Wrinkly Tin and a little bit of Romanticism

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

So why have I called it Wrinkly Tin?

Well the old croft houses here on Skye and that can also still be seen in the north of Scotland, used to commonly use corrugated sheeting for roofing materials, it was cheap and easy to repair, although not very warm in winter and red hot in summer I imagine, and I am told that the local colloquialism for this type of roofing is 'Wrinkly Tin'.

Shot yesterday morning when I was out for a stroll, but I must admit I was intentionally strolling towards the place I had chosen to take this shot, which I've been eyeing up for a couple of years now and the light yesterday morning was really nice, with soft front light set against the darker clouds in the background 

And before anyone says anything, yes I know, it does look like a painting doesn't it? 

Dave

[Alan Klein]

Yes, it does a little.  Best to frame it and hang on your wall.

[RSL]

Very pretty, David.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Very pretty, David.

I will take that as a warm and heartfelt compliment Russ, but am I right to do so I wonder? 

Dave

[Chairman Bill]

With similar lighting, in a couple if weeks it could look even prettier, with the leaves showing more autumnal hues.

[RSL]

I will take that as a warm and heartfelt compliment Russ, but am I right to do so I wonder? 

It's a compliment, Dave. It really is pretty. But I have to wonder why a photograph would want to look like a painting?" Shouldn't a photograph want to look like a photograph? This one has some of the characteristics of Constable's Hay Wain, but if you look at them side by side you'll realize that Constable was able to convey things in a painted landscape that no photograph can hope to convey. On the other hand, this photograph is very well composed and I love the colors. It's very good landscape for a photograph. And the wrinkly red roofed cottage makes the shot.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

So, sidestepping the whole issue of whether it is a good or bad thing that a photograph can sometimes look like a painting, or indeed whether if it is a good or bad thing that a painting can sometimes look like a photograph etc, can anyone tell me what it is exactly within this particular photograph, that makes you think it looks like a painting?

Is it the colours in the very first change of the greens in the leaves of the trees as they turn towards autumn? Or is it because there was no wind or movement and so the sea looks calm and shiny? Or is it something about how the image is composed? Or is it the elements within the shot as a whole, or just some of the elements?

Basically, can anyone put their finger on what it is exactly that makes this particular photo look like a painting?

Thanks for any feedback  

Dave

[RSL]

I don't really know the answer, Dave, but I'll take a shot at it. Take a look at Constable's 'Hay Wain." The colors are similar. More importantly, the relationships between colors are similar. The light reflecting off the water is similar. The clouds are similar. There are touches of red in both. The balance of masses in the composition is similar. Anybody who's ever seen the "Hay Wain," and that's just about everybody, probably would react to the similarities even though they might not pin down the source. Furthermore, the "Hay Wain" is just one of a number of paintings from that era with roughly the same color scheme.

In short, it just looks "painterly."

As somebody said earlier, this is one to hang on your wall.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I have to wonder why a photograph would want to look like a painting?" ...

I am not sure it "wants to look"... it is more like "it does look" or it doesn't. To say it "wants to look" would be appropriate if the photographer used some of the "art filters" in camera or Photoshop, to look like oil or watercolor.

Having said that, what makes a photograph look like a painting (although it might be a 100% straight photograph) is a whole new, vast and unexplored subject, one that I can not go into even in a paragraph. Maybe I'll write a book on the subject one day.

My suspicion is that it might be a unique combination of classical composition, traditional subject, similar mood or atmosphere, color palette, etc.

I heard it several times about some of my images. When asked to elaborate, a typical art fair visitor would mostly shrug their shoulders and say something like "Oh, I do not know why, it just does."

Some are easier to explain than others. Take for instance my "Rainy Parisian Summer," rather popular at art fairs (and 100% straight photo)... raindrops on the windshield do something similar to details (blur them, make them less precise and detailed) as Impressionist painters do. Add to that the subject (Parisian street scene) that was also popular with Impressionists and other styles, and the association is even stronger (Paris + quasy-Impressionist style = painting).


Rainy Parisian Summer by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

Another one that often gets the "like painting" comment is the lighthouse one, but here no one can tell me why (in that case, it was rather extensively photoshopped, though without resorting to any type of "art filters").


Bass Harbor Lighthouse by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Thanks guys

Do you think it might be down to the simple fact that as photographers, we all try to use the same compositional techniques as painters, so that if all the elements within a scene and in accordance with nature playing her part in providing the correct lighting of course, has rendered the scene to look like a painting and we compose and shoot it as such, then the photograph will probably have a painterly feel to it. I am then wondering if we do manage to create such a painterly photograph, should that be classed as a successful photograph because it has achieved a level of painterlyness not normally seen in a photograph, or is it an unsuccessful photograph because it has gone beyond what we want a photograph to look like?

So could it be that it isn’t anything to do with the painterlyness of the photograph that is at issue, but rather how we view it, as we mentally compare it to other photographs we have seen before and find that if it doesn't comfortably fit within the boundaries of our expectations, that we can have difficulty in accepting it as being just a photograph, even though that is patently what it is?

It's a bit like saying a photo looks like a postcard, or it looks like a calendar shot, or it looks like a painting, terms we all use, but what do we actually mean and more importantly, what is the criteria we are applying to come up with these designations?

This is not a criticism of anyone, nor am I trying to have a dig at anyone or wanting to agree or disagree with anyone, it's just the cogs in my brain spinning freely at this late hour and me trying to understand what all this means and can I learn anything from it, because I have to understand things in photography, I can't just accept things being as they are, because that's how they are, I want to know and understand why they are how they are if I possibly can.

Dave