Were you first a painter?

I find that in my life as a photographer, the years I spent as a

painter makes a difference in how I approach subjects. I wielded

a paintbrush (and charcoal, pencils watercolors and pastels) for

most of my life, and my formal training is in the fine arts as they

apply to those media.

I only began to take the camera seriously in the early

1990's, and the transition was seamless. This question is

posed mostly to the old gangsters- Firstly, were you first a

painter and Second, do you find now there are advantages you

may have based on the old school rules? (Chiaroscuro, The Law

of Thirds, Color Theory, The Golden Mean, Working in Layers,

Atmospheric Perspective, Objectivity and all the rest that was

drilled into your young head.)<div></div>

I think a camera, for me at least, is the lazy man's paintbrush. Thus, I don't think I

was a painter first, I think I still am.

 

I did spend a year or two making oil paintings, but I was mostly interested in photo

realism in my work. Thus, I decided to save my self a lot of time. At some point, when

I am a member of the idle riche, I'm sure I'll pick up the #10 sabel brush again.

 

As per the second part of the question. I'd say of course....but it can also be a burden

to creativity if your always calling on the rules, and birds fly, fish swim and all that.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/painting.html">Keith Laban Paintings</a><p>Alexander<p>I�ve worked as an artist for most of my adult life both as a painter and illustrator. I�ve also been using a camera throughout this period as an integral part of my work as an artist and in more recent years to produce standalone commercial images.<p>As an artist I�ve always thought of film as merely another medium, my work using oils, acrylics and watercolours have become entwined with my use of film, blending to the point that I see this as a single body of work regardless of the medium used. In this area the two disciplines have become one. Strangely though, my paintings are often regarded as photographic while my photographs are often described as painterly. I look upon my commercial photographic work as a separate entity, though inevitably there is some overlap.<p>My formal training as an artist has undoubtedly and inevitably influenced all of my work using film, but this is largely an unconscious process. I�m sure that the most valuable influence is not as a result of following classical formulae or rules, but is an opening of the mind to subjects and ideas and perhaps a different way of looking and seeing.<div></div>

Was and remain a writer. Did become passionately involved in

painting. Studied Cezanne. Definate influence.

Don't take this too seriously but

Yes I was. I used to be a painter, don't know how many walls I've painted in how many houses...But now, finally, I am a worldwide famous rock 'n' roll big bucks fashionphotographer living the good life. Oh yeah, my 'painting' history has done me so much good in beïng more intuitive to the bright color of life as it's seen true fashionsunglasses...it makes me wanna rock with every model on the block.

yes, i used to do a LOT of finger painting when i was about 2....really shaped me as a true artist..

I am no painter for sure. It was a great mistake to buy a airbrush. But i suppose I know a bit about the old rules and color theory and believe it's sometimes useful, but you also need luck, speed and routine.

In the Seventies, I decided to be a painter, bought the canvas, the paints (oil-based) and set about becoming a great artist.

1st painting completed...night view of the moon..it was blue, blue moon, blue windowsill (quietly parked in clothes closet after friends just looked at it and said nothing out of politeness) 2nd painting started, "history of reciprocating machinery" presketched, I realized that the scale of some of the sketches was sort of awful and instead of painting the sketched lines I worked away at covering up the awfulness, this being abruptly interrupted by my young Tomcat, who being bored, had decided to jump on my back, claws extended. After this, no painting happened anymore. it hangs 80% unfinished in my kitchen, a reminder of how easily talents are overreached....The blue moon was quietly shipped out to the dumpster a long time ago...

i drew and painted before i photographed.

 

and yes, i find it helps. i tend to ignore rules in all three media.

The relationship between painting and photography is one that fascinates me, even though I am not a painter. Right off the bat, I suspect painters would tend to be characterized by the following:

<p>

1 - Willingness to spend much more time on a single picture. Use of tripod, at least MF or LF, etc.

<p>

2 - Tendency to use conservative focal lengths (28mm to 100mm in 35mm terms). How many paintings have you seen that look as if they were taken with a super wide or long tele?

