Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Fine_Art on September 20, 2015, 04:30:51 pm
-
Impressionism at the marina.
-
In case people might think I messed with the image, here is the 3 shot RAW, bracketed screen capture. I have only looked at the first of the three.
-
Cool, well spotted.
Dwayne Oakes
-
Definitely the wrong title. My painting teacher did his Master's Degree studying Monet. He spent years explaining Impressionism to me. If you are well versed in Impressionism this is just "wrong", sorry.
Maybe the title should be "Upside down reflections". Nothing wrong with the photo, but you need to rename the image.
Cheers,
-
Definitely the wrong title. My painting teacher did his Masters Degree studying Monet. He spent years explaining Impressionism to me. If you are well versed in Impressionism this just reads as "wrong", sorry.
Maybe the title should be "upside down reflections". Nothing wrong with the image, but you need a new title.
Cheers,
+1
-
I am no painter, so I will take your word for it on paintings. Can photos be impressionistic?
-
I am no painter, so I will take your word for it on paintings. Can photos be impressionistic?
I think Mr.b is being a bit hard on you, personally, not to mention being overly concerned with specific labels and such.
As for whether a photo can be impressionistic, I would think so, considering that a camera is capable of capturing images that symbolically and by inference do so much more than just capture a literal rendition of a scene.
-
I am no painter, so I will take your word for it on paintings. Can photos be impressionistic?
The answer is no, but that isn't a bad thing. A great photograph is instantly readable. Cézanne was the painter's painter. It took me years to "read" his paintings, however when I did, wow!
Cheers,
LuLa has changed its hyperlinks, but if you Google, Claude Monet, water lilies (go to images) you may get an idea about my post.
-
The answer is no, but that isn't a bad thing. A great photograph is instantly readable. Cézanne was the painter's painter. It took me years to "read" his paintings, however when I did, wow!
Cheers,
LuLa has changed its hyperlinks, but if you Google, Claude Monet, water lilies (go to images) you may get an idea about my post.
I tend to think more of Van Gogh. Starry Night, Sunflowers, Wheat Field.
http://www.vangoghexhibition.com (http://www.vangoghexhibition.com)
-
Photography for sure can capture this effect. By capturing energy and motion
you can simulate this effect. Impressionism was an art movement in the 1800s
so of course it can't be redone only effects if photos and styles if painting can
be done (facsimile). Keep being creative that's all that counts !
Dwayne Oakes
-
Photography and painting are completely different. Unless you have painted you have no idea what the differences are. Getting back to my past post, "Google, Claude Monet water lilies" (go to images) you may get an idea of what I am on about regarding the posted image.
Cheers
-
Photography and painting are completely different. Unless you have painted you have no idea what the differences are. Getting back to my past post, "Google, Claude Monet water lilies" (go to images) you may get an idea of what I am on about regarding the posted image.
Cheers
A lot of people think that you can't become a great photographer unless you appreciate painting. Personally I don't appreciate painting. Now if what you state is true then there is still hope for me to become a great photographer?
-
A lot of people think that you can't become a great photographer unless you appreciate painting. Personally I don't appreciate painting. Now if what you state is true then there is still hope for me to become a great photographer?
No, that is not what I have been saying. All I have been saying is that the title to the photograph is wrong. Call the photograph whatever you want but don't call it "Impressionism", it is far from it!.
Cheers,
-
Thanks for reminding me why I don't choose to post in these forums. :)
-
No, that is not what I have been saying. All I have been saying is that the title to the photograph is wrong. Call the photograph whatever you want but don't call it "Impressionism", it is far from it!.
Cheers,
Reply #11
Photography and painting are completely different.
You did state that.
-
I like the image. I don't much care one way or the other about the title. Thanks for posting this image.
-
I like the image. I don't much care one way or the other about the title. Thanks for posting this image.
+1.
-
I like the image. I don't much care one way or the other about the title. Thanks for posting this image.
+2.
-
Definitely the wrong title. My painting teacher did his Master's Degree studying Monet. He spent years explaining Impressionism to me. If you are well versed in Impressionism this is just "wrong", sorry.
Your teacher should give his degree back. This photo is impressionism "on a stick," as they say.
-
Your teacher should give his degree back. This photo is impressionism "on a stick," as they say.
