Leigh Youdale
Well-known
There are many painters who paint in a style that is photographic in detail and sharpness. Typically those who do botanical illustration or animals.
One the other hand, if you want an "unsharp" photographer, have a look at <www.louisemann.com/>
I've spoken to Louise who won't say exactly how she does it, but she assures me it's all done in-camera and not by post-processing.
One the other hand, if you want an "unsharp" photographer, have a look at <www.louisemann.com/>
I've spoken to Louise who won't say exactly how she does it, but she assures me it's all done in-camera and not by post-processing.
Spyro
Well-known
Sparrow
Veteran
dave lackey
Veteran
Not ALL photographers obsess over sharpness. I tend to do it with my digital images, but not when shooting the M3 with the Summarit!
exiled4979
Established
This is actually my first post here, so, hello everybody
I guess the biggest difference is in author's eye... some people just must have the sharpest possible photograph of something, no matter if they'll ever print it, and not to mention that there's just no way to see actual difference in sharpness when everything is reduced to 900px
Some people are taking photos in order to capture moments, emotions, something, not really something that requires absolute sharpness and it just doesn't matter if it's a bit blurry, or soft, or whatever...Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hyperrealist painting and Holgas pretty much give the lie to the premise. Or go back to the 19th century and look at Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema (or Richard Dadd, for that matter) and Julia Margaret Cameron.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
skibeerr
Well-known
The image, content, the dialog it triggers with the viewer, the perception of surrounding.... that is what an artist / photographer obsesses about.
Sharpness, softness, technique are tools to obtain the goal.
I've never met a greater bunch of knives abusers than chefs they can't keep them sharp if their life depended upon it.
The relation between a butcher and a chef has always been a little on edge.
rtist/
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
1) They can paint their own bokeh.
2) They're probably not anal-retentive equipment snobs. Or maybe they are when it comes to paintbrushes. I wonder if they use gaffer's tape to cover up the brands on their paints and brushes. That would be hilarious.
2) They're probably not anal-retentive equipment snobs. Or maybe they are when it comes to paintbrushes. I wonder if they use gaffer's tape to cover up the brands on their paints and brushes. That would be hilarious.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Painters are fanatical about brushes and materials like paints and canvas. Good brushes can be VERY expensive and the professional painters I know own a large collection of said brushes. One of my art school professors was a nationally known painter who only used linen canvas rather than cheap cotton, only sable hair brushes instead of synthetics, and paint that cost $20-$100 a tube for 125ml tubes. I've spent a lot of time around artists like her discussing paints, brushes, canvas, easels (good ones are over $1000!), etc. They're into 'gear' as much as photographers. Most photographers know nothing about the art world so they keep promoting the silly idea that painters do not care about equipment or materials.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've never known a sunday painter who used the kind of high-end handmade brushes and costly linen canvas that professionals I know often prefer. Most sunday painters don't know the difference so they buy cheap stuff.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"and not to mention that there's just no way to see actual difference in sharpness when everything is reduced to 900px"
I disagree. It's actually easy to see actual differences in sharpness at 900 pixels. In fact, I would argue that sharpness is even more critical at 900 pixels than at 20 inches.
I disagree. It's actually easy to see actual differences in sharpness at 900 pixels. In fact, I would argue that sharpness is even more critical at 900 pixels than at 20 inches.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
How is that? I'd like to understand this assertion.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
I've not met all that many Sunday painters, but of the few I've met, I'd guess that at least half are in fact equipment snobs, though they are quite likely to say that the good stuff "isn't worth it" or "costs too much" as compared with the stuff they use. Quite unlike photographers, then...
Your point in the previous post about the vast majority of professional painters using top-flight materials and equipment is of course spot on.
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
Hmmm...not unlike most professionals of any trade, I suppose?
Oh, man, there goes that unfortunate word again, "professionals"...sorry.
Last edited:
umboody
Established
Most artists create representations of things, whereas most photographers produce exact likenesses. But, as images in this thread have proved, this is not always the case.
MIkhail
-
Indeed.
I, for one, prefer a bit slight movement in my subjects (people), not a frozen shapes.
I, personally, think- it for the same reasons why every new photographer (and not new, actually) believes that main subject has to be in "golden rule of thirds" spots... It's just a textbook thing, and they just don't know any better.
porktaco
Well-known
i love that group
MIkhail
-
I am lucky enough to know personally several very talent photographers, some with international recognitions, photos in galleries and such, who can only dream of the kind of equipment that members of this forums routinely exchange and buy/sell. Yet somehow they manage to make great pictures… Go figure.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
While the herd chews on sharpness
artists nibble the bok'eh.
artists nibble the bok'eh.