wrong. I just see each individual making personal choices without limitations.

As for trends? If there's a ticket for that tour, please don't buy me one, I'm not interested in groups, following or joining.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2022)

Slightly off post,  yet partial on, an old post by a member who used to be a frequent contributor. His OP is a little hard to read but has some valuable observations if you do, as do the comments that follow Art Photography


----------



## mrca (Mar 30, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> I agree with you on so many things except this. I'm afraid it's another of those cliches that gets bantered about frequently. Digital images are only as sharp/sterile as the photographer wants them to be. I have a large library of of Presets, Profiles and LUTs that give me the grain, look and color of my favorite films . Actions that mimic the microcontrast of film and filters/lenses that change the tone of the image. I would be willing to bet most people would not be able to tell the difference between the two, unless they were comparing actual prints. On the subject of sterile some of my more profitable work in the 70's was forensic. Talk about sterile.
> 
> Another thing that gets an eye roll from me are film shooters who talk about the advantages of film then convert it to a digital scan at a lower resolution than most modern day cameras are capable of, then printing on an inkjet printer, totally  negating any tonal advantage of film. I dont begrudge them their hobby, if that's what they want more power to them, but to me the work/reward just isn't there. Now if they're printing 11x14 or 16x20 in darkroom on Kodak or Illford paper, they  have my attention.


Yes, digital doesn't have to end in a sterile sharp product.  The   baby photo was digital then edited.  It was a mild amount of physical characteristics of a painting.  However, notice how many folks say they like the sharp realistic look of an image and without editing.  It's why modern lenses have sprouted 10 or 15 extra elements.    Digital grain is like adding a fog over the entire image.  In film it smoothly transitions from highlights to shadows.  Subtle, but another subtle distinction.   The random shape of actual  film grain from grains of silver is softer and less harsh.  The colors of portra especially the skin tones which are amazing, would take an hour a photo to reproduce.  The guys on F Stopper tried and even used one of their sponsors plug ins and gave up.   Also, when I shoot a back lit shot  with portra and expose for the subject, film gives lots of detail  ln the sky/background, that would be blown out digitally.  I am always looking for that 10% that improves my images over  normal.   I scan my film negatives but with a 46 mp d850 with a zeiss 100 makro planar so  I have the resolution of the digital capture with the characteristics of film.  The best of both worlds.  You are right,  folks using scanners, including labs come in at lower resolutions.   I can easily make 24x36 prints off those scans but  that is not my target size.  The tonal transitions over huge a 67, 60 x60 mm vs 24x36, 4 times as large  or 6x6 negative are amazing. My entire 67 kit with 3 lenses and 3 backs is less than a grand.   A larger crop sensor  Hassie digital, 50 grand.  It is scary for many folks to take away the training wheels lcd and have confidence in their exposure, compostion etc.  Then there is the medium format "look" from shooting a longer lens closer.   From 7 feet for a head and shoulders digitally I might shoot a 135 digitally, with MF a 250 mm.     The older 5 element lenses have micro contrast that is lost with low energy light sucked up or reflected by up to 22 pieces of glass in digital lenses.  Which is why more than half of my digital lenses are older 90's glass, much manual focus.  When they coat, they only coat a couple elements and light still has to pass through all that glass.  With film I get  gorgeous natural grain, highlight detail, stunning skin tones and I love the pastel palette of portra and the quality of a real  medium format negative not a tiny "crop" digital sensor.   I have a premier Portra plug in, close but no cigar.   My business model is the highest possible quality and not just good enough.  But I am doing this as a business and unless an amateur is trying to achieve super high quality, it doesn't matter. Now if I need instant feedback or availability,  and 3 hours for develop and scan isn't fast enough or if I am using a  vari nd where it's hard to determine and keep a specific number of stops blocked, although with 35 mm I just screw on a 2 or 3 stop nd and know exactly what I am getting, or if I need ttl, then I use digital.  It's horses for courses.  Again,  I like choices and  in this day and age, if you want to sell, you have to produce something that can't be produced by uncle harry with his cell phone.   Your use of lighting separates your work from the herd as well.  Including the "pros" who like the anti photoshop people,  act like they are purists bragging about using only available light but virtually every one doesn't have a clue how to use or what lighting does and they  know it.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2022)

@mrca There's no argument that 4x5 film will produce a beautiful print, but if I'm going to the trouble of shooting 4x5, I will print in darkroom, not convert to digital. As to resolution the below image was shot on the K3ii crop sensor 24mm at f/5, a 129MB file with a resolution of 5824x3872. I can easily print at up to 19x12. This is with an Illford Delta 3200 finish. To sharp, to sterile???





