Where does photography stop and painting begin?

Grandpa Ron

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
697
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
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?
 
I "paint" with light onto film. But to me it's still a photograph.


4CnrD8r.jpg
 
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.
 
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?

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top