I really thought these were photographs - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

wilt wrote:
> << I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> photos...and why
> not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>>>
>
> You appreciate the technical skill and the artist's eye. Give 100
> artists the same photo, and only a very few can reproduced that photo
> with reaslism to make you think you're looking at a photo!

A "few"?
I would put money on NONE out of a 100 painters could do it.
Perhaps 1 in a 1000 or more.
Just the skill of mixing colors that preciesely is extrordinarily difficult.
It is a skill most artists don't ever have to master, because most paintings
do NOT require that kind of accuracy. Most painting styles use an extremely
simplified color range--even some of the greatest portraits of all time use
colors that clearly and unmistakably mark it as a painting due to the color
palatte.

>An artist
> painted seascapes so realy that you swear you could see the moonlight
> coming thru the breaking waves. My father (rest in peace) painted a
> still life of some persimmons, so real you'd think you were seeing
> the real things.

Your father was far more skilled than you think. He was one in....a lot
more than a hundred.

>Yes, it is a very different skill to paint like
> Picasso or Renoir or like a camera.

Yes!

> Why does there have to be a message? Is there one provided by a
> unaltered photography of the Eiffel Tower, or is there one of the
> Eiffel Tower shot with a Cokin filter?!?! or solarized in a
> traditional darkroom? No, merely artistic expression.

Absolutely.
See my other post if interested.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> : The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
> : that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
> : as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
> : thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
> : film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
> : capabilities.
>
> I agree. But I also notice that there are many more people taking digital
> photos than I ever remember taking film photos. So there are likely to be
> many more "snapshot" takers out there. There have always been a percentage
> of photo takers that had no interrest in going through the process of
> getting the best image possible, but simply in capturing the moment how
> ever inexpertly they did so.
>
> Think of how many people used to swear by the pocket 110, or disk cameras.
> They were not trying to take publishing quality photos, just catch a
> moment. Now there are lots of very good, inexpensive digital cameras
> filling that niche. And with the camera cost being relatively low and the
> processing costs being nil, there may be a higher persentage of picture
> takers who are snapshoters. And there is nothing wrong with that. Even
> now, with a nice camera, and ever increasing equipment, I still can be
> found taking a snapshot from time to time. Hopefully my level of
> experience allows my snapshots to be more effective than the ones taken by
> my 7 yearold nephew, but you never know. With film the cost of the film
> and processing tended to be a limiter to how many photos a person would
> feel comfortable taking. And thus many inexperienced (and people with
> tight budgets) picture takers would take fewer photos. A 12 yearold with a
> camera with only 12 images at his disposal was limited to that. But
> digital frees up many people to take hundreds of pictures with the same
> amount of care and thought, at no additional charge. The number of well
> composed images has not increased, but the number of photos has. Thus the
> percentages give the impression of digital being only poor images. But if
> you compare the output of high end enthusiests, you would find that the
> number and quality of each format (film and digital) are very equivalent.
>
> The advantage of the current crop of digital cameras is that even with low
> cost cameras, people can choose from image to image how much time and
> thought they wish to give to that image. Of course each camera will have
> its strengths and weaknesses and may give more or less control for the
> more serious photographer. But even low end cameras have the potential to
> capture an impressive image.
>
> So between the better cameras, the higher percentage of inexperienced (and
> not intending to become experienced) shooters the idea that digital
> cameras are capturing more and more images with less and less expertise is
> probably very true. But this has less to do with "digital" vs "film" than
> the picture taking public.
>
> JMHO
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
All true, Randy, but when push comes to shove, I suspect that you, like
most others would consider those snapshots vastly more precious than a
few perfectly artistic shots, should you be deciding which to save from
the flood.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Art is often a re-interpretation of other work or reality or a
synthesis.
I am not a fan of super realism.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Just the skill of mixing colors that preciesely is extrordinarily
> difficult.

