# Where does photography stop and painting begin?



## Grandpa Ron (Sep 13, 2018)

A friend of mine sent a dozen pictures of places you must see before you die.

These were truly gorgeous photographs if sky, rocks, water, ice, sun rises and sets like you have never seen before, captured in the breathtaking formations of mountains, valleys and deserts.

As I started to experiment with digital photography and the various "Photo Shop" type programs, I realized that I probably never would see these images, because they only exist in the binary 1's and 0's of some computer memory.

I know that photographs have always been pushed, pulled, burned and dodged to enhance the images; but todays photographs are easels upon which pixel artists can paint thier artwork.

Do not get me wrong, a good picture is a good picture. But, when does it change from a photograph to a painting?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 13, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> ...But, when does it change from a photograph to a painting?


When it's created with paint and a brush?


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 13, 2018)

I "paint" with light onto film. But to me it's still a photograph.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Sep 13, 2018)

Yes, a picture is a picture per se, but when you color a subjects shirt to better match the background, darken the eye's iris color and deepen the tone of the lips, is that not the same as using a pixel brush?

Artistic talent presents itself no matter what the media, that is for sure.

I suppose it is just one more step in the evolution of the photographic art form.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 13, 2018)

tirediron said:


> Grandpa Ron said:
> 
> 
> > ...But, when does it change from a photograph to a painting?
> ...



 Yep, I'm going with paint -- you squeeze it out of a tube.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 13, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> A friend of mine sent a dozen pictures of places you must see before you die.
> 
> These were truly gorgeous photographs if sky, rocks, water, ice, sun rises and sets like you have never seen before, captured in the breathtaking formations of mountains, valleys and deserts.
> 
> ...



Here's a shocker for you: I once saw a photograph that had no color in it! Can you imagine? All the blue of the sky and green plant life, people's faces, everything no color! How the bleep do you still call that a photograph?

Joe


----------



## Jamesaz (Sep 13, 2018)

Sometimes my paintings and mixed-media pieces incorporate photographic elements, some even begin as photographs but I can't think of a time when a photograph crossed into painting, and I do a fair amount of hand coloring of van dyke prints.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 13, 2018)

I think what you’re after is to define the line between a photograph and digital art.  That line is gray and meandering.


----------



## Jeff15 (Sep 14, 2018)

Photography is originally a greek word so it has the same meaning in greek. it consists of two words put together. "photo" which derives from "phos" and it means "light" in english, and graphy,which probably derives from graphi , which can mean write or drawing.


----------



## Overread (Sep 14, 2018)

Gary A. said:


> I think what you’re after is to define the line between a photograph and digital art.  That line is gray and meandering.



This. It's very easy to draw a line on the extreme ends, but the line in the middle gets a bit more confusing and complicated. Many competitions stick with a general "no cloning/copying/healing tool use" to remove elements (even lamp posts and trees sticking out of heads); whilst many photographers would consider removal of such things trivial and not taking away from the photo itself. Indeed where things like power-lines cannot be avoided they are often removed to improve the photo (in the creative view of the photographer).

I think it is a line that is hard to define, but that the key is that you're always honest with what you choose to produce. I've seen some really outstanding composite works which were very much drawn as much as they were photographed. I've seen the results of someone taking a photo of 3 people dressed up in arctic explorer gear in a parade; then editing it so that they were standing in a blizzard in a snowy tundra. The effect was great and the created artwork none the lesser because part of it used a photograph. It wasn't a photograph on its own any more, but it was just another work of art.


----------



## Designer (Sep 14, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> .. when does it change from a photograph to a painting?


I can't easily define it, but I'll know it when I see it.


----------



## weepete (Sep 14, 2018)

Designer said:


> I can't easily define it, but I'll know it when I see it.



Will you though?

DiegoKoi on DeviantArt

Disclaimer: That link is probably NSFW


----------



## Derrel (Sep 14, 2018)

I do not think photos ever become paintings. But...photos can be photo-illustrations. And  of course at times, photos can have painterly qualities or characteristics. Painting uses paints or pigments on a medium,like canvas,or wood,or concrete, or something else. Photographs are made with a camera and lens of some type, and are captured on "some type" of medium: film,plate,photographic paper,or an imaging sensor of CCD or CMOS type, and there's an intermediate stage, and a final,printed stage. Painting has no intermediate stage between imagination/conception, and the final stage...a painting is painted...there exists NO "negative", no "RAW file", no "SOOC JPEG" file.

Mixed media pieces on the other hand, differ from both photos and paintings, and can easily share the characteristics of both photos, and of paintings, or drawings, or sculptures. Mixed media was all the rage at one time, and it never has completely disappeared. It's still out there!

In another sense, some people like to differentiate between the practice of photography, and the practice of digital imaging. While similar, photography is subtly different from digital imaging. Perhaps the OP's question is really more about defining the area where photography crosses into digital imaging? Where "Straight" work crosses into "manipulated" work?


----------



## Dave442 (Sep 14, 2018)

My mom used photographs very extensively in making collages. Nobody looked at one of the finished pieces and thought, "is this a photograph or painting", it was just art. My sister has taken her photos and printed them out as lithographs - they look more like a painting than a photo (currently has some of that up at a show in Manhattan Beach). 

When I first set up a darkroom, my great aunt gave me here coloring set to paint prints. I did not ever use the set as I of course had color film available if I so desired a color image. But painting B&W photos was a big time deal for many photographers back in the day of B&W film.


----------



## otherprof (Sep 14, 2018)

Just two points before I return to the sidelines on this one:
1.Just because we can't draw a sharp dividing liner, it doesn't mean there is no difference or that we don't see the difference. How tall does a man have to be to be considered tall  (in inches or centimenters, not some vague "taller than the average bear)?  We don't know the answer but are unlikely to mistake a tall man for a short one.  Where does the front of your head begin and the back of it end? Hard to specify without being arbitrary, but unless we are talking about Cousin Itt from the Adams family, there is little chance we will mistake the front of someon's head for the back of their head.

2. Maybe there is nothing wrong without being able to draw that sharp line. Maybe it is better not to be able to draw it. How many lies may a person tell and still be "an honest person"?  I'm glad there is no answer written down somewhere.  Maybe there are some advantages to not being able to draw a sharp line between painting and photography. Categories can restrict and contain, as well as provide necessary guidance.


----------



## terri (Sep 14, 2018)

Dave442 said:


> My mom used photographs very extensively in making collages. Nobody looked at one of the finished pieces and thought, "is this a photograph or painting", it was just art. My sister has taken her photos and printed them out as lithographs - they look more like a painting than a photo (currently has some of that up at a show in Manhattan Beach).
> 
> When I first set up a darkroom, my great aunt gave me here coloring set to paint prints. I did not ever use the set as I of course had color film available if I so desired a color image. But painting B&W photos was a big time deal for many photographers back in the day of B&W film.


Agreed; but sometimes part of the fun is to shoot in B&W and then choose how you wish to color a scene.   You can use the photo oils, but also regular oils, or chalk, colored pencils...whatever.    It's something that is part of general "photo manipulation," though with digital that phrase has more far-reaching meaning than playing with values.


----------



## terri (Sep 14, 2018)

otherprof said:


> Just two points before I return to the sidelines on this one:
> 1.Just because we can't draw a sharp dividing liner, it doesn't mean there is no difference or that we don't see the difference. How tall does a man have to be to be considered tall  (in inches or centimenters, not some vague "taller than the average bear)?  We don't know the answer but are unlikely to mistake a tall man for a short one.  Where does the front of your head begin and the back of it end? Hard to specify without being arbitrary, but unless we are talking about Cousin Itt from the Adams family, there is little chance we will mistake the front of someon's head for the back of their head.
> 
> 2. Maybe there is nothing wrong without being able to draw that sharp line. Maybe it is better not to be able to draw it. How many lies may a person tell and still be "an honest person"?  I'm glad there is no answer written down somewhere.  Maybe there are some advantages to not being able to draw a sharp line between painting and photography. Categories can restrict and contain, as well as provide necessary guidance.


You talk like a philosopher!

