DougFord
on the good foot
For me, the ‘time’ dimension is where photography has the advantage, over painting.
A fluid dynamic fleeting scene can be interpreted and expressed in a painting from memory but obviously not every nuance. So the painter can add from memory what they thought they saw at the time or paint their impression/idea of what they ‘think’ they saw.
The photograph captures the actual fleeting event, it’s not a composite of remembrances. The recording process is subjected to the scientific method of image capture.
The method of image capture directly affects the viewers experience of the scene depicted. There’s the realization that ‘actual probabilities’ play an important creative nuance in photography where in painting, it’s always ‘contrived’.
A fluid dynamic fleeting scene can be interpreted and expressed in a painting from memory but obviously not every nuance. So the painter can add from memory what they thought they saw at the time or paint their impression/idea of what they ‘think’ they saw.
The photograph captures the actual fleeting event, it’s not a composite of remembrances. The recording process is subjected to the scientific method of image capture.
The method of image capture directly affects the viewers experience of the scene depicted. There’s the realization that ‘actual probabilities’ play an important creative nuance in photography where in painting, it’s always ‘contrived’.