[alamo5000]

Excellent post skierd!

[alamo5000]

A big difference between painting and photography is time. Especially with oil paint, you can have literal weeks or months from the first brush stroke to the last to develop your composition, lighting, rendering, "feel" etc to express what you want to express. Patience, far more patience than the average or even above average photographers possess, is absolutely required to paint well. If a photographer put half as much planning and sketch work in to their art in the way a painter or printer has to, he or she would find their keep rate and quality of images increasing dramatically.

Your brain and observation powers can create your photos. It's challenging to observe the world in these ways especially with sometimes unknowing or unwilling participants. But what you say is oh so true.

A good way to approach art photography is to treat each one like a painting. Approach your scene with an eye towards how it flows, how the objects and elements are arranged, how the light falls. Explore the angles; are you and your camera in the right place to express what you want to show? Are you in position to capture that decisive moment?

This is exactly why I embarked on my on again off again study that's been happening for a good two years or so...This sums up the whole thing quite well.

[skierd]

Hell I spent four years in art school and am still learning everyday, see something new that inspires. It's not a sprint, it's a through hike.

[Aksel]

...Using my above example of talking with Monet... I'll bet that he couldn't tell you exactly what he used to make the sun in the middle of Impression, sunrise, because he made it himself. All you need to paint all the colors of the world are red, yellow, and blue... just add a little trickery. Ok really alizarin, cad red medium, cad yellow light, cad yellow dark, ultramarine blue, and phtalo blue. ...

Our trouble is often that we have "too good" tools (both cameras/lenses and software) and often may seem to us that they replace the artist's eye (and ideas).

[skierd]

I agree with much of what you say, but,I disagree with this above quote. Much can be learned about image creation by know technical aspects of what various fstop/shutter settings can produce, artists may over look this but photographers won't, as it is fundamental to the image making process. fstop, shallower or greater depth of field for different purposes, they type of lens used and it's rendering characteristic...
However we look at this we can learn from each other.

True, it can be helpful to know how to control certain variables such as depth of field to create certain shots. And no doubt even the most unconcerned photographer eventually learns some of it through trial and error. But to continue with my analogy, knowing the aperture used is akin to knowing that red and yellow make orange when trying to paint that sunrise. The artist still needs basic technique, but more than that too.

But the unfortunate side of technique is letting the tech take over. Spending hours upon hours photographing brick walls to test and test and test... To test what exactly? How good your gear is, or how obsessed you can be over it? If a carpenter tested every saw and hammer as obsessively as some camera enthusiasts test their gear they'd never build a thing. It's a tool, pick it up and use it.

What do you really learn about photography after all that?

I've personally learned far more about my lenses and body by using them trying to take photographs in interesting or difficult places than any lab test.

[alamo5000]

Skierd... You're a man after my own heart. LOL

[sherrvonne]

When my sis started chemo, her and my mom also started pastel painting classes and wanted me to join them. Finding a good photo to work from was nil. They brought awful enlarged pixelated photos, it was terrible. I started digging through all my old K1000 prints to work off of but I wanted new photos for art. I tried taking new ones with hubby's digital and the camera phone, but it wasn't good enough. I started researching and bought the K3. I found that I can take photographs that already look pastel painted. Unfortunately the pastels are sitting and the lens collection is growing, and next Tuesday I will be wondering if my lens will be delivered in the mail, while trying to listen and learn from one of the best pastel artists out there. I am hoping to learn technique, skill with the camera and combine it with the art. If I don't have to join LBAA first

---

Last edited by sherrvonne; 01-01-2015 at 08:15 PM.

[PentaxJax]

skierd, They say a picture is worth a thousand words. What you said in you first post is priceless. Alamo5000, thank you for starting this thread. I wish all of you the best for 2015.

[johnmflores]

I'm so glad that I found this thread, as my photography has been moving in this direction lately. I envy painters and illustrators and their mastery of a scene; they can add or remove light and color as they wish and can produce compositions that engage viewers. We photographers don't have as much control of course (except in the studio plus post-processing) but even out in the world I try to give the viewer an image that is composed and dense, invites them to view for more than a fleeting moment, and rewards them for their time.

This approach has pulled me away from super narrow DOF photos as they usually just have a single subject. They have their place in portraits and macros where the single subject is very interesting. But my style has been moving towards placing a subject within a context or have two or more subjects within the frame and managing the balance between them through light, color, and composition.

Some examples:

Single Subject

Flowers + Rainy Day = Rainy Day Flower Photos by john m flores, on Flickr


2014 Zero SR by john m flores, on Flickr


Multiple Subjects

2015 Indian Scout at the Coney Island Cyclone by john m flores, on Flickr


First Friday Music and Cotton Candy Circus Acrobatics at Liberty Vintage Motorcycle, Fishtown, Philly by john m flores, on Flickr


Square in Times Square by john m flores, on Flickr


Humanity by john m flores, on Flickr

I try to incorporate these ideas in my personal and paying work, and I think it's evolving into a style.

I'm now craving "image density", where nearly each pixel is of interest and they are in a composition that has the viewer scanning to and fro. I consider one of my photos successful if it stops a view and holds their attention for more than a moment. Like a good painting. And in the last year, this creative approach has been directing my shooting opportunities and interest in gear, not the other way around.

Anyway. thanks for starting this thread and the conversation that it has started!


p.s. - there is increasing evidence that past master painters used photographic techniques, i.e., camera obscuras and whatnot...

Caravaggio used photographic techniques: researcher

[kjg48359]

To me, photography is all about art and science. Only when there is mastery of both will the results really be what the photographer envisions.

I know I've read several articles where the pros always recommend that you know your equipment. Once you do, it becomes an extension of your vision. And that's when you can really develop the art side. Juxtaposing objects, lighting, and understanding the exposure triangle to me means that the artistic side will always push out those boundaries beyond stead fast rules ("rules of thirds" as an example).

By the way, it totally cracked me up this last summer. I had the chance to go to Washington DC, and standing on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, I couldn't help but notice that almost every single group of people using cell phones were all standing and "holding" the Washington Monument between their forefinger and thumb. Childish in my opinion, but it is still a subtle reminder that photographs can lie. And that's their power to challenge us under the right conditions.

A lot of times it's how those objects are frozen in a moment of time that cause the eyes to wonder around the image that can capture the imagination.

[mattb123]

I got my degree in art and was primarily a watercolorist. I did a lot of field painting but also have always liked photography and would use a photo as a sketch for a painting to be done later in the studio.
As time went on I liked my photos more and more, and as life got busy I had less time to paint and eventually just stopped painting regularly.
I like to approach my landscape photos the same as I used to approach my paintings, with a bit of thought. I check the corners, look for the light, find lines, and try to either incorporate or exclude any element I see. I also like to use the tools we have at our disposal (LR, Photoshop, plugins) to finish my vision as I might have done in the past with paint.
I've also been working in technology since high school and have a knack for it. When Cameras went digital and the PC replaced the darkroom, it was great for me. It brought together two areas I have always liked but generally didn't mix before then.

[savoche]

For those who haven't seen it, there's a B&H talk on this topic on Youtube - Bridging the Gap: Classical Art Designed for Photographers. With my complete lack of an artistic background I found it quite interesting.

[savoche]

Another Youtube talk on the elements that make up a picture. She does go through the effects of dark vs light, quality of light, lines, shapes, analogous vs complementary colours etc. Very much not gear talk.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be