I *think* (and forgive me for presuming) that the contention is that "painting" itself is inherent in the definition of "Impressionism." Technically, speaking, that may even be true. So perhaps the better statement would have been that the style of this image invokes the Impressionists, if one were to be a stickler for the strict rules of art. (But I'm not).
-
To combine cooking shows with Lula - maybe you could call it deconstructed impressionism. :-)
http://uploads2.wikiart.org/images/claude-monet/water-lilies-1919-1.jpg
Sharon
Once again, I have no problem with the posted image.
I do have a problem with the title.
I have used photographs as a painting reference. So a usual painting would take three to fifteen hours to make. So I have studied photographs and paintings very closely. Over twenty years of painting you get to "read" a photograph and a painting. The image posted has nothing to do with Impressionism, just saying. Maybe a more appropriate title?
Cheers,
If I was going to paint the posted image, the first thing I would do would be to turn the image the right side up.
-
Monet's own words on his Impression, Sunrise [Le Havre Harbour]
"Monet claimed that he titled the painting Impression, Sunrise due to his hazy painting style in his depiction of the subject: "They asked me for a title for the catalogue, it couldn't really be taken for a view of Le Havre, and I said: 'Put Impression.' [1] In addition to this explanation for the title of the work, art historian Paul Smith claims that Monet might have named the painting Impression to excuse his painting from accusations of being unfinished or lacking descriptive detail, but Monet received these criticisms regardless of the title.[6]
While the title of the painting seemed to be chosen in haste for the catalogue, the term "Impressionism" was not new. It had been used for some time to describe the effect of paintings from the Barbizon school. Both associated with the school, Daubigny and Manet had been known to use the term to describe their own works.[7]"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Claude_Monet%2C_Impression%2C_soleil_levant.jpg/400px-Claude_Monet%2C_Impression%2C_soleil_levant.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression,_Sunrise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression,_Sunrise)
"Impressionists were
most interested in a sort of optic realism—the way light behaves in the
real world. They were among the rst artists to paint outdoors, in natural
light. They eliminated black from
their palettes, claiming there were no
true blacks in nature, and created shading
through contrasting color values.
Originally called “New Painting,” the
name “Impressionism” came from
Claude Monet’s Impression: Sunrise
(1872). Impressionists aimed to capture
the feeling of a fleeting glance, to make the painting look as if it were made
in an instant through cropped compositions and visible, dabbed brushstrokes.
The idea of the moment is perhaps best captured in Monet’s many painting
series, such as his views of Rouen Cathedral. They were made almost like a
scientific experiment; the subject and point of view were the controls, and
the light was the variable.
How to recognize Impressionism:
Contemporary social life of a middle class in the cities and suburbs,
usually at leisure, is the main subject.
The composition implies a glimpse or fleeting impression of
a scene.
Painters experimented with varying elements such as light
and viewpoint.
Painters had a fascination with the effects of light and color.
Painters observed nature in natural light; there are no blacks and no
chiaroscuro shading.
Figures and objects have no outlines; contrast of color and value
create shapes instead.
Compositions are cropped: partial figures, unusual points of view
above or below the scene, awkward poses suggesting imminent
movement.
Paint is applied in in short dabs of color."
-Sharon Latchaw Hirsh, President of Rosemont College
Dr. Hirsh is an internationally recognized scholar of Western European art
at the turn of the 20th century. She was a visiting curator at the Montreal
Museum of Fine Arts and at the Swiss Institute for Art Research. Dr. Hirsh
has served as a senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Visual
Arts at the National Gallery of Art, Washington; she has also been visiting
scholar at the University of Colorado, the Swiss Institute for Art Research,
and the Art Institute of Chicago.
Here is a clear description, from a known source, that lets people figure out for themselves if the photo can be considered in the impressionistic style.
-
My last comment and I will STFU.
My initial reaction to the posted image was that it was upside down. The Impressionists were "en plein air" painters. The concept of painting something upside down outdoors is just "wrong", I don't know how to put it any other way.
Once again, I mean no offence. However if you have ever tried painting something the right way up you might understand what I am going on about.
Cheers,
A LuLa example could be if Rob C posted one of his portraits upside down and wrote, "Magnum" (no offence Rob, I like your photography and enjoy your writing).
-
Clearly you have never looked at the ground glass. This is a photography website.