Oh, wait....


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Sep 14, 2018)

As I mentioned in my opening post, after viewing these beautiful landscapes and seascapes, I dawned on me that "Hey, they really do not exist" except in the depths of a computer somewhere.  This lead me to contemplate, is it really a Photograph?

In reality, except for a simple mind exerciser,  it makes no  or difference what you call it.  It is the ongoing blend of creativity and technology.

It would not surprise me that eventually, artists will switch to electronic brushes,  to paint directly onto video screens; eliminating those smelly paints, easels and boards full of mixed paint globs.  Imagine being able to instantly change the shade of the shadow detail you just made and change it back if it was better.   

Time and technology always march on.


----------



## weepete (Sep 14, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> As I mentioned in my opening post, after viewing these beautiful landscapes and seascapes, I dawned on me that "Hey, they really do not exist" except in the depths of a computer somewhere.  This lead me to contemplate, is it really a Photograph?
> 
> In reality, except for a simple mind exerciser,  it makes no  or difference what you call it.  It is the ongoing blend of creativity and technology.
> 
> ...



They do now.


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 14, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> As I mentioned in my opening post, after viewing these beautiful landscapes and seascapes, I dawned on me that "Hey, they really do not exist"



Do you think people are disappointed now when they go to that place that looked so beautiful on Instagram and discover that they really can't see the sunset and the foreground both in full color without shadows or that they wonder why the waterfall isn't all smooth and smokey?


----------



## weepete (Sep 15, 2018)

I think that I see things differently from a lot of people. There's certainly a technical barrier that needs to be overcome when dealing with stuff like exposure, given that cameras only capture roughly half of what our eyes can see. I know I see more tones than my camera does as in mist and fog the images I get are not what I'm seeing in front of me. Similar in backlit situations where my eyes can clearly see lots of detail in highlights and shadows where the camera doesn't record any data.

Translucance is also very difficult to translate to photography. I've also had that experience with colour, where the colour I see does not match what the camera is recording, or the impact of it in person is much greater than it appears in print.

What we see in any image, whither that's a painting, photograph or whatever is just one person's interpretation of a scene. So in a way you are right, in so far as you are looking at a two dimentional representation of something that exists in 4 dimensions and in that sense only in being there can a person really understand what it is like. But then again, what is reality anyway......


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Sep 15, 2018)

Square Peg,

I have long since stop trying to guess how folk feel about things. I once missed a shot of a back lit, dew cover, spider web between two trees. I knew that by time I walked back for the camera, it would be gone. So to the purple tinted sunrise when fishing it MN. These images only exist in my memory.

If someday, someone captures or digitally manufacturers these moments for others. they would be doing a great service.     

I have my opinions of course but they do not apply to others.


----------



## AlanKlein (Sep 18, 2018)

If your photo could be accepted as evidence in a trial, then it's telling the truth and is a photo. Otherwise it's digital art.

A black white photo even though it has no color can tell the truth and is a photo. Whereas a color print that cloned out the sky and replaced it with one from another scene is digital art.


----------



## Peeb (Sep 18, 2018)

Here is an attempt I made recently to emulate painting with a photo:



Abstract/minimalist image at sunrise by Peeb is OK, on Flickr

I'm not a fantastic photographer, but WOW am I a bad painter, so photos (edited) are as close as I care to come to painting!


----------



## freixas (Sep 18, 2018)

I edit photos to try to match my memory/feelings/impressions of a scene. A camera sensors just captures numbers. This only roughly approximates seeing, in which scenes are assembled in our minds so as to appear to have infinite depth of field and super-high contrast rations. Plus, they are in 3D! And everything is colored by our emotional reaction. You can create an image that closely maps the captured numbers or you can create an image that tries, in 2 dimensions, with limited gamut, etc., to try to replicate what you saw when you took the photo. Either can be considered "accurate" in one sense and "inaccurate" in another.

Consider the simple act of applying sharpening to sensor data—we are leaving the path of numerical absoluteness and entering the path of reproducing our vision. Heck, even setting a white point has less to do with capturing "reality" than with imitating our visual system. Editing out undesired elements might seem to cross the line, but our brains do this all the time.

I spent about two days on one photo recently of a waterfall in Iceland. It required adjusting the exposure levels of four areas and I had to do a ton of clean-up to make the transitions appear realistic when viewed in a large print. I showed the finished product to my wife and she didn't bat an eye—the scene looked just the way she remembered.


----------



## Jamesaz (Sep 18, 2018)

So, I've given some more thought to this question and it seems that with painting/drawing, you always start with blank page for the light reflecting finished product whereas with photographic manipulation, hand coloring or photoshopping, you start with an image taken, however briefly or interpreted, from somewhere in the world around us instead of the realm of pure imagination. All things being equal, that, to me, is the difference.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 20, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> when does it change from a photograph to a painting?


Never.

There is no clear border between those fields.

Some people can paint so photo-realistic that its basically a photo.

Some people do so much post processing on a single photo its basically a painting. I even remember seeing a YouTube videos of people post processing the photo of one famous person into a "photo" of a completely different famous person.

And of course theres people who intentionally use extra soft lenses for a more painterly image. Etc.

Both painters and photographers are magicians who create an illusion.


----------



## cporten (Nov 6, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> A friend of mine sent a dozen pictures of places you must see before you die.
> 
> These were truly gorgeous photographs if sky, rocks, water, ice, sun rises and sets like you have never seen before, captured in the breathtaking formations of mountains, valleys and deserts.
> 
> ...


I have hauled a camera around since I bought a Minolta XD11 awhile ago. Maybe 40 years. I still know nothing. I always felt it was my evolving knowledge, my experiences, Kismet maybe, that created a near perfect shot. More often than not the shots were/are throwaways. But the ones that still impress me now are the ones that had a multitude of things that came together. They still remain photos I can look at for some time and become engrossed in them. They were pure. Mostly I guess by happenstance. I understand enough to know that photographs have been manipulated since the beginning of image capturing.  Even so, when I see 'shopped' images, I almost immediately have a disdain for them. I question the real talent needed to snap an unadulterated photograph. I wish sometimes I could have seen the original and let me decide which nuances are important. For me it moves out of the top tier meaning of photography and morphs into something else. I am surprised that no one talks of this purest view. Am I a photo parti pris? Are there others?


----------



## SquarePeg (Nov 6, 2018)

cporten said:


> Grandpa Ron said:
> 
> 
> > A friend of mine sent a dozen pictures of places you must see before you die.
> ...



My feelings are the opposite.  I think the talent is in the vision of what the shot could be and then realizing that vision through whatever means are available.  Sometimes, I don’t like the photographer’s vision because it’s too overly done (hdr for example is not my favorite thing) but there are also times when I don’t like the end product because I can see the unrealized potential and the photo could have benefited from more work in post.  

Just showing up to a beautiful scene with an expensive camera and pressing the shutter doesn’t take much artistic talent, IMO.  But there’s work and experience involved in picking the location and getting there at the right time and using the right settings.  

It’s all part of it.  Envision the result, know what’s involved in getting there and what settings to use, make the most of it in post.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 6, 2018)

cporten said:


> Grandpa Ron said:
> 
> 
> > A friend of mine sent a dozen pictures of places you must see before you die.
> ...



Define it. Define what is an "unadulterated photograph" as opposed to_____________. How would you take an unadulterated photograph? Are all photos from digital cameras adulterated and impure? Can you adulterate a "pure view" with a lens choice?

Joe


----------



## cporten (Nov 6, 2018)

I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years. I understand, I think, that Digital is not an unadulterated photo. The camera is much more active in the process. And there are pics I have that missed the boat when I took them, but become what I envisioned after some editing. Though I do some self flailing on those edits because I am not yet competent enough to use the proper settings on the camera. And that editing lets me leapfrog my ineptitude. I shoot a Nikon D5500 now.  Film required me to be much more precise.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 6, 2018)

cporten said:


> I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years.



