This is a recent image - multiple exposures were selectively blended to produce a result that mimics a painting.
In doing so I made a decision to include a sense of surrounding elements to add context/story, which I believe strengthens the image as a whole.
Feedback is always welcomed (positive OR negative) and treated as a gift. I'm always keen to hear the artistic viewpoints of others.
I've always wondered why one would want to emulate painting or think it positive when a photograph mines the same territory. Why use a camera to look like a painting instead of simply painting? Sometimes people use painting to look like a photograph. I don't understand that either.
I'm not suggesting that one medium is better than the other, but I think it important to remember that they are very different. This is sort of like the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Neither is superior, but as Mark Twain and others said, fiction has to make sense where non-fiction only has to be true.
On the other hand, this image succeeds in an impressionistic manner, ala Manet, Degas, etc. I might consider getting rid of some of the branches in the top right corner - maybe not - but otherwise, I would say it is fine as is.
That's a darn good point Andrew, and thanks for your feedback.
At the end of the day I think we are all trying to produce something that will hopefully provide interest to others, whatever medium that may be.
I feel inclined to turn your question around - does it really matter if a picture is a photograph, a painting, or one medium that mimics the other as long as it pleases the eye of the viewer?
Also, as I don't posses the skill to paint anything beyond a stick figure I feel happy that modern-day photography allows this broader scope for expression.
Thanks again.
There is no single answer to your question.
Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, painting and photography are very different medium with intrinsically different aesthetics, and we need to be clear about which is which.
Until the nineteenth century and the work of Daguerre, Fox-Talbot, and the others who pioneered the chemical processes that made photography possible, along with George Eastman who made it practical, the driving force in fine art painting was Realism. Photography always did realism better than painting in some ways and continued to get better as the technology improved (which is not to say that a photograph does not lie!). So painting had to find something else to do. Hence, impressionism, abstraction, etc.
But, for the longest time, photography got no respect, as Rodney Dangerfield would say, in the art world, meaning nobody would pay real money for a photograph. Even such a popular photographer like Ansel Adams was selling prints (and what prints!) for $150-200 into the '70s. Photographers were envious of the art world's financial benefits, erratic though they may have been, in which photographers had very little opportunity to participate until very recently even as second-class citizens.
Even today, how many photographers do you know of who can make a living selling prints without supplementing their income working for doing portraiture or weddings or commercial work for publications, in advertising, or by teaching? There probably are a few, but I have no idea who they might be. (The same is true for other visual artists and writers.)
I've gone on too long. My point is that we should not confuse the image or its success with the medium.
Thanks Andrew, all the points you make are valid.
P.S.
It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the extraordinary.
--David Bailey
I'm with you 100% on that Andrew - great quote!
If I may step in here, your comment about painting as realism being supplanted by photography, thus driving the move toward abstract, impressionism, etc. is the same thing that's happening now in photography. With smartphones, inexpensive DSLR's, and quality point and shoot cameras there's realism showing up on the internet about every millisecond. Now photographers are trying and doing things to make themselves stand out from the crowd. That's art, as in fine art photography.
As some say, everyone's a photographer.
I think, if you do it in camera, it's valid. If you do it post, it can have its purpose. But I agree with you, if it's only done in post, why not painting it.
I think we are on a slippery slope if we are to decide what is acceptable in post and what isn't.
All images are processed to some degree (even film prints are manipulated to produce a desired outcome).Who decides where that line is drawn (and really, should they?). And who should decide what medium is acceptable?
Just as an FYI, there was very little processing done to this image other than layering/blending a large number of images (all captured in camera I might add...).
It's interesting how much philosophical energy this has created, but I'd like to limit further comments to the picture itself.
I don't want go down this slope. It was just a general conclusion. not particular to your image.
I do also post processing to my pictures. sometimes more, sometimes less and sometimes I'm going crazy. ;)
I get that some people don't "get" things, but I don't see how that could be true in this case. I mean, maybe you don't connect with it, but how could you not "get" it? It seems simple enough why artists would take artistic license within their chosen medium... because isn't that what artists are supposed to do? How could that be hard to "get" or be understood by another artist? There are many artists that do stuff I don't like, or don't connect with, but to say I don't get "why" an artist would try to do what an artist is supposed to do seems like a odd state of mind to be in for anyone with actual experience making artistic choices. There are no rules because in the end, we make them all up as a society... the rules don't exist in nature. And where we create rules (photos should look like photos, paintings should look like paintings), you are immediately begging people to break those rules. Just seems like the result of a closed-minded approach to experience art. I am not saying that you are closed-minded necessarily, but just like you don't "get" why someone would make a photo like this, I don't "get" why you wouldn't "get" it.
A fine image from you as usual, Alan. Redolent of the Impressionists, as most of your ICM images tend to be. I can't think of anything I'd change, except the medium to oils!
I don't know if they're a product of the process, but I find the parallel lines in the shade to either side of the trunk distracting. They may not be artefacts, but artefacts a bit like this are one thing that puts me off this style of ICM imagery. Just a personal thing, and I understand they may not bother some at all.
To a large extent, I agree with Andrew's posts, except his point about the importance of remembering the differences between photography and painting, and his view that these media have "intrinsically different aesthetics, and we need to be clear about which is which". Why? Ruth Carll, the founder of this very Group, exemplifies an exception, and abstraction in photography is popular, when it can be quite unclear what the original medium was.
Personally, I like the textures in painting, and my "definitive" photographic image is a print, which unless physically attacked, has only the surface texture of the paper. I like photography's absence of this kind of texture, and a kind of purity this confers, which probably suits my meticulous approach.
In a sense, I guess I do have a SUBJECTIVE response like Andrew, as if these images are too-imperfect simulacra of Impressionist oils, which doesn't reflect any claim of Alan's that they're meant to be. I only tend to comment on imagery that appeals to me, but find myself puzzled at my own negative reaction, hence this epic post.
I'm no great painter, and do think of photography as painting for cheats!
Thanks Chris, I'm pretty much in agreement with all.
Perhaps I misrepresented my intent - my goal was to create something that takes the viewer away from the familiarity of the world as seen through a classic photograph.
I think the end result does tend toward a more painterly effect, but trying to turn a photo into a painting was not my intent at all.
I still believe an image should be judged on its own individual merits, whatever the medium.
On there lines either side of the tree - the lines on the right are the result of a patio & wire chairs. The ones I think you are referring to under the tree come from a water spout - I missed that in processing and will plan to remove.
Thanks, Alan. I know your intent was not to mimic painting. The evocation of the Impressionist spirit is striking, though, in a number of such images.