-
Clearly you have never looked at the ground glass. This is a photography website.
+1. :D
-
Clearly you have never looked at the ground glass. This is a photography website.
Bugger it, I have looked through Blads. Once again:
My initial reaction to the posted image was that it was upside down. The Impressionists were "en plein air" painters. The concept of painting something upside down outdoors is just "wrong", I don't know how to put it any other way.
Even if you were used to using a large format camera, you would never present a print upside down. You seem to be the exception to the rule. However you are making a reference to painting. You seem to have no idea what the Impressionists were on about.
Cheers,
-
This image may explain why I am grumpy, "Impressionism". As I have repeatedly posted, I have no problem with the image. However, the Impressionists would never consider painting something upside down.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AhQevW0DNr8/VgMIrRl7XnI/AAAAAAAAAGI/fZcgVEdMsBc/s1600/impressionism.jpg)
Cheers,
-
Sour grapes make good wine.
Cheers.
-
Sour grapes make good wine.
Cheers.
What does that mean? I seem to banging my head against the wall. Just walk outside and try to imagine painting something upside down. The Impressionist didn't. Once again, just look at Impressionist paintings, you may learn something.
Cheers,
-
The original post was the equivalent of this.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zivi6d9znZc/VgMuxvcmpXI/AAAAAAAAAGU/DqqIituj0UU/s1600/image.tiff)
Cheers,
-
The original post was the equivalent of this.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zivi6d9znZc/VgMuxvcmpXI/AAAAAAAAAGU/DqqIituj0UU/s1600/image.tiff)
Cheers,
If you say so...
Peter
now, Pleast think about locking the thread so sanity can prevail
-
Have to weigh in on this one. Here is a great site where the author tries to marry photography with Impressionism. http://dagostino.ca/ You should check it out, it has some good historical background. The author describes the traditional ways of impressionism and how it relates to photography. He describes different ways and methods you can try to achieve an "impressionistic" look using photographic means.
Can't disagree with Mr. Brown, however, the OP was simply trying to convey what he thought his image represented- an impression(istic) like image, for lack of a better term. It is quite common nowadays -it's all over the internet- to use this term in photography, even though we all know it is not really impressionism. Just an attempt to describe a photograph that conveys movement of camera or movement of subject, or both in a photograph.
Here is one that is more painterly, but the subject matter is more conducive to the impressionistic look.
(https://johnroias.smugmug.com/Camera-Impressions/i-CNj7FVS/0/M/Oct%2011-09%20Glen%20Haffy%20102%20darkcopy-smug1050-M.jpg) (https://johnroias.smugmug.com/Camera-Impressions/i-CNj7FVS/A)
-
Hey, I would like to lock this thread but it is not mine. Once again, I recommend you should look at Monet's water lilies. Obviously those people who agree with the title "Impressionism" have never painted. I have no problem with the posted image, just the title. My last comment on this subject.
Cheers,
-
I like the image. Many people have probably used water ripples to simulate the impressionistic brush strokes. I have over 100, I bet many on this site have as many, or more.
Complaints of an upside down painting being impossible or wrong are a red herring. We are talking of photos, a technology that really does let you freeze a moment, like the painters wanted to do. Call it reflections on impressionism if you like, it really doesn't matter the label. The key thing is taking it from realism, which you normally get from a photo, to some stylized, slightly abstract image. It should make you recall similar scenes.
If you live in a waterfront city with marinas, the first image should bring it to mind. The fall trees image is very representative of fall trees images, while imparting a painterly style.
The only thing unusual about the first image is the particular loops and squiggles formed from straight mast reflections. That is what makes the image interesting.
-
CLAUDE MONET film footage https://youtu.be/BJE4QUNgaeg
-
Hey, I would like to lock this thread but it is not mine. Once again, I recommend you should look at Monet's water lilies. Obviously those people who agree with the title "Impressionism" have never painted. I have no problem with the posted image, just the title. My last comment on this subject.
Cheers,
Hi Tom,
I'm sorry, I thought the thread was yours.
I'm very aware of Monet's life and his work...I have built, and devoted my life and career around the understanding of Impressionism. Specifically Monet.
Peter
-
CLAUDE MONET film footage https://youtu.be/BJE4QUNgaeg
Hi Patricia,
I have this many times...thanks for posting this wonderful moment
Peter