Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: David Hockney  (Read 293 times)

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 652
David Hockney
« on: December 02, 2018, 02:46:04 PM »

An interesting text about this painting and how it could influence our approach as photographers.

For me it is obvious, but I would not be able to put it in text.

Learning Photography From a $90.3 Million Painting https://petapixel.com/2018/12/01/learning-photography-from-a-90-3-million-painting/
Logged

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3017
    • flickr page
Re: David Hockney
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2018, 04:09:46 PM »

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 652
Logged

John R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2700
Re: David Hockney
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2018, 11:29:24 AM »

Thank you Ivo. A very interesting article on composition. One interesting thing I immediately noticed in the painting, is that painters are able to bring to the fore what a sensor or negative often cannot, in a much more nuanced and specific way. For example, the shadow(s) at midday often cannot be produced as subtly as the painter has done. They often go dark and the areas within the shadow more often than not, disappear, especially in harsh light. But the eye can see it and the painter can reproduce it. And this is why we often avoid 'harsh' light most of the time. It just does not reproduce well in a photograph. Of course this does not apply where you desire harsh shadows and make use of them in your composition. I often find the skies in watercolor paintings quite striking in their subtlety. They reproduce nuances from the subtlest greys and blues to the darkest. In my experience, when I try this with a camera, the result is often a 'bald' sky.

I would like to point to another interesting Vlog or video (he has a series) on composition by Tavis Leaf Glover. I am very partial to his understanding of how composition works in art and photographs. Many photographs appear to obey the 'rule of thirds', but in reality have other principles at work that make them interesting. This in part is what this author addresses. Very interesting series.

JR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7fahM5sBQ
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11433
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: David Hockney
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2018, 01:11:56 PM »

A worthwhile reference, Ivo.

The thing you simply can't fake with a camera is linear perspective. Here's an EXAMPLE. Bierstadt has drastically distorted the linear perspective in this painting. The mountains are far too high to fit with the expanded pond in the foreground. But I lived in the mountains for fifty years, and Bierstadt's painting shows the way the mountains really feel.

You can't do this with a camera. It's especially hard to get the deer to come by right when you need them.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2702
    • Flicker photos
Re: David Hockney
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2018, 04:23:52 PM »

A worthwhile reference, Ivo.

The thing you simply can't fake with a camera is linear perspective. Here's an EXAMPLE. Bierstadt has drastically distorted the linear perspective in this painting. The mountains are far too high to fit with the expanded pond in the foreground. But I lived in the mountains for fifty years, and Bierstadt's painting shows the way the mountains really feel.

You can't do this with a camera. It's especially hard to get the deer to come by right when you need them.

Which is why photography is often more difficult than painting.  The painter starts with a blank canvas and puts in only what looks good.  The photography starts with a completed canvas and positions himself and waits and has to do all sorts of maneuvers to subtract the parts the messes up the photo.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20056
Re: David Hockney
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2018, 02:25:48 PM »

Which is why photography is often more difficult than painting.  The painter starts with a blank canvas and puts in only what looks good.  The photography starts with a completed canvas and positions himself and waits and has to do all sorts of maneuvers to subtract the parts the messes up the photo.

I don't think it's so much a matter of difficulty, Alan, as one of medium suitability.

Photography just seems to have a superior natural affinity with other subjects, often reversing the tables on the painter.

It's when snappers want to beat the painter at his own game that we come into spaghetti and fan territory.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11433
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: David Hockney
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2018, 07:45:32 PM »

Exactly, Rob. Photography is a medium that just can't get the deer to come down to the pond when you want them to.
Pages: [1]   Go Up