Photograph Becomes a Painting - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

05/04/2013 11:35:27 PM · #26

Yeap... Expert or I wouldn't bother... I did a shot for an artistic category of a contest the past year where I started with this

and ended with this

The final image was based off of an oil on canvas painting I did many many moons ago. I think it's kind of a blend between a painting and a photograph. I won third place in the contest too, which got me a whopping 50$ and an actual big white ribbon. Either way, I was stoked just to place. With that said, I would love for this challenge to happen and be in expert. There is no need to place any constraint on us in a challenge like this.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/04/2013 11:50:52 PM · #27

My own favorites that I think fit the category:

None of which require expert editing.

Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II

05/05/2013 12:27:51 AM · #28

.
It's not that it can't be done in Minimal editing, it can. People do. Even I have. It's that I do so enjoy giving my creativity free rein, without regard to arbitrary rules, & I equally enjoy submitting the result in a challenge to find out what others think of it. I aspire to brilliance in my art, not an uncanny ability to follow the rules. People say 'Well, then go join some other site.' But why can't we have it here, once in a while? Does this site have to remain true to it's original mission, willfully disregarding everything new that comes along, until it dies of irrelevance? The original mission of the cellphone was to make/take phone calls anywhere--look what happened next! 'Every day, more photos are taken with the iPhone than any other camera.'

At one time, computer-generated art had a cold, sterile, precise look because it was first necessary to be able to get what you want out of a computer & those people were all primarily mathematically/technically minded. Example: fractals. Photoshop has made it possible to get a much more spontaneous, organic, non-digital-looking output. And the advent of the digital camera makes it possible to go out & capture the amazing colors, shapes, & shadows of the real world, bring them home, & use them to create whatever you can think of. I don't see how anyone can turn a blind eye to that opportunity.

Message edited by author 2013-05-05 00:37:19.

neenee1999

Nikon D70

05/05/2013 04:17:34 PM · #29

Feeble attempt I admit, but it made a great conversation piece in my home, printed very well.

George

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

05/05/2013 09:01:53 PM · #30

Originally posted by pixelpig:

.
It's not that it can't be done in Minimal editing, it can. People do. Even I have.

I was joking. But it'd be a good side challenge!

Originally posted by pixelpig:

It's that I do so enjoy giving my creativity free rein, without regard to arbitrary rules, & I equally enjoy submitting the result in a challenge to find out what others think of it. I aspire to brilliance in my art, not an uncanny ability to follow the rules. People say 'Well, then go join some other site.' But why can't we have it here, once in a while?

We very often do. There are lots of Expert Editing challenges. I just think this one shouldn't be one of them, at least not without a special rule. The "painting effect" can be done on most any Expert entry, so when we make it the challenge topic, it becomes little more than Expert Editing free study.

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Does this site have to remain true to it's original mission

I strongly believe it does...

Originally posted by pixelpig:

willfully disregarding everything new that comes along, until it dies of irrelevance?

That's not a prerequisite.

What I'm really afraid of is that lousy photographers with great Photoshop skills will do "unfairly well" if they're allowed to make their entry out of multiple exposures. A big part of the fun in creating an entry for this challenge would be creating/finding a "paintable" scene; I'd be less likely to do that if I knew someone could take poorly-lit and poorly-composed photos of fruit, then crop, adjust lighting, and apply filters to make it look like a gorgeous painting. Heck, they don't even have to be that good at basic Photoshop, since the strokes would take care of bad lasso-ing.

George

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

05/05/2013 09:08:33 PM · #31

Originally posted by Neil:

My own favorites that I think fit the category:

Whoa.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

05/05/2013 09:09:10 PM · #32

Originally posted by George:

What I'm really afraid of is that lousy photographers with great Photoshop skills will do "unfairly well" if they're allowed to make their entry out of multiple exposures. A big part of the fun in creating an entry for this challenge would be creating/finding a "paintable" scene; I'd be less likely to do that if I knew someone could take poorly-lit and poorly-composed photos of fruit, then crop, adjust lighting, and apply filters to make it look like a gorgeous painting. Heck, they don't even have to be that good at basic Photoshop, since the strokes would take care of bad lasso-ing.

that sounds like a challenge in itself!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/05/2013 09:15:31 PM · #33

Originally posted by George:

What's interesting to me is this dichotomy you're creating:

1. Let's make a photograph "become a painting"
2. Let's withhold from the photographers one thing that all painters CAN do: add or subtract elements at will.

Think about it :-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/05/2013 09:27:11 PM · #34

Except for the "cartoon" these were all done with Basic or Advanced editing, some shot with my ancient Olympus P&S ...

George

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

05/05/2013 10:25:51 PM · #35

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Let's withhold from the photographers one thing that all painters CAN do: add or subtract elements at will.

