Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Painters are good photographers?  (Read 4250 times)
Firefloss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: May 03, 2013, 08:40:30 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2013, 11:42:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would have to have to say that there are as many painters that are good photographers as there are photographers that are good painters. It's not really an easy generalization or assumption to make. I know plenty of painters who think they are also photographers. I beg to differ. I know I can't do a painting worth looking at.

Cheers!
Logged

Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer and Printer
www.jasondimichele.com
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 787



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2013, 10:05:23 AM »
ReplyReply

The "good" in this equation has nothing to do with the method. If you want to communicate an idea or experience you choose a tool. Paint and brushes, or camera and lenses. Just the way you feel competent enough to get your views expressed. That's why some go from one tool to the other. Without a clear objective the effort will fail with any tool.
Logged
Dale_Cotton2
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2013, 01:59:44 PM »
ReplyReply

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...
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2013, 10:57:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Just a little OT, but I have had the opportunity to talk with a lot of painters over the last few years.  It is surprising how many of them routinely use photographic tools in the creation of their artwork.  Many find it useful to use PS manipulations to evaluate their works in progress.  Exaggerating and diminishing color and contrast are informative about composition and visual weight.  Color substitution, gradations, rubber stamping, and so on all are useful planning tools.  It is far safer to experiment and feel one's way on the screen rather than on the canvas.  This is a far cry from only a few decades ago when painting from photos was kind of a closet activity.  And I know at least one person who gave up oils and became a digital artist from her exposure to PS.

Also interesting to see an overall all trend towards a more photographic look in recent realistic landscape painting.  Brighter tonalities, distinct highlights, wide dynamic ranges, and even blown out skies are frequently seen these days, at least in Northern New Mexico galleries.
Logged
James Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2013, 02:09:11 AM »
ReplyReply


Also interesting to see an overall all trend towards a more photographic look in recent realistic landscape painting.  Brighter tonalities, distinct highlights, wide dynamic ranges, and even blown out skies are frequently seen these days, at least in Northern New Mexico galleries.

It's interesting you mention this - especially regarding the blown-out skies.  This was something that also stood out to me last time I was browsing around the various Santa Fe galleries a few weeks ago.  I remember thinking how interesting it was that for the last several years photographers have been trying various ways (HDR, stacking & compositing, hyper-saturation) to get more painterly colors into skies, and yet here the painters are mimicking the strong, diffuse daylight that photographers try so hard to avoid right now.
Logged
GWStudioLA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2013, 11:07:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm a terrible painter.. Wink
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad