Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Trees at Sunset


16 comments:

Juliet said...

Beautiful. Is it Photoshop that gives them the "painting like" quality or is it just the light?

Elevation Goddess said...

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

Rick Lee said...

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.

Michael Covarrubias said...

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.

windblownbutterfly said...

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.

kenju said...

Looks like a painting is the first thing I thought! And yes, that is a compliment. Very artistic and impressionistic.

Laura said...

stunning.... thank you. vivc

Dale said...

The Woods of Lothlorien. 'Nuff said.

Rudy Panucci 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.

Rachel said...

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.

Super Babe said...

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).

Juliet said...

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.

Sharon said...

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.

Rick Lee said...

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.

Sharon said...

Very interesting.

Elevation Goddess said...

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.