Then you shot only color transparency film? Even then arguments can be made that you manipulated the image, but setting that aside many photographers would support your claim to "pure" as long as you never shot negative film.




cporten said:


> I understand, I think, that Digital is not an unadulterated photo. The camera is much more active in the process. And there are pics I have that missed the boat when I took them, but become what I envisioned after some editing. Though I do some self flailing on those edits because I am not yet competent enough to use the proper settings on the camera.



I very frequently take photos in which there are no proper settings on the camera that could produced a passable image. The options on the camera are quite limited. Would "pure" require that I accept those limits? Why?

Joe



cporten said:


> And that editing lets me leapfrog my ineptitude. I shoot a Nikon D5500 now.  Film required me to be much more precise.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 6, 2018)

cporten said:


> I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years. I understand, I think, that Digital is not an unadulterated photo. The camera is much more active in the process. And there are pics I have that missed the boat when I took them, but become what I envisioned after some editing. Though I do some self flailing on those edits because I am not yet competent enough to use the proper settings on the camera. And that editing lets me leapfrog my ineptitude. I shoot a Nikon D5500 now.  Film required me to be much more precise.



Interesting. Digital requires me to be much more precise than film ever did.

Joe


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 6, 2018)

Until digital, all my photography was slides that were projected unchanged from the camera shot.  Even when I shot negative film, all the4x6"  prints came back from the processors printed without my input.  When I started shooting medium format thirty years ago and enlarging them to 16x20", I only had the printer crop in some cases to my liking.  If he did anything special beyond that, which I doubt, it was without my input.  

Regarding changes to the original shot, since the camera is limited in catching dynamic range, contrast, etc., minor adjustments in the darkroom or on your computer is reasonable to adjust exposure.  But that's different than changing the objects that were recorded by the camera to a scene that did not reflect the elements in the original picture.  

I also think people get sloppy thinking that PS will save their lousy shots.  Post processing cannot change the angle of the shot, where it was shot from, ambient lighting, etc.  If you needed to step two feet to the right to get the elements in the right way to excite the picture, post processing will not help you rearrange those elements afterwards.  You get sloppy in arranging the scene when you shoot it leading to unexciting photos.


----------



## Jeff G (Nov 6, 2018)

Enhancing a photo is normal in the digital age, adjusting color, exposure, general clean-up etc.  I remember retouching photos by hand and with an airbrush when I worked in advertising before the computer era. 

I would say the following image qualifies as a digital painting.  I took a photo of my cat, then used the smudge tool to make "brush strokes". I think the work that went into this was definately closer to painting the old fashined way, but technically it's just an enhanced photo.


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 6, 2018)

Jeff that's digital art and it is obvious to anyone who has look at an unedited photo in their life.  The problem is when the adjustments are not noticeable and change the elements of what was captured by the camera.  People are fooled.  Nice photo by the way.


----------



## Jeff G (Nov 6, 2018)

I absolutely agree, I used to think it would be fun editing photos for the national enquirer and such.....people are so gullible, the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 6, 2018)

AlanKlein said:


> Jeff that's digital art and it is obvious to anyone who has look at an unedited photo in their life.  The problem is when the adjustments are not noticeable and change the elements of what was captured by the camera.



Why is that a problem?

Joe



AlanKlein said:


> People are fooled.  Nice photo by the way.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 6, 2018)

Jeff G said:


> I absolutely agree, I used to think it would be fun editing photos for the national enquirer and such.....people are so gullible, the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on.



Standards exist and have long existed for journalism (not that the Enquirer qualifies). Since those standards came into existence violations have been a constant occurrence. The same applies to spoken/written claims. Want to take a bet on whether or not Trump will lie today?

But this is introducing a different topic than the OP presented and that cporten recently presented. You're suggesting that all photos are held to some standard of factual depiction of the subject photographed? Really?

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 6, 2018)

Jeff G said:


> the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on



Photoshopping Abraham Lincoln at a computer surfing the internet is unbelievable. Retouching an aged, cracked and yellowed photo of him is not, nor do I see anything out of place with it. As to the op question, I see photography and paintings as different mediums, nothing more nothing less. Whether you "manipulate" a digital photo, or whether you alter your brush strokes in an oil painting, it's the same thing, it's the artistic vision of those manipulations that makes it art. To assume otherwise, is to somehow assume that photography is less art than a painting, which would deny the claim of art to any other medium as well.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 6, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Jeff G said:
> 
> 
> > the problem is when history and for that matter the present can't be believed anymore do to all of the manipulation that goes on
> ...



