"Image as Painting" - Page 3

*NaClH2O* · 06-09-2008, 10:38 AM

Different kind of painting effect. Instead of DOF and bokeh, this shot was taken in bright sun, somewhat backlit. To keep the colors (especially the yellow) from oversaturating I jumped heavily on the mid level contrast slider. The "painterly" effect was unintentional, but I was pleased with it nevertheless.

NaCl(playing with levels can achieve some interesting results)H2O

Gruoso · 06-09-2008, 10:40 AM

Among all the lens that I have had I think that the Mamiya 55 f1.4 has the more "temperamental" bokeh (you can see some pics here http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...ro-more-2.html )

*mickeyobe* · 06-09-2008, 11:31 AM

There are a number of beautiful pictures with out of focus areas whether by accident or intent in this thread.
On the other hand there are some badly out of focus pictures that cannot be considered as anything other than badly out of focus pictures.
Some people consider the photos produced by Lomo and Diana cameras and their ilk as art. But to be honest they are poor quality pictures made with poor quality cameras. The picture takers have no control over the results. But they sure know how to merchandise junk.

Mickey

thePiRaTE!! · 06-09-2008, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by NaClH2O

Different kind of painting effect. Instead of DOF and bokeh, this shot was taken in bright sun, somewhat backlit. To keep the colors (especially the yellow) from oversaturating I jumped heavily on the mid level contrast slider. The "painterly" effect was unintentional, but I was pleased with it nevertheless.

NaCl(playing with levels can achieve some interesting results)H2O

Lots of ways to skin a horse eh? Its true, it does have a painted appearance. It seems there are many ways to get a painted effect, down to what type of painting.

I'm learning a lot in this thread about how to approach this type of photography, thanks all for the ideas.

rparmar · 06-09-2008, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by NaClH2O

Different kind of painting effect. Instead of DOF and bokeh, this shot was taken in bright sun, somewhat backlit. To keep the colors (especially the yellow) from oversaturating I jumped heavily on the mid level contrast slider. The "painterly" effect was unintentional, but I was pleased with it nevertheless.

What if you crop a horizontal band of flowers so there is no green in the background? I think that would look fab!

thePiRaTE!! · 06-09-2008, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by mickeyobe

There are a number of beautiful pictures with out of focus areas whether by accident or intent in this thread.
On the other hand there are some badly out of focus pictures that cannot be considered as anything other than badly out of focus pictures.
Some people consider the photos produced by Lomo and Diana cameras and their ilk as art. But to be honest they are poor quality pictures made with poor quality cameras. The picture takers have no control over the results. But they sure know how to merchandise junk.

Mickey

I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is. If one doesn't see the abstraction, only the literal thing it is (to you, a blurry photo) then it isn't. No right or wrong answer, no harm in contributing.

FWIW, I really felt the Nokton at 1.4 was too soft. Its bokeh overpowered my initial assumption. I saw in it something I never appreciated fully before - that sharpness was not the reason I was appreciating what I saw any more from a lens. In fact, sharpness wasn't even important at all in the following images:

(Mind the resposts for those that may have seen these in the Nokton thread)

Again, not to say I think you're missing anything Mickey - just that 'junk' will always be in the eye of the beholder.

pentaxkat · 06-09-2008, 12:35 PM

lovely pics too; really dream like.

It would be boring if all photos were the same. Photos, like art are a personal thing. One persons c*** photo is another persons favourite photo.

Some photos might also not be very "good" but mean a lot to the photographer; the memories etc. it conjures up.

Its rather like the film vs. digital debate. Whilst digital is probably now at the point where it is technically "superior" (excluding larger formats), I still enjoy viewing film images. They have a different look, which is not always better or worse, just different.

jsherman999 · 06-09-2008, 12:55 PM

.

Salty,

That shot is incredibly striking, for a strange reason - what you did with the mid-level sliders has resulted in it looking less 3 dimensional that the actual scene really was, while at the same time doing something with the colors of the yellow and orange tulips to make them look almost exactly like dabs of oil paint. Net effect is that the image looks just like an oil painting, or at least the bottom half does (as Robin points out, the green on the top half wasn't as affected, and it looks actually natural.) But very nice, I really like that image, it looks like an oil painting, not like a digital image PP'd to look like an oil painting.

And Kelly, thanks for posting these here, in fact those very images were what inspired me to start this thread in the first pace. Outstanding.

Originally Posted by thePiRaTE!!

I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is. If one doesn't see the abstraction, only the literal thing it is (to you, a blurry photo) then it isn't. No right or wrong answer, no harm in contributing.