<p>

3 - Painters would tend to be more focused, with a distinct style, subject class and "look".

<p>

4 - Composition would tend to be more classical looking.

<p>

Not being a painter, the above is speculation on my part! Am I right though?<p>

Note that two of the recent Pictures of the Week, <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2286013">The shepard</a></b> by Floriana Barbu and <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1231732">portrait_1231732</a></b> by Leona L were highly praised by a number of photographers as being painting like in quality! While I don't think either Floriana or Leona are or were painters, none the less, the reactions to their respective pictures suggest something transcendent about painting <i>and</i> photography!

Fast primes: First of all sign up as a member. Secondly, I think your obervation is well-made and right on the point. I think that painters "take their time" and have a quiet, paced approach to an image.

While I was never a professional artist, I have taken several drawing and art history classes. There is a lot that I've gained. One example, drawing helped me to notice and use the negative space. In photography, sometimes it's shadows, sometimes just "dead" space but it's often ignored in traditional photo classes.

 

I agree that the best way to use all the rules is to learn then and then forget them. You have to learn then first, though.

 

I do feel that even though photography and drawing/painting are very different in their processes, the final results are absolutly the same - they both are 2D art and nothing more than a flat surface with some hints for viewers' personal interpretation.

Personally, my answer would depend on what you mean by 'being a painter'. If you mean having been taught practice, history, and theory, and having played and experimented, but then not persisting, probably because of lack of talent, but still preserving an interest by seeing new work and classical work regularly, and even (well, once) buying some, well, then, by george, yes!

 

But although I was never really a painter, not really, and never will be, I have been thinking recently about the relationship between effects in painting and in photography.

 

This is because in my photography work I am currently struggling with what I call 'the tyranny of focus'. I find difficulties in using the literal to show essence. In painting, strong visual and emotional communication can be made by abstraction and distillation -which is, in effect, controlled removal of detail.

 

With digital editing, I now find that I want to push away the fidelity of photography. I don't do this unthinkingly, or to strike an attitude, but in order to take advantage of graphical effects which originated in other media, for other reasons. (I've got a recent post in the leaves bit of 'no words' that shows the kind of stuff I'm working on.)

Nope, not at all! I can't even draw a stick man without it looking like a dying dog...

 

However, I love sight, and I love capturing what I see in the world around me. For me photography gives me a way of sharing the beauty God has given us with those who don't manage to see it for themselves, who allow themselves to be bogged down by the hectic pace of life today. I don't think not being able to paint or draw takes away from my enjoyment of photography at all, although I admire those who can do both :)

Thank you all for your responses, I've learned much from all of

them. A.<div></div>

Nope. but Adolf Hitler was and look what a swelled head it gave him!

I am the worst painter/drawer/sculptor you will ever meet. I learned alot from my art teacher, she was the one that drove my photography, but even she gave up on my classical art skills.

Interesting thread. I gerw up (if you can call it that) in art schools, and I've always thought it gave me an edge in photography re composition. Both painting and shoting cameras have had the same result: I look at things around me more carefully. It's the enduring gift of any kind of art.

--Scot Steele

I was never a painter and was always frustrated by the fact that, as well as I thought about the concept of a drawing of painting, it never came out the way I meant it. I knew exactly what I wanted to draw, what it should look like and what it should convey, but it never came out quite that way. <br>

Photography for me was an exciting discovery: now I can make images that come out exactly the way I mean them to be. Using a tripod and taking some time, you can capture anything you want anyway you want. Of course you have more limitations as to what your subject can be, because you cannot photograph imaginary things.

Hi, I enjoy painting, drawing, photography, and other things too.

Too learn to see with a camera helps me with drawing and visa versa.

I not an old gangster, sorry, just a young beginner with an appetite.

I find the most productive part of the photographic proccess to be

the future and what I want to achieve, using my imagination. Interpretation of what has come before is part of that, but only a part. The driving force goes beyond the old school rules, it is called imagination in my mind.

 

Cheers.