Straight outta the camera!

[dada]

Technically brill. But, what does it offer beyond that?

A great re-creation of reality. Nothing more. Photography is essentially all about an undeniable reality. Painting is about the stuff that comes from your brain only and no-one else's.

this is it.

i didn't realise it was a painting until i stepped into the museum!
cos i've seen it before on publications without reading the details. always thought it was a photograph.
the scale of the thumbnail above doesn't do justice on the painting though.
it's true, i agree, it's just a technical demonstration.
but it still took my breath my away when i stood in front of it.
and tbh, it is an interesting painting. the reflection of her glasses reveals the shadow of the artist.

 

[Blagsta]

Used a camera obscura for portraits.

He was dissed in his day for using new technology and cheating.


Possibly the first ever photographer?

He painted over the image though, yes?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

this is it.

i didn't realise it was a painting until i stepped into the museum!
cos i've seen it before on publications without reading the details. always thought it was a photograph.
the scale of the thumbnail above doesn't do justice on the painting though.
it's true, i agree, it's just a technical demonstration.
but it still took my breath my away when i stood in front of it.
and tbh, it is an interesting painting. the reflection of her glasses reveals the shadow of the artist.

Oh, so wrong.

Why is this good?



Why is photo-realist painting good? Why not just take a photograph?

Cos you YOU can't.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

He painted over the image though, yes?

Of course.

 

[Blagsta]

Of course.

So not photography then, it was painting.

 

[lobster]

I know that. What I mean is that traditional film photography processes photos, decisions are made that can affect the final photo. People who think that processing digitally is cheating seem to be ignoring the fact that photographs have always been processed after they come out of the camera.

Fair enough, i misunderstood what you said.
People who spend hours getting one photo correct is not cheating, a friend of mine that worked at a retouching lab told me how he had to make prints of photos that were very zoomed because almost on pixel level because nothing could be wrong, that should be called perfection not cheating..

 

[dada]

Oh, so wrong.

Why is this good?



Why is photo-realist painting good? Why not just take a photograph?

Cos you YOU can't.

you know i was once an arrogant prick on art.
like those questions you ask, i did and do have the similar point of view as yours on photorealistic paintings.
but i'm more relax nowadays.
and i don't see it as 'wrong'.
there are others in the competition that also go for the realistic direction. but they aren't as impressive as the winner's one in terms of subject, composition, colours, technique etc.
it is beautiful, you have to stand there to take the awe.
hey he might have paint it over a photograph, i don't know, as you can hardly see the brushstokes which reminds me of one of da vinci painting on st. ? (forget which one it was). the scientist xrayed that painting to see how he did it but the output was blank.

 

[alef]

People can be purist about anything. Some only eat raw vegetables, some only read books in hard cover, some only ever see films in cinemas. Go a bit further and Jain monks can't kill any animals, Amish only use 19th C technology and Stanley Edwards likes to sit in an empty field for an hour and then set up his camera on a tripod and take a carefully exposed photograph.

 

[cybertect]

Yes.

Original camera obscuras for a start. They obscured I'm sure.

Polaroids might be a better example if you want to go down that route.