Are Photographer trying to mimic Painters?

[mrca]

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]

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? "

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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.