How do you know how accurate the colors are? We don't even know that the
scene is accurate. Not that this is important...in fact its not important at
all as the camera is better if accuracy is important. That is why I posed
the question...is it art? Or is it some Rain Man sort of talent? What does
it say about the artist but that he is anal? What does it say about the
subject? The camera freed painters from the need of accurately recording
events. It freed them to explore ideas and feelings that the camera cannot.
This painter didn't go there.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <amrji1l5jhot69pqbgf5mvle983j1jc2dq@4ax.com>,
ASAAR <reply@tueue.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:28:30 GMT, Chris Brown wrote:
>
>>>I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
>>
>> *sigh*. Willful ignorance is one of the saddest things in the world. I
>> suspect it took you far longer to compose your reply than it would have done
>> to type "define zeitgeist" into google.
>>
>> To save you the trouble, the zeitgeist is the spirit or characteristic
>> property of the era. For example, Rubik's Cubes were part of the '80s
>> zeitgeist.
>
> Now why did you go and explain "zeitgeist"? That'll annoy some of
>our denizens that need their daily doses of schadenfreude*.

Guess I'm just an old softie at heart. :-(

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <V5xWe.70240$2n6.9698@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
ian lincoln <jessops@sux.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think what is saying is that they look too much like photographs. In so
>far as they ARE PHOTOS. Anybody that good should be super famous.
>Something like that ear chopping fellow would be childs play. Personally
>the flower painting he did when he was six was better than that drug induced
>weirdo schizo stuff he did when he was older. I've seen more talented
>pavement artists. Did someone post a link here pavement artists stuff that
>was 15 feet square and looked 3D?

That is an absolutely superb London cabbie impression. Do you do children's
parties?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:

>>Just the skill of mixing colors that preciesely is extrordinarily
>>difficult.
>
>
> How do you know how accurate the colors are? We don't even know that the
> scene is accurate. Not that this is important...in fact its not important at
> all as the camera is better if accuracy is important. That is why I posed
> the question...is it art? Or is it some Rain Man sort of talent? What does
> it say about the artist but that he is anal? What does it say about the
> subject? The camera freed painters from the need of accurately recording
> events. It freed them to explore ideas and feelings that the camera cannot.
> This painter didn't go there.
>
>

I'd say it's art, but different strokes for different folks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:47:38 +0000, ian lincoln wrote:

> Gaw blimey guvna don't get me started on those poncy wine drinking arty
> types i knows what i likes and i likes pavement art. Some of that stuff
> should be hanging in the national gallery not like that poncy unmade bed,
> who bleedin commissioned that load a rubbish then?
Did any one commission it? I thought she just had a dirty weekend.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <rGsWe.23811$sx2.5137@fed1read02>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>> In article <1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
>>>> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
>>>> composition in these
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] iner90.jpg
>>>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] tt.new.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Or the light in these
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] Dner79.jpg
>>>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] p96-97.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
>>>> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was
>>>> here that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things
>>>> for later decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are
>>>> already proving interesting and whenever I see a shot from that
>>>> time I look at it with curiosity.
>>>>
>>>> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
>>>> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true
>>>> that such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it
>>> up. Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do
>>> much for me, but the photographer might be onto something if he
>>> shoots more of them and does a better job with his photo editing.
>>> Whether or not these photos are called art is up to the beholder.
>>>
>>> The first photo was adjusted too much in a photo editor.
>>
>> Ha ha ha!!!
>> Now THAT is a truly funny post...but he clearly won't understand WHY
>> it's funny.
>>
>> The bottom line, I guess, is that the funny post is a testament to
>> the incredible work of the painter.
>> Simply astounding work.
>>
>>> This is the
>>> photo of the gentlemen sitting at the counter in the diner. Between
>>> the first two bar stools, there is some digital polarization that
>>> detracts from the quality of the image.
>>
>> Grin.
>
> I "see!" SHEEPISH GRIN!
>
> Definitely fine work for paint and a brush!

Hooray for you!

You got it!

Just the ability to fool you (and others...) is a statement of how
incredibly effective his painted rendition was/is.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>> This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] r85-89.jpg
>
>He got the pepper too red........

Blown reds? Very authentic!