Uh oh -- that's an idea!

Joe


----------



## cporten (Nov 7, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> cporten said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I was with film camera, which I used for 35 years.
> ...



I try to take photographs that which my eyes are seeing at that moment. To basically capture what I am feeling when I view whatever it is.  I am looking right now at a maple tree in all of its yellow and golden glory. I don't want more yellow or red or a darker trunk through editing. And if I have to wait to get the sunlight on it better, I will, I should.  I am not understanding what you are saying when you say that you 'very frequently take photos' that the camera can not capture because of its limitations. Again, I do not know the complete capabilities of my D5500, but I would think that I am able to capture what I am seeing without additional off camera editing. Or even in camera editing beyond the basics. Maybe I think a basic point and shoot camera can easily bring forth a very decent clean image I am looking at. And that post editing can make things 'dirty', But maybe more aesthetically pleasing.
Age old discussion and I am sounding ancient. I completely understand the arguments.  I looked at whether Ansel Adams used manipulation in his photos, he did, in exposure time, cropping and burning.  Adams may be  credited with making a statement that equated the negative to a score and the print to a symphony, or performance.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 7, 2018)

cporten said:


> I try to take photographs that which my eyes are seeing at that moment. To basically capture what I am feeling when I view whatever it is.



So just before I click the shutter I say to myself, "I'd feel a lot better about what I'm seeing if___________________



 

That bleepin' no parking sign and the worst of those utility wires weren't there." Why not photograph what I wish I could see? Sometimes the traffic department comes along and sticks a sign in your photograph. Do you have to let that stop you?



cporten said:


> I am looking right now at a maple tree in all of its yellow and golden glory. I don't want more yellow or red or a darker trunk through editing. And if I have to wait to get the sunlight on it better, I will, I should.  I am not understanding what you are saying when you say that you 'very frequently take photos' that the camera can not capture because of its limitations. Again, I do not know the complete capabilities of my D5500, but I would think that I am able to capture what I am seeing without additional off camera editing.



You are not. In some cases yes but in other cases no. That garden photo above is a good example. I was out working in the garden with my wife and she asked me to snap a few photos to send to her sister. As you can see it was sunset and the sun sets behind the garden. Here's the photo that the camera software created:



 

Film would have done a similarly abysmal job unable to manage the extreme dynamic range of looking directly into a sunset. Your camera would behave like mine as both our cameras are designed to emulate film. If I decreased exposure to keep the sky from blowing out the foreground gets darker. If I increased exposure to lighten the foreground the sky blow out gets worse.

Now what was I seeing and what would you have seen if you were there? It wasn't really that dark as I was pulling weeds at the time and had no trouble seeing. And if I glanced up to view the sunset I saw the color in the sky. We have excellent ability to see in and adapt to high dynamic range conditions. The aperture in your eye adapts very quickly as you shift your vision.

So what I'd like to do is use my camera to capture what I'm seeing and feeling at the moment. Our cameras can save raw data files -- basically the full data set from the sensor before the camera software produces the butcher job you see directly above. I made sure when I took the photo that the sky wasn't blown out in the raw file and I hand processed the raw file to capture what I really felt about how my garden looked to me.



cporten said:


> Or even in camera editing beyond the basics. Maybe I think a basic point and shoot camera can easily bring forth a very decent clean image I am looking at. And that post editing can make things 'dirty', But maybe more aesthetically pleasing.
> Age old discussion and I am sounding ancient. I completely understand the arguments.  I looked at whether Ansel Adams used manipulation in his photos, he did, in exposure time, cropping and burning.  Adams may be  credited with making a statement that equated the negative to a score and the print to a symphony, or performance.