Now consider this one, an experiment with the Brenizer Method. This was shot with the K1MII 100mm at f/2.8 an 823MB file with a resolution of 22,500x12797. How about a 75x42 print??? Not big enough??? No problem just add a few more shots to the mix.




You like Portra, how about in Portra 400



I could just as easily convert it to Illford 3200, or several other finishes with the click of a mouse. Try that with film???? The point I'm making is that as I've said before I don't begrudge anyone who likes film. I've processed thousands of rolls of B&W, printed boxes of prints in the darkroom. Even now there's a dozen or so rolls in the refrigerator and 2 half used rolls in cameras (been there for 2yrs). I would shoot film in a heartbeat if I thought it offered me any real advantage but so far digital just keeps giving where film stopped.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Mar 30, 2022)

For me it is the challenge of matching wits with the camera. I find tinkering with an old view camera and getting a nice picture, far more satisfying than pushing a mouse. Others would find it a fool's errand. 

That's  life.


----------



## mrca (Mar 30, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> @mrca There's no argument that 4x5 film will produce a beautiful print, but if I'm going to the trouble of shooting 4x5, I will print in darkroom, not convert to digital. As to resolution the below image was shot on the K3ii crop sensor 24mm at f/5, a 129MB file with a resolution of 5824x3872. I can easily print at up to 19x12. This is with an Illford Delta 3200 finish. To sharp, to sterile???
> View attachment 254972
> 
> Now consider this one, an experiment with the Brenizer Method. This was shot with the K1MII 100mm at f/2.8 an 823MB file with a resolution of 22,500x12797. How about a 75x42 print??? Not big enough??? No problem just add a few more shots to the mix.
> ...


I don't shoot film, even MF, just for the resolution.   With 46 mp digital, it has all I need.    For me, it's about the look of film. Here is a 645 Ilford 3200 image from my rb67 and note the difference in grain from a digital attempt to look like it.    More grain would give that photo of an old car a feel of that era for me. In 67 format, the grain would still be there but smaller in proportion to the image.  If I wanted more grain, dropping to 35mm gives me grain that echoes the grains of sand in the beach shot, appropriate.  Generally over powers for my taste in 35mm so push hp5 400 to 1600.   The color shot is the classic look of portra, plenty of detail in the shadows in full sun, yet detail in the clouds and sky and the soft, pastel color palette. The red ford is blocked up with little detail in the shadows and is still loosing detail in the windshield and hood.  Plus the red is not true to portra color palette.  Like I said, close but no cigar.  The guys from F stoppers ridiculed a wedding photographer for spending 20 grand on film in a year and were going to show her how she wasted all that money, and 20 minutes  later using one of the two major plugins, they threw up their hands. Watch the attitude at the beginning and the admission at the end.  



  I haven't watched this in ages and she settled on the same  film choices.  He doesn't realize Portra is a low saturation, low contrast film with gorgeous skin tones.  It's called portra for a reason.  Note he keeps saying film is low res and talks about sharpness constantly.  An example of the folks who think everything has to be sharp and non sharp is a defect.    I don't buy wine on alcohol content and I don't judge photos only on sharpness.  This is the sharpness fixation that started in 2000 as digital took hold and led to lenses being designed to satisfy that demand.   Sharpness is line any other photo quality, it has appropriate useage and other things may be more appropriate for other images.


----------



## zulu42 (Mar 30, 2022)

Its obvious to tell which photographers are trying to mimic painters. They are the ones wearing a beret!


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 30, 2022)

mrca said:


> More grain would give that photo of an old car a feel of that era for me.


The Illford profile on the old car is one of 10 slightly different profiles for 3200, a one click conversion with no further edits. I prefer this version, as a good cross between digital and film, but generally fine tune it based on the image. Same is true on the Portra except I've created about 20 different versions. Color grading by eye is an excersise in futility, no two sets of eyes are the same. In actual editing I get more detailed (by the numbers) with color grading, many times stealing the palette from other images and adjusting mine to match the highlights/midtones/shadows, then using HSB settings to fine tune, especially on skin. I think the other point he made in the video, that he was only using LR. The most recent versions of LR are awesome, but PS still remains the go to for heavy lifting (especially in color grading).