--
Ken Tough

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Someone commented that the pepper was to red in this pic:
<http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/211marbcounter85-89.jpg>
My guess is the artist chose to add some red in the pepper to tie the
image together better. At least I hope the artist made some adjustments
like that and did not simply duplicate a photograph! Maybe there is some
novelty in walking up closer to a full size painting and realizing it's
hand done but that alone wouldn't qualify it as art.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <rGsWe.23811$sx2.5137@fed1read02>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > > In article <1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
> > >> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
> > >> composition in these
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] ner90..jpg
> > >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] tt.new.jpg
> > >>
> > >> Or the light in these
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] Dner79.jpg
> > >> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images [...] p96-97.jpg
> > >>
> > >> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> > >> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> > >> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> > >> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> > >> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it
> > >> with curiosity.
> > >>
> > >> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> > >> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> > >> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
> > > Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do much for
> > > me, but the photographer might be onto something if he shoots more of
> > > them and does a better job with his photo editing. Whether or not
> > > these photos are called art is up to the beholder.
> > >
> > > The first photo was adjusted too much in a photo editor.
> >
> > Ha ha ha!!!
> > Now THAT is a truly funny post...but he clearly won't understand WHY it's
> > funny.
> >
> > The bottom line, I guess, is that the funny post is a testament to the
> > incredible work of the painter.
> > Simply astounding work.
> >
> > >This is the
> > > photo of the gentlemen sitting at the counter in the diner. Between
> > > the first two bar stools, there is some digital polarization that
> > > detracts from the quality of the image.
> >
> > Grin.
>
> I "see!" SHEEPISH GRIN!
>
> Definitely fine work for paint and a brush!

And full credit to you Shawn, for admitting it. Sorry about my previous
post.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony Whitaker" <tony1964@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:VqAZe.4765$q1.4008@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
>> and I thought they were photographs.
>
> Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist painted over
> photo enlargements of these scenes? The realism is a little too striking
> to believe he painted these scenes from his memory of them. My hypothesis
> could be confirmed by analyzing the proportions of the painted objects in
> comparison to the actual objects. For example, if the porportions of the
> painted ketchup label match PERFECTLY with an actual ketchup label, one
> must conclude that the artist simply painted over a photo or a slide
> projection. If a single case doesn't convince you, examine many cases and
> see if they are consistently perfect. If so, there's only one conclusion.
>
> I'm not claiming this is what the artist did. I'm just posing a
> hypothesis.
>
There have been artists in the past who could paint like cameras....Harnett,
Jan van Eyke, Salvador Dali, to name three off the top of my head.....If you
ever get a chance to see Dali's, "Last Supper", (it hangs in San Francisco's
Palace of the Legion of Honor, I believe) take a good look at the
tablecloth, and wine glass, and piece of broken bread. No camera could have
done it better......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

no_name wrote:
>
> Tony Whitaker wrote:
>
> > <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> >>and I thought they were photographs.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist painted over
> > photo enlargements of these scenes?
>
> Possible, but unlikely.

From this web page

http://tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Arts [...] =oid%3A456
------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo-Realism and Super Realism, along with the less popular terms
Hyper-Realism and Sharp-Focus Realism, are used interchangeably for
the art movement popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Photo-realists
typically use photographs or slides as the basis for their images.
Some artists project the photographic image onto their image surface
and use a graph system to literally replicate the photographic image.
Not all photo-realist artists use this process and not all of them are
slavish in reproducing a final image that is an exact (or near exact)
replica of the original photographic image. Super-realist artists use
all types of two-dimensional, as well as three-dimensional, media,
including oil, acrylic, silkscreen, watercolor, airbrush, pencil and
ceramics. Regardless of the medium, the surfaces of their
two-dimensional images are typically smooth.

Photo-realists want their media to be transparent the way snapshots
are, so that they won't distract the viewer from looking at the image.
Many photo-realists chose what seemed like banal subjects at the time:
dilapidated cars, signs and even grocery displays. American icons turn
up in various guises: diners, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, cowboys and
even Las Vegas. The irony is that over time things that were once
banal have been imbued with a nostalgic sense of times past and places
quickly disappearing. In taking on the guise of cool, objective
photography, photo-realists have acquired one of its integral traits:
an indelible bond to time and memory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

the projection thing makes sense if you're going for precision.

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!" )
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

no_name wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> > no_name wrote:
> >
> >>Tony Whitaker wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>><casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> >>>>and I thought they were photographs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist painted over
> >>>photo enlargements of these scenes?
> >>
> >>Possible, but unlikely.
> >
> >
> > From this web page
> >
> > http://tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Arts [...] =oid%3A456
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Photo-Realism and Super Realism, along with the less popular terms
> > Hyper-Realism and Sharp-Focus Realism, are used interchangeably for
>
> > photography, photo-realists have acquired one of its integral traits:
> > an indelible bond to time and memory.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > the projection thing makes sense if you're going for precision.
> >
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood.
>
> I read the question as "Did he paint these on an existing photographic
> print?", not as "Did he use some form of projected image to guide the
> painting?".
>
> I think the former is possible, but unlikely; the latter is possible,
> and I have no opinion of the likelyhood.

and I'm more confused than ever. Yes, I think the questions was did
the artist simply paint on top of a present (enlarged) photograph,
whereas what they do is project the image onto a surface...
apparently.

