... where it's not about the camera.
Beautiful. Is it Photoshop that gives them the "painting like" quality or is it just the light?
2nd one looks like a painting i tried to do from a Bob Ross I taped. Mine came out a finger painting eventually because I got frustrated, but I eventually managed to squeeze out one painting that looked like something. :D
I've got a confession. I have no idea what people mean when they say a photograph "looks like a painting". I've always thought it means "too good to be a photo", but I'm not sure.
They do look like paintings. That quality is one of my favourites - even if I'm not sure what it is. Ha!I think the qualities implied are a seemingly deliberation combination of focus/haze - saturation/fade - and contrasting tints....especially when we have trouble imagining a scene that would like like that to the naked eye.
That second one has a certain Narniesque quality about it. It makes the viewer want to go in and wander around... there's anticipation of magical things there.
Looks like a painting is the first thing I thought! And yes, that is a compliment. Very artistic and impressionistic.
stunning.... thank you. vivc
The Woods of Lothlorien. 'Nuff said.
That second photo in particular looks like an oil painting. It's got such a beautiful balance of color and light that it looks more like an artist's rendition than a photographic record. That's what we mean. Anybody can use paint to get that effect, but to capture it in nature...that's doing something. You're painting with the lens.
The only way I can think to explain what I mean when I say a picture looks like a painting is: look at the picture, take away all your previous knowledge of it. Think about all the other great landscape paintings, or any painting for that matter. If you can imagine the picture you're looking at as part of that categroy, then it looks like a painting. If when you look at it you can almost see the brush strokes, even though you know they aren't there, then it looks like a painting. Anyway those are my thoughts on the subject.
That second picture is awesome... I think the "painting" comment is more because they are a bit hazey... (But I see some more people talked about it).
I think some of the other comments summed up what I was trying to say. An artist can paint a picture any way that they want to. They are not limited by the light source or availability of subject matter or any other factor. Photographers have limitations. Therefore when they are able to capture such beauty naturally it goes beyond a photo to a work of art.
I love that pink sky.I had an art professor who said that God is the Master Artist and that we only hope to duplicate what He creates.When I think a photograph looks like a painting, I am thinking that the quality of the picture has transcended reality and become beautifully surreal.
Thanks for the great comments everybody. It's interesting to hear your thoughts on this. BTW Sharon, FWIW, that's not a sky but a far-distant hillside seen through a lot of that late-July haze.
actually, one thing i meant about it looking like a painting was the color spectrum in the second picture. One thing I was taught as an artist was to look at the colors in a different way (purples in a shadow, what contrasts with turqoise, etc..) and that's kinda what i meant by that. The pink light coming in through the trees make them look like a smoky green, with the hazy trees in the background more lit, and the trees in the foreground more dark and clear, it's paintingesque. and it is a total compliment, don't worry.
Post a Comment