Impressionism

[Fine_Art]

Impressionism at the marina.

[Fine_Art]

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.

[DwayneOakes]

Cool, well spotted.

Dwayne Oakes

[tom b]

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,

[petermfiore]

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 

[Fine_Art]

I am no painter, so I will take your word for it on paintings. Can photos be impressionistic?

[James Clark]

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. 

[tom b]

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.

[Fine_Art]

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

[DwayneOakes]

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

[tom b]

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

[stamper]

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?

[tom b]

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,

[rhynetc]

Thanks for reminding me why I don't choose to post in these forums. 

[stamper]

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.

[NancyP]

I like the image. I don't much care one way or the other about the title. Thanks for posting this image.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I like the image. I don't much care one way or the other about the title. Thanks for posting this image.

+1.

[sdwilsonsct]

I like the image. I don't much care one way or the other about the title. Thanks for posting this image.

+2.

[PeterAit]

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.

[James Clark]

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).