Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Painters are good photographers?  (Read 4745 times)

Firefloss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Painters are good photographers?
« on: May 03, 2013, 09:40:30 PM »

Hi I've cross around the web and some photographers who I've read their profile says they are painter or have interest in painting before starting out in photography and now they take great photographs. do you think their interest in painting help them in their photography? I'm not saying this applies to all, but I say most.
Logged

Jason DiMichele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
    • Jason DiMichele - Fine Art Photographer and Printer
Re: Painters are good photographers?
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2013, 12:42:14 AM »

Hi,

I would have to have to say that there are as many painters that are good photographers as there are photographers that are good painters. It's not really an easy generalization or assumption to make. I know plenty of painters who think they are also photographers. I beg to differ. I know I can't do a painting worth looking at.

Cheers!
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer and Printer
www.jasondimichele.com

louoates

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
    • Lou Oates Photography
Re: Painters are good photographers?
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2013, 11:05:23 AM »

The "good" in this equation has nothing to do with the method. If you want to communicate an idea or experience you choose a tool. Paint and brushes, or camera and lenses. Just the way you feel competent enough to get your views expressed. That's why some go from one tool to the other. Without a clear objective the effort will fail with any tool.
Logged

Dale_Cotton2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
    • http://daystarvisions.com
Re: Painters are good photographers?
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2013, 02:59:44 PM »

Hi I've cross around the web and some photographers who I've read their profile says they are painter or have interest in painting before starting out in photography and now they take great photographs. do you think their interest in painting help them in their photography? I'm not saying this applies to all, but I say most.

Part of doing painting is training your eye, part is training your hand, part is learning the characteristics of tools and media. To do photography you certainly need to train your eye, so that portion of time spent painting will carry over.

I happen to be one of those people who trained in drawing/painting then later switched to photography. I can't think how that gives me any great advantage over someone else who has put in the same total number of hours doing visual art but all in photography. I have confidence in my abilities to do composition and to make use of colour. I also tend to think of the scene in front of the camera as being open to modification. Yet plenty of photographers with no background in painting have excellent capabilities in all these areas.

There is a general perception in the non-artistic public that a person who can paint has a special talent, and that a painting is intrinsically more valuable than a photograph due to the manual dexterity involved. When a photographer claims he has done painting, he is hoping something of that aura of specialness in the mind of a potential customer will transfer to his photographs. Similarly, a professional in some field with a degree from Harvard or Yale might hope for some increment of advantage over another professional from a less prestigious institution. One can always hope...
Logged

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2979
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Painters are good photographers?
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2013, 11:57:42 PM »

Just a little OT, but I have had the opportunity to talk with a lot of painters over the last few years.  It is surprising how many of them routinely use photographic tools in the creation of their artwork.  Many find it useful to use PS manipulations to evaluate their works in progress.  Exaggerating and diminishing color and contrast are informative about composition and visual weight.  Color substitution, gradations, rubber stamping, and so on all are useful planning tools.  It is far safer to experiment and feel one's way on the screen rather than on the canvas.  This is a far cry from only a few decades ago when painting from photos was kind of a closet activity.  And I know at least one person who gave up oils and became a digital artist from her exposure to PS.

Also interesting to see an overall all trend towards a more photographic look in recent realistic landscape painting.  Brighter tonalities, distinct highlights, wide dynamic ranges, and even blown out skies are frequently seen these days, at least in Northern New Mexico galleries.
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 405
Re: Painters are good photographers?
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2013, 03:09:11 AM »


Also interesting to see an overall all trend towards a more photographic look in recent realistic landscape painting.  Brighter tonalities, distinct highlights, wide dynamic ranges, and even blown out skies are frequently seen these days, at least in Northern New Mexico galleries.

It's interesting you mention this - especially regarding the blown-out skies.  This was something that also stood out to me last time I was browsing around the various Santa Fe galleries a few weeks ago.  I remember thinking how interesting it was that for the last several years photographers have been trying various ways (HDR, stacking & compositing, hyper-saturation) to get more painterly colors into skies, and yet here the painters are mimicking the strong, diffuse daylight that photographers try so hard to avoid right now.
Logged

GWStudioLA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
Re: Painters are good photographers?
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2013, 12:07:54 AM »

I'm a terrible painter.. ;)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up