"Image as Painting" - Page 2

rparmar · 06-08-2008, 03:26 PM

I think this one has the look:

I'm in love with the bokeh here:

The materials used on this rooftop and the weathering it has accumulated over time
makes it look like an oil painting. In fact it appears that I have applied one of those brush effects in Photoshop, but no.

rparmar · 06-08-2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by kenyee

That reminds me...wandered into an art studio by mistake while on vacation recently and noticed some landscape pics that looked like actual places. When I asked, it was a process called "g'lay" (not sure how it's spelled but that's how it's pronounced). Apparently, they load up oil into ink jet printers and print away.

That would be a giclée. It's just a fancy word for digital image applied to canvas using an ink jet.

rparmar · 06-08-2008, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by mickeyobe

Paint artists, indeed, all humans see everything sharp unless they are wearing the wrong type of eye glasses because our eyes focus automatically wherever they are directed.

But that's just a first order approximation. If we are looking at an object in the foreground, the background will indeed be out of focus, just like through a camera. But the eye can jump back and forwards quickly (saccades) and the brain fills it in as though there was far more in focus than is actually the case. It is a time distribution.

Likewise, when looking straight ahead there are all sorts of peripheral areas that are out of focus. This is especially true since only the fovea has the full degree of acuity associated with the eye as a whole. And this only sees 2 degrees of angle. But the eye does little scans left and right to keep the fovea lined up with the target. The brain interpolates this into a mental image of the straight-ahead gaze.

Yep, that is correct: we really only see sharply two degrees at a time.

There are all sorts of other effects, like the automatic inversion of the image by the brain, which prevents us from seeing the world upside down. Basically, the eyes don't see; the brain does.

I think it completely appropriate that we, as photographers, might study the Impressionists. They were intrigued with capturing movement and light. One of their aims was to paint images that represent how we actually see the world as a subject and not how it appears objectively. But as I've hinted above, even the idea of "objective" is open to an incredible array of physiological factors.

It's just not as simple as it seems.

**Damn Brit** · 06-08-2008, 09:20 PM

Here's a couple of mine that I think fit the bill. The first was down to the lighting and the second is just as it was.

jsherman999 · 06-08-2008, 09:59 PM

wowza. Stunning stuff. I honestly feel like I could download some of the originals
from here and the VL threads, print/frame them and have people knocked out by the
'gallery' shots, I mean, look at this stuff...

Kelly, if you can't find a Planar 85, you can get an M 85 f2 from keh or b&h:

Also,

Originally Posted by mickeyobe

I must take issue with you.
Paint artists, indeed, all humans see everything sharp unless they are wearing the wrong type of eye glasses because our eyes focus automatically wherever they are directed.

...
Mickey

Actually, Van Gogh and several of the other impressionists were myopic.

Cézanne's Myopia: A Shortcut to Abstraction?

Although perhaps only coincidence, a large number of the Impressionist painters were "nearsighted" (ie. myopes). For example, Cézanne, and Renoir both suffered from and appeared to exploit the blur induced by their myopia in their work. Renoir was known to step back from the canvas so that it was out of focus. Cézanne, when offered spectacles raged, “take away those vulgar things!” Arguably, the sharp focus produced by corrective lenses worked against the global abstract style that the Impressionists sought to achieve. In short, uncorrected myopia may have offered a "shortcut" to abstracting the general forms and colors of the scene being painted.

Art, Vision, & the Disordered Eye - Cézanne, Paul

.

**roentarre** · 06-09-2008, 12:16 AM

Just a few

Nokton 58mm

A 50mm f1.2

A* 300mm f2.8

Fa 77 ltd

*Eaglerapids* · 06-09-2008, 05:19 AM

DA* 300/4

Stewart Minnis · 06-09-2008, 05:20 AM

Here is my contribution for a "Image as Painting" Taken with a M 50 1.7.

Stew

schmik · 06-09-2008, 06:20 AM

Nice work everyone. I absolutely love these kinds of images. Here are a couple of my own . SMC-A 1.7

mike

schmik · 06-09-2008, 06:23 AM

BTW, the white flower above... it has a weird ring around it that is a little dark. Only PP that i did was some 'recovery' as the petals were a bit over exposed. Unfortunately i don't have the master file any more so i can't tell if it was the shot or the PP that made the ring. Any ideas?

Oh and the lens was a 50.

mike

thePiRaTE!! · 06-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by schmik

BTW, the white flower above... it has a weird ring around it that is a little dark. Only PP that i did was some 'recovery' as the petals were a bit over exposed. Unfortunately i don't have the master file any more so i can't tell if it was the shot or the PP that made the ring. Any ideas?

Oh and the lens was a 50.

mike

It doesn't look over processed though. Looking at it long enough with your advice, I can only say if anything it draws ones eye into it more, looks fine to me and I'm pretty sensitive to gratuitous use of pp. It may be that with the wide open aperture and the subject being so bright that diffusion gave a soft caste around the flower which the computer picked up on. You might have lost a little glow is all. I'd say use smart select tool to create a new layer of the flower and process that way to protect the rest of the image next time.

All in all, looks good though.

*gokenin* · 06-09-2008, 09:42 AM

love the backgrounds
1

2

pentaxkat · 06-09-2008, 09:52 AM

No longer have this lens (didn't like the handling and exposure seemed off, but thats probably because I'm rubbish at macro!). However, certainly can't complain about the "look" of this lens.

Nesster · 06-09-2008, 09:55 AM

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

Yes, this isn't what the eye sees. But to me it does capture an impression of the brightness of light playing on flowers and foliage.

Old Tamron-f 35mm f/2.8 fixed mount lens

thePiRaTE!! · 06-09-2008, 10:22 AM

I have my heart pretty set on the ZK 85 but Roentarre, you show that judicious use of many lenses can give results. Great shots.

J, the bokeh on the M85 indeed has the quality, but it might have too much depth of field for my taste judging by the pic. 85s are weird beasts, they don't let you close in much, so I think I'm going to maximize the f factor to compensate. Seems counter intuitive to use such a lens for this purpose, but it really just boils down to 'how it looks' at max aperture now - so odd for me to want something like this - no close focus and 'dreamy' (aka soft) wide aperture...

On the other hand, maybe DoF doesn't matter at all... Nokton @ 1.4: