Where does photography stop and painting begin?

[terri]

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]

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]

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]

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.

They do now.

 

[SquarePeg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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 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?

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]

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 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?

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