[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Why do the good paintings look more like real life than the best photographs?
>>
>>3699002
they don't
>>
>>3699002
They look more idealized. There's a difference
>>
>>3699002
Paintings 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.
>>
>>3699005
Superior dynamic range and low light performance, very low noise with great smooth gradation.
>>
>>3699016
TIL An artist's real life vision is idealised and lacks detail
>>
>>3699018
TIL it's time for you to go back.
>>
>>3699018
>TIL An artist's real life vision is idealised and lacks detail
do 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.
>>
>>3699018
Lets 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 variables
Of course I do but saying OPs painting looks more like reality is stupid

>>3699029
The painting will still look like a painting
>>
>>3699002
i think if I could take a snapshot of my dreams, it'll look much more beautiful than real life
>>
>>3699054
>Redditor
Opinion disregarded. Go back to your subreddit you cant even post photos on kek
>>
>>3699084
t. I feel threatened
>>
>>3699094
T. Armchair psychiatrist
Any more classic Redditor tropes you want to wheel out?
>>
>>3699002
Unlimited dynamic range, every part of the image is in focus, perfect lighting, idealized scene.
>>
>>3699095
I'm happt to browse Reedit and /p/. What are you afraid of?
>>
>>3699025
>dynamic range in paintings
you have to go back
>>
>>3699171
>you have to go back
you have to go back
>>
>>3699084
It's not like anyone is posting photos here, either, pal
>>
>>3699002
It’s a pity the retard who photographed the painting couldn’t shoot straight.
>>
>>3699185
It's not as easy as it sounds. Besides, horizon is sloped in the painting as well.
>>
>>3699168
You'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
>>
>>3699274
You notice how both replies are accusing you of being afraid? It's classic projection.
>>
>>3699029
the digital image would stil have better textures and colors than the stylised work you posted

Pic related however
>>
>>3699005
tremendously based
paintfags btfo
>>
Always loved this dude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmc3vshhBCo
>>
File: CTB.1993.10.jpg (110 KB, 600x600)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>
>>3699411
This 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
>>
File: estes-dinerr.jpg (848 KB, 1000x807)
848 KB
848 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6251
Image Height5040
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2020:08:02 13:41:47
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height807
>>
File: Corner-Cafe.jpg (1.19 MB, 1200x746)
1.19 MB
1.19 MB JPG
>>
>>3699283
>>3699274
I don't care how angry you are, samefagging is not a consensus.
>>
>>3699274
Photography isn't art, fuck off
>>
artists went to art school
the majority of photographers didnt
>>
>peak performance right here
>>
>>
>>3700061
>>3700062
who is the photographer? these images are amazing
>>
>>3699740
>Photography isn't art
>You can study photography at art school
Are you fucking retarded?
>>
>>3700111
David 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.
>>
>>3699005
fpbp
>>
>>3699002
better dynamic range
>>
>>3700161
The 4 season video walls he did recently are fucking exquisite. He’s improved a lot I reckon.
>>
>>3699414
This has to be painted using a slide of kodachrome 64 as reference, its uncanny.
>>
>>3700200
thoght the same, the fact that a painting has "film-like" colors left me thinking
>>
>>3700111
>>3700161
>>3700062
You can recreate this look with the brenizer method in photoshop, you just need to vary exposure to get the contrast between sections
>>
>>3699002
Its 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
>>
>>3700239
How 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
>>
>>3703803
Because he made it up instead of recording what he saw
>>
>>3703805
I 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.
>>
>>3703893
Cause the painting is analogue
>>
>>3703893
>the kodachrome look
Kodachrome never looked that flat and mushy, even with cheap lenses.

t.I shot a lot of kodachrome back in the day
>>
>>3704140
Yeah, it looks more like color reversal film than slide to me
>>
>>3704163
>color reversal film
facepalm.jpg
>>
>>3704140
>a painting doesnt have much microcontrast

What the h is wrong with you



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.