Yes, Adams was a very heavy image manipulator.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 7, 2018)

cporten said:


> . I am not understanding what



I've seen differing opinions on the dynamic range (ratio of the brightest luminance to the darkest luminance) of the human eye of anywhere from 15 to 25 stops. By comparison at best, about  15 stops is all you'll get in a modern digital camera, even less with film. So, in uncontrolled lighting, the only way you'll be able to approximate the scene you see in an image, is by following steps like Joe pointed out above, and recovering in post.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 7, 2018)

I am currently reading a book that discusses the use of the Camera Obscure to trace the projected images for centuries of fine art.

The authors clam is it was a preferred technique for tracing drawing details to be painted later. Pinhole lens, mirror and paper, evolved into lens, light sensitive matrix and flat screen.


----------



## Dave442 (Nov 7, 2018)

Photography and painting have both been used to give a depiction of an event as witnessed by the creator of the work. Just as painting, as a medium, can be further used to create a work that comes from the mind of the artist, so too an image taken by a photographer can be manipulated to create a final work of art.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 7, 2018)

There is art and there is documentary. A full frame photo of a beautiful flower may be art, in spite of the fact that it is growing  in a manure pile in the middle of a junk yard.


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 7, 2018)

Photoshop can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 8, 2018)

AlanKlein said:


> Photoshop can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.



Sure it can.

Just a deflated Xmas yard balloon -- a sow's ear for sure:




 

A simple PS adjustment and it becomes my best Xmas card ever.



 

Joe


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 8, 2018)

Actually Photoshop can make a silk purse from most anything then put it in the hands of a sow. 

While I personally enjoy a photo of a dog catching a Frisbee over dogs playing poker around a table, I have seen both.

It is like comparing the detailed landscapes of the Hudson River School paintings to Picasso.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 8, 2018)

I have to disagree with the premise that Ps is the magical software that can turn something bad into something great. Maybe something better than the original, but it can't create something out of thin air. Severely blown highlights can't be recovered, and uninteresting subjects (though improved) will still be uninteresting, to name a few. While a composite can comprise several non related images, you still need good exposures to work with.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 9, 2018)

Smoke

You correct except, what is bad and what is great depends on the viewer.

I marvel at the craftsmanship that went into an 18th century parqueted wooden desk only to see it sell at auction for a fraction of what some non-descript  sea shore painting  sold for.

Beauty was they say is in the eye of the beholder..........thank God or I would still probably be single.


----------



## smoke665 (Nov 9, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> ou correct except, what is bad and what is great depends on the viewer.



I'll be the first to acknowledge that my taste in art will never expand to include the atrocious who's only intent seems to be shock and disgust. As to value, the monetary value of any item is that which someone is willing to pay at a specific point in time. Many years ago at an estate auction for my mother, we sold an old ornate hall tree and mirror that had sat in her basement for years. Overtime the moist conditions had not been kind to it. The piece in question was in a hot bidding war between two people from the big city, finally selling for $6500, a price I thought was outrageous for the condition. I thanked the winner for his purchase and commented that it was a lot for that piece. With a grin he said not really, as I already have a committed buyer who is paying $45,000 for the piece once restored.  The fact that  the desk you mentioned sold low, could have been a sharp buyer who recognized a deal that no one else did, or no one at the auction knew the true value of the item.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 9, 2018)

Art work is a classic example of "taste". I recently visited a museum the featured the "Hudson River School" of art in one room and abstract art in another, with a multitude of style in between. They even has an early Picasso.

You might find a copy of a Hudson River painting in my house but a will leave Mr. Picasso to those who like that style.

I would be a dull world if everyone liked the same stuff.


----------



## Fujidave (Nov 9, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Art work is a classic example of "taste". I recently visited a museum the featured the "Hudson River School" of art in one room and abstract art in another, with a multitude of style in between. They even has an early Picasso.
> 
> You might find a copy of a Hudson River painting in my house but a will leave Mr. Picasso to those who like that style.
> 
> I would be a dull world if everyone liked the same stuff.



For some reason I never liked any Picasso, but loved John Constable here in the UK.

This is my all time favourite.


The Hay Wain - Wikipedia


----------



## Dave442 (Nov 9, 2018)

I would put Picasso in my favorites list of painters, but then again I grew up in the basement of the Contemporary Arts Museum in Houston.


