Hi I've cross around the web and some photographers who I've read their profile says they are painter or have interest in painting before starting out in photography and now they take great photographs. do you think their interest in painting help them in their photography? I'm not saying this applies to all, but I say most.
Part of doing painting is training your eye, part is training your hand, part is learning the characteristics of tools and media. To do photography you certainly need to train your eye, so that portion of time spent painting will carry over.
I happen to be one of those people who trained in drawing/painting then later switched to photography. I can't think how that gives me any great advantage over someone else who has put in the same total number of hours doing visual art but all in photography. I have confidence in my abilities to do composition and to make use of colour. I also tend to think of the scene in front of the camera as being open to modification. Yet plenty of photographers with no background in painting have excellent capabilities in all these areas.
There is a general perception in the non-artistic public that a person who can paint has a special talent, and that a painting is intrinsically more valuable than a photograph due to the manual dexterity involved. When a photographer claims he has done painting, he is hoping something of that aura of specialness in the mind of a potential customer will transfer to his photographs. Similarly, a professional in some field with a degree from Harvard or Yale might hope for some increment of advantage over another professional from a less prestigious institution. One can always hope...