But... we're not painters.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

05/05/2013 10:28:36 PM · #36

Originally posted by George:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let's withhold from the photographers one thing that all painters CAN do: add or subtract elements at will.

But... we're not painters.

No but we are all artists and Bear was simply stating that to make a painting you can combine different elements. To make a photo look like a painting, you should be allowed to do the same.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

05/05/2013 10:30:23 PM · #37

FWIW, I would love to see this challenge run in both rule sets... Run it side by side... One minimal and the other Expert... I don't think we have ever done that here but this would be a great challenge to try because people seem evenly divided on how it should be run.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

05/05/2013 10:36:35 PM · #38

But we ARE painters, in a broader sense that Bear says; we make decisions all the time about what to leave in what to leave out even just framing a photo. For me, although I rarely go beyond Basic, or even make full use of Basic, except for the double exposures, photography and drawing/painting are getting closer and closer all the time, when I realize (enlightenment?) what the basic options really are.

But I wonder if the original intent wasn't to make us painters in the narrow sense, and not to make pictures that seem, vaguely (my favourite) like paintings.

05/05/2013 10:57:57 PM · #39

Originally posted by George:

Well then! What do you think of focus stacking? HDR? Aren't those techniques compensating for so-called faults in the one-capture photo? But those are technical faults due to the limitations of the equipment, not the photographer, so it's acceptable to compensate for them. Ridiculous.

What you're really afraid of is that a lousy photographer with great photoshop skills will beat out an excellent photographer with underdeveloped photoshop skills, yes? You're missing out on the fear that those photographers with an artistic bone or two in their body will have a bigger advantage if they're not handicapped in some way by an arbitrary set of rules.

I wonder if the anti-Photoshop crowd isn't really aesthetically insulted by the idea of a photo being used for any artistic purpose.

The artistic process has no use for such value judgments, there are no bad photos. A certain color, a eye, a bit of blur, a great shadow--each has their contribution to make in creating the final composition. There is only one reason for doing all this--it's pure joy of doing it. The final composition is nice, but it's only the point at which the artist decided to stop working on it.

I say all this not to argue with you, but only to try to make my point more clearly. I'm pretty sure that this challenge suggestion, if taken, will not use Expert Rules. But if those photographers who have an artistic bone in their body don't speak out from time to time, they have only themselves to blame if nothing ever changes. So, I'm speaking up!

Message edited by author 2013-05-05 23:09:47.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/05/2013 11:28:39 PM · #40

Originally posted by tnun:

Yes, we do. Good point. And something I find curious--that it's acceptable by photographers to manipulate the composition while it's in front of the camera, but not while it's in photoshop. I couldn't find the sense in that until I remembered that the first, historic purpose of photography was to document reality. The second, historic use to which photography was put was to fool the viewer. Nobody likes to admit the extent to which reality can be manipulated while it's in front of the camera lens.

Computer technology has become more and more friendly to the end-user, more intuitive, so that even artistic types can use it. And the things they are thinking up to do are going away from the notion that photography should be used to document reality. I was using the panorama setting on my Sony to get this one, but there was no horizon line, & I was not keeping the camera level on a tripod--

then flip'n'blend to get this

And I tried to get as much distortion as possible (before the camera gave up on me), using the panorama setting & not keeping the camera level on a tripod

The things that many cameras can do now are going in the direction of art--& by that I mean interpreting reality rather than recording it. There may soon come a time when the camera can be used to do all the PP I want, & also will be able to instantly upload it. I already want one!

Message edited by author 2013-05-05 23:40:27.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/05/2013 11:38:07 PM · #41

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Well then! What do you think of focus stacking? HDR? Aren't those techniques compensating for so-called faults in the one-capture photo?

Those techniques (as practiced at DPC) attempt to overcome physical limitations of the equipment, but specifically forbid combining elements from "different scenes," much less completely different images to make a composite.

05/05/2013 11:42:54 PM · #42

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by pixelpig:
Well then! What do you think of focus stacking? HDR? Aren't those techniques compensating for so-called faults in the one-capture photo?

Those techniques (as practiced at DPC) attempt to overcome physical limitations of the equipment, but specifically forbid combining elements from "different scenes," much less completely different images to make a composite.

My point exactly. It's OK to manipulate the photo so long as the purpose is to overcome limitations of the equipment.

It's not acceptable to deliberately manipulate the photo in post-processing so as to interpret reality. But it is acceptable to manipulate reality while it's in front of the camera lens.

That completely ignores that the act of taking a photo must arbitrarily select a small portion of the whole, entire scene that is before the camera lens. Framing the shot with that first 'crop' is highly subjective, personal, & interpretive, yet we never discuss that.

And what if I feel that one of the limitations of the equipment is that it only captures the light reflected/refracted by what's in front of it? Why can't I use PP to overcome this limitation?

Message edited by author 2013-05-06 00:11:37.