----------



## Jamesaz (Nov 14, 2018)

Absolutely my last thoughts on this: Why is painting considered more 'art' than the use of any other media and why do people buy into that idea? Not just photographers but also ceramicists, printmakers, color pencil artists and even (gasp) sculptors can be willing participants in this illusion. (Pretty much all art is illusory anyway, except for music which has it's own  hierarchy of 'serious orchestral' and the lesser regarded 'popular' but can't be illusory because it's sound) 

Perhaps it comes from a belief that, because there are some practical applications to justify photo, ceramic, litho etc. they don't carry the popular gravitas of painting but I know painters that have day jobs as house painters so..... 

This is not an attitude I've found to be widespread among actual artists. Gallery owners however, will tell you that photography is a hard sell and and the attitude mentioned above is a contributing factor.

This gallery analysis is based only on my personal experience and pertains only to fiber prints from film negatives (not landscape). I would imagine digital photography would have even more hurdles in that environment.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 14, 2018)

Jamesaz,

Maybe it is because almost everyone can capture a classic, artsy, or emotionally moving photo from time to time . But not everyone can put brush to canvas or chisel to stone.

In my research on camera history  I discover that the use of the Camera obscura and camera lucida which allows the artist to  trace a projected image on a paper, then fill in the details, has been used for centuries; even in portrait work.

Their is no rhyme or reason to artwork, which is why a particular artist's paintings can double or drop to half it value, solely on the whims of the art world. Contemplating such things is similar to the medieval challenge of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is not correct answer. 

One can just enjoy what they enjoy and marvel at the tastes or others. Kind of like beer.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2018)

Ughh.

People are doing "digital painting" now. Neat for a cheap print, looks good.
But compared to brush and oil i think it borders insulting.  Look at the great actual paintings, the talent, hands on. No simple "undo, or revert back"   ,  Digital editing, like the way it went in movie special effects, neat to look at. But something just cheesy or talentless in it. Computer geek vs. Artist.  Not even the same world.
I paint and photo (neither much anymore). But i see a vast difference between someone putting oil on canvas and someone staring at a computer screen with algorithms.   Please .Please. Let digital editing and digital painting NEVER be put in the same category as true painting. It is like sculpting vs buying a 1000 dollar 3d printer. Just no, just no. Make it go away!!  It must be what people bad with art but good with technology do.
"Digital artist" sounds like a oxymoron.
I am happy to note that, seeing digital paintings being devalued, borderline worthless from what i can see. Gives me hope that the general public sees the difference between a paint brush and a computer algorithm


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 4, 2018)

bribrius said:


> Ughh.
> 
> People are doing "digital painting" now. Neat for a cheap print, looks good.
> But compared to brush and oil i think it borders insulting.  Look at the great actual paintings, the talent, hands on. No simple "undo, or revert back"   ,  Digital editing, like the way it went in movie special effects, neat to look at. But something just cheesy or talentless in it. Computer geek vs. Artist.  Not even the same world.
> ...




_Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence. _--Paul Strand

Joe


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 4, 2018)

As I said before there is no correct answer, just opinions. 

It is true that it takes great talent to be a great painter but there are still thousands of really poor artists who enjoy putting brush to canvas. Also not everyone who Photoshop's produces an award winning photograph. 

The world of art is so diverse it is impossible to say who is more talented. Is Picasso better than Ansel Adams?  

It is true that a Picasso painting costs a lot of money, but Ansel sells an awful lot of calendars.  

I know what I like, so I will leave t to others to sort out what they like.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> As I said before there is no correct answer, just opinions.
> 
> It is true that it takes great talent to be a great painter but there are still thousands of really poor artists who enjoy putting brush to canvas. Also not everyone who Photoshop's produces an award winning photograph.
> 
> ...


Normon Rockwell sells a awful lot of calendars


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 4, 2018)

I suspect that you also have neglected to consider that artists aren't dimwits. Given Leonardo da Vinci was a prolific inventor I have to believe that he would not only have used Photoshop, but improved on it.


----------