FWIW, I really felt the Nokton at 1.4 was too soft. Its bokeh overpowered my initial assumption. I saw in it something I never appreciated fully before - that sharpness was not the reason I was appreciating what I saw any more from a lens. In fact, sharpness wasn't even important at all in the following images:

(Mind the resposts for those that may have seen these in the Nokton thread)

Again, not to say I think you're missing anything Mickey - just that 'junk' will always be in the eye of the beholder.

rparmar · 06-09-2008, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by thePiRaTE!!

FWIW, I really felt the Nokton at 1.4 was too soft. Its bokeh overpowered my initial assumption. I saw in it something I never appreciated fully before - that sharpness was not the reason I was appreciating what I saw any more from a lens. In fact, sharpness wasn't even important at all in the following images

Only one word for those: lovely.

*mickeyobe* · 06-09-2008, 06:18 PM

thePiRaTE!!

"I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is."

I think that anything may be "artistic", even a pile of horse manure or a midden.

But "art" is something created intentionally by a human being and the key word is "created".

One may appreciate a piece of driftwood or a rose or manure or broken pottery and they may very well be artistic but it is the same objects rendered in pen and ink or clay or oil paints or some other medium that may, possibly, be art. Especially if rendered by a person with skill and/or talent and/or luck.

Mickey

konraDarnok · 06-09-2008, 06:31 PM

This is a nice thread. I like it much.

thePiRaTE!! · 06-09-2008, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by mickeyobe

thePiRaTE!!

"I think the old 'what is art' discussion applies here. If someone sees something of interest in anything - then it is."

I think that anything may be "artistic", even a pile of horse manure or a midden.

But "art" is something created intentionally by a human being and the key word is "created".

One may appreciate a piece of driftwood or a rose or manure or broken pottery and they may very well be artistic but it is the same objects rendered in pen and ink or clay or oil paints or some other medium that may, possibly, be art. Especially if rendered by a person with skill and/or talent and/or luck.

Mickey

I agree to a point. I may take one step back in my classification though - simply that it is recognized and presented by a human as art, even if its just broken pottery. Sometimes symbolism is very powerful, even in found items or average scenes. Landscape photography is just landscape for example, but... is it art? I think so, even bad ones... its just bad art to me, not 'not' art ya know?

I noticed you didn't mention a photograph in your list though, intentional? (probably not) Theoretically, no human is creating the image (especially these days), but it is often an intentional manipulation of a device and environment to generate meaning, thus captured and presented. To explain my line here further, making a violin is an art for example, so is playing it, but the guy playing it didn't actually make anything... except noise, which the guy who made the violin is actually responsible for. I don't know. I guess my point is art is where I see it or where its shown - good or bad? Thats subjective, not exclusive. To me. heh.

Anyhoo, the point of the thread as I understood it was to show images that resembled being painted (and how), not necessarily artworks per say, so critiques to artistic merit are probably less appropriate than whether it simply looks painted or not. But don't take my huge reply to mean anything against your point of view, I just felt like rambling, hehe.

**roentarre** · 06-10-2008, 05:52 AM

Thanks, Kelly. Your amazing Nokton images prompt me to use it as much as I could. That is the kind of effect I tried to achieve all the time. However, I cannot get Monet's style of bokeh these days. (I love Monet!)

Some more shots to share

VL 125 macro

Da 16-50/2.8

Fa* 300/4.5

A* 200 macro

*Outlaw* · 06-10-2008, 06:18 AM

This thread has certainly evoked some new ideas - here's one I like.

The fuzzy background pleases me.

*Ron Boggs* · 06-10-2008, 08:56 AM

Ever seen a movie that you loved but the critics hated? Yeah me too, and that's the nature of art. If a painting, photo, sculpture etc. reaches out to every viewer equally, is it perhaps too defined to be art? Heady stuff with no sure answer.

The neat thing about impressionism is that it's a broader category than many presume it to be. All impressionism isn't defocused, the tack sharp tulip shot being a great example. Also, being so defocused as to be unrecognizable isn't the definition of impressionism either--you can tell that Monet's Waterlilies are, in fact, waterlilies even though they are unfocused. Just as you can tell that Roentarre's ferris wheel is a ferris wheel--though unfocused

Remember also, Monet, Manet, Cezanne, Degas and the other original impressionists were not allowed into shows by the French Salons--the "boards" of artistic acceptance in France back then. It took decades for the Salons to understand and almost accept impressionism as an art form. Same seems to be applied to photography by some...

A couple more examples from an earlier post: a reflection shot, a tack sharp shot that is more color wash than anything, etc.