Why do the good paintings look more like real life than the best photographs?
>>3699002They look more idealized. There's a difference
>>3699002Paintings are based on the artist's real life vision of the world, basically their eyes. Any photographic medium fails to match the human's eye to this day. Photography is compromises.
>>3699005Superior dynamic range and low light performance, very low noise with great smooth gradation.
>>3699016TIL An artist's real life vision is idealised and lacks detail
>>3699018TIL it's time for you to go back.
>>3699018>TIL An artist's real life vision is idealised and lacks detaildo you realize the amount of details in a painting is based on multiple variables, the most important being the artist's skill? There are super realistic paintings out there. Also, lack of details is often a stylistic choice. OP's question addresses colors/dynamic range in paintings most likely, who gives a shit about details.
>>3699018Lets blow up your digishit pictures to this size and lets see which lacks detail.
>>3699022>TIL it's time for you to go back.Is that the best tired old meme you can do?>>3699025>do you realize the amount of details in a painting is based on multiple variablesOf course I do but saying OPs painting looks more like reality is stupid>>3699029The painting will still look like a painting
>>3699002i think if I could take a snapshot of my dreams, it'll look much more beautiful than real life
>>3699054>RedditorOpinion disregarded. Go back to your subreddit you cant even post photos on kek
>>3699084t. I feel threatened
>>3699094T. Armchair psychiatrist Any more classic Redditor tropes you want to wheel out?
>>3699002Unlimited dynamic range, every part of the image is in focus, perfect lighting, idealized scene.
>>3699095I'm happt to browse Reedit and /p/. What are you afraid of?
>>3699025>dynamic range in paintingsyou have to go back
>>3699171>you have to go backyou have to go back
>>3699084It's not like anyone is posting photos here, either, pal
>>3699002It’s a pity the retard who photographed the painting couldn’t shoot straight.
>>3699185It's not as easy as it sounds. Besides, horizon is sloped in the painting as well.
>>3699168You're the reason photography is seen as an invalidated artform; you know it too; and thats why you're so bitter that people prefer a painting to a photo. Stop being an autist
>>3699274You notice how both replies are accusing you of being afraid? It's classic projection.
>>3699029the digital image would stil have better textures and colors than the stylised work you postedPic related however
>>3699005tremendously basedpaintfags btfo
Always loved this dude.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmc3vshhBCo
>>3699411This guy's work is insane, one of his paintings was the only thing that made me stop and stare at the modern section of the Nelson
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width6251Image Height5040Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2020:08:02 13:41:47Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height807
>>3699283>>3699274I don't care how angry you are, samefagging is not a consensus.
>>3699274Photography isn't art, fuck off
artists went to art schoolthe majority of photographers didnt
>peak performance right here
>>3700061>>3700062who is the photographer? these images are amazing
>>3699740>Photography isn't art>You can study photography at art schoolAre you fucking retarded?
>>3700111David Hockney....Effete Yorkshireman and inexplicable darling of 60s pop art. I always thought most of his paintings were trash to be honest, but his photo collages are pretty cool.
>>3699002better dynamic range
>>3700161The 4 season video walls he did recently are fucking exquisite. He’s improved a lot I reckon.
>>3699414This has to be painted using a slide of kodachrome 64 as reference, its uncanny.
>>3700200thoght the same, the fact that a painting has "film-like" colors left me thinking
>>3700111>>3700161>>3700062You can recreate this look with the brenizer method in photoshop, you just need to vary exposure to get the contrast between sections
>>3699002Its something called applying/removing value on the illustration knowing where to put light and where to remove it idk I'm not a painter and I gave up drawing years ago Think about it this way most cameras are just now getting good at dynamic range while our eyes have been doing that shit for centuries So a talented person with enough training could replicate what they are seeing
>>3700239How can a painter get the look so right when you still cant get that look with a digital camera and ps no matter the effort
>>3703803Because he made it up instead of recording what he saw
>>3703805I read about the artist, he walked around and took many pictures and later compiled the psrts into these scenes. What Im wondering us, why can he recreate the kodachrome look with paint if pro photogs struggle to create anything close to it with digital files.
>>3703893Cause the painting is analogue
>>3703893>the kodachrome lookKodachrome never looked that flat and mushy, even with cheap lenses. t.I shot a lot of kodachrome back in the day
>>3704140Yeah, it looks more like color reversal film than slide to me
>>3704163>color reversal filmfacepalm.jpg
>>3704140>a painting doesnt have much microcontrastWhat the h is wrong with you