----------



## mrca (Mar 30, 2022)

zulu42 said:


> Its obvious to tell which photographers are trying to mimic painters. They are the ones wearing a beret!


Mais oui.  And when folks are missing shots turning that ball cap around, a beret just crushes back.  Wearing one is like using an "art lens" you automatically produce art. Here,  Close Encounters of the Yosemite Kind.  Hundred of folks drawn from all over the world for the firefall in late February to this huge solid rock. In the movie Dreyfus was at the dinner table and used all the mashed potatoes to sculpt Devils Tower.  Setting up 3 lights then pouring out 3 lbs of mashed potatoes had folks looking on wondering what the hell I was doing.  When I drizzled the ketchup down the face emulating the fire fall a dozen wanted their photos taken with it  It gave us something fun to do while waiting for the firefall.


----------



## Mattp311 (Apr 17, 2022)

I'd like to point out that to my mind, photography itself has evolved into two art forms - the taking of the shot, firstly, and secondly the development of the image.


----------



## mrca (Apr 17, 2022)

Mattp311 said:


> I'd like to point out that to my mind, photography itself has evolved into two art forms - the taking of the shot, firstly, and secondly the development of the image.


Ansel Adams, once a pianist in Yosemite, described it musically  as the negative being the score and the print the performance.  He wrote a whole book on each.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Apr 17, 2022)

Perhaps the best answer to my question is yes. Photographers like to mimic artists, in the sense that they have a canvas, the photo and the pallet, post processing, to modify the images as they see fit.

While this may have always been the goal, digital processing had given the modern photographer, far more latitude over the control of the image, than was available with darkroom techniques.


----------



## emilyblunt1 (Jun 5, 2022)

I think Photography because, in a painting, you can paint whatever you want and be creative, but I see photography as seeing the world through a different lens.


----------



## edgephotography (Sep 8, 2022)

Both photography and painting use the same fundamental elements of visual art. These include considerations such as space, line, color, balance, depth, texture, and more. Any good piece of artwork comes with a similar understanding of each of these aspects of art and uses them within the creation methods.


----------



## RAZKY (Sep 8, 2022)

If you have no talent for painting, photography is a valid substitute.


----------



## AlanKlein (Sep 8, 2022)

Many famous painters used a camera obscura to paint.


----------



## mdmullen (Sep 8, 2022)

Sometimes you take a fuzzy iPhone photo in low light and it ends up looking like a painting…


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 8, 2022)

Art is something that pleases the soul. It matters little how it's created, the materials used,  or the manner of presentation.


----------



## bchalifour (Sep 20, 2022)

"Looking like a painting." Nothing like a cell-phone that does not know what to do with artificial light (orange cast) and a window that provides light from the left side of the frame and we are back in Antwerp I suppose in the 16th or 17th century I suppose (since then painting has somewhat evolved). But does that make this image really look like a painting? Possibly for some, for some time.
This type of photography/goal in photography/(even naive comment on some photographs) have been going on since the end of the 19th century with its ebb and flow. Then it was called "Pictorialism" it is now pictorialism, people who are dissatisfied with photography's relationship with the real (and its challenges), will not learn how to paint, and for whom a photograph from the camera is just raw material (in the case of images whose appearance has more to do with filters, plug-ins, image-processing software). The result then falls under the category of graphic arts (more time being spent, more being done with accessories and computer/software) and should be treated for what it is... this is graphic/computer art using photography. Some do like the sometimes spectacular results but where we should draw the line before calling them photographs, is, I think, the real question.
In other words (to sound a little more "serious" ;o) we are back to the ontological question: what is a photograph? ;o)

Another interesting question is: what was the original intention? Does the result match it? If not we are either in the in the "accident" or pictorialist category where the initial photograph is just fodder.
And so what? If it makes you happy, it can't be that back is the chorus, isn't it? "Everything is relative" is another one...
Then it is more a question of how you position yourself and whether any coherence has some any importance to you (two questions that can also be answered with the first three lines of this paragraph but that not everybody shares).


----------