I tried my hand at photorealist drawing, it is a very precise skill
and much maligned

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!" )
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:41:25 GMT, "Tony Whitaker"
<tony1964@mindspring.com> wrote:

><casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
>> and I thought they were photographs.
>
>Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist painted over
>photo enlargements of these scenes? The realism is a little too striking to
>believe he painted these scenes from his memory of them. My hypothesis could
>be confirmed by analyzing the proportions of the painted objects in
>comparison to the actual objects. For example, if the porportions of the
>painted ketchup label match PERFECTLY with an actual ketchup label, one must
>conclude that the artist simply painted over a photo or a slide projection.
>If a single case doesn't convince you, examine many cases and see if they
>are consistently perfect. If so, there's only one conclusion.
>
>I'm not claiming this is what the artist did. I'm just posing a hypothesis.
>

A number of years ago, I did photos of several regional artist works
for their portfolios and one was a photorealist painter. He did not
use photos or any other aids, just amazing skill and technique.

The art is it looks real but isn't.
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

no_name wrote:
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>
>> no_name wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Whitaker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1126748757.593284.225160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
>>>>> gallery and I thought they were photographs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist
>>>> painted over photo enlargements of these scenes?
>>>
>>> Possible, but unlikely.
>>
>>
>> From this web page
>>
>> http://tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Arts [...] =oid%3A456
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Photo-Realism and Super Realism, along with the less popular terms
>> Hyper-Realism and Sharp-Focus Realism, are used interchangeably for
>
>
>> photography, photo-realists have acquired one of its integral traits:
>> an indelible bond to time and memory.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> the projection thing makes sense if you're going for precision.
>>
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood.
>
> I read the question as "Did he paint these on an existing photographic
> print?", not as "Did he use some form of projected image to guide the
> painting?".
>
> I think the former is possible, but unlikely; the latter is possible,
> and I have no opinion of the likelyhood.

If he painted directly onto a photograph, then how would you explain it
taking him two full years to produce it?

Answer: He didn't paint over a photograph.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:%r1_e.37505$sx2.23379@fed1read02...
> If he painted directly onto a photograph, then how would you explain it
> taking him two full years to produce it?

How many minutes a day did he spend on it?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:Qa2_e.37514$sx2.32339@fed1read02...
> Don't know.
> I just think he deserves far more credit than the naysayers here are
> giving him.
> Heck...even to paint OVER a photo that well would be truly impressive.

I wasn't trying to criticize his work. I was just suggesting that
photography may have been a major aid in the creation of these images. I
mean - they are sooooooo real looking. I just can't believe he painted them
from memory alone. Or even by just sitting there and painting what he saw.

The images are wonderful. Well, I'm not too keen on the woman sitting beside
a - what was it? - a hot dog stand? I can't get to the images right now.
"Bandwidth Exceeded" it says.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> Tony Whitaker wrote:
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> > news:%r1_e.37505$sx2.23379@fed1read02...
> >> If he painted directly onto a photograph, then how would you explain
> >> it taking him two full years to produce it?
> >
> > How many minutes a day did he spend on it?
>
> Don't know.
> I just think he deserves far more credit than the naysayers here are giving
> him.
>
> Heck...even to paint OVER a photo that well would be truly impressive.

Honestly, mark, photorealist painting has always been maligned. I
recall being into it way back when it was semi popular and it was
sneered upon as being nothing better than copying. My thought then and
now is I wonder if the critics could do it, even with a projector?

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!" )
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Neil Ellwood wrote:

> Even in the late 18th century artists were using the camera obscura to aid
> in their work. To my mind it is the result that counts, how it was
> obtained is incidental.
>

Fifteenth & Sixteenth centuries - Both Da Vinci and Michelangelo used it.

The oldest surviving description is from an eleventh century Arabic
manuscript on optics (translated into latin during the 12th or 13th
century).