Why do I recall paintings much more readily than photographs?

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 05, 2010; 10:21 a.m.</em><br>

<em>....retouching in art goes back at least to the cave paintings. It's normal, commonplace and accepted (with a few notable exceptions).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're right one one level, but let's not assume that most ALL paintings have been retouched. I'd say that most haven't been retouched at all. The masters did not have to go over and over their works to get them right. Those guys packed the skills.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>By the very act of shooting JPEGs, specially if using the default settings on your trusty D70, you're allowing Nikon programs to retouch your work generically with no input from you.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Setting the initial parameters, in software, whether in JPEG, NEF, RAW, is <em><strong>NOT</strong></em> retouching!</p>

<p>My input is to take a correct photograph on location.</p>

<p>Somebody has to make the initioal decisions, or the files would be unreadable. It's a common misconception that JPEG can not be adjusted for common darkroom procedures like setting the brightness, contrast, etc. JPEG absolutely allows for those adjustments. Those are common "test strip" procedures and in <em><strong>no way</strong></em> constitute retouching.<br>

I am shooting in other data formats now, but not for the generally accepted reasons of "more dynamic range so I can make more mistakes and fix 'em later" blab.<br>

I get annoyed with the JPEG artifacting that becomes apparent in larger print formats, that's all.<br>

I still take pride in getting the image correct at the front element, with no "dodging, burning", etc.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Bill P. I have to compliment you on a work ethic well applied "I still take pride in getting the image correct..." This is as it should be... some are better at that than others, some have a gift and some flail all their lives (I paint, photograph and swim using the flail technique I'm afraid).<br>

A point of order about retouching... in painting, that is a specific term of art to do with restoration. Also called "in painting". If the artist does it, it is called "work in progress" and is not uncommon. Xrays often reveal significant changes in composition in some old master paintings. In other cases, such as Andrew Wyeth, the image seems to flow from the brush so long as the attention is directed there, and once the attention goes elsewhere, it just turns into brushstrokes that don't convey the image. Wyeth in fact had a very marked gift for that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"><em>Tom Watt</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 05, 2010; 12:27 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill P. I have to compliment you on a work ethic well applied "I still take pride in getting the image correct..." This is as it should be... some are better at that than others, some have a gift and some flail all their lives (I paint, photograph and swim using the flail technique I'm afraid).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, thank you for appreciating my work ethic.<br>

I'm still marvelling at your "bottles" collection.<br>

Thanks also for calrifying the definitions as applied to painting, etc.<br>

Yes, sometimes the masters did change the compostion, etc., and it leads me to wonder how much of it was due to client input. Paintings were often used as "family portraits" are today, and a particular duke may not have wanted to look as portly as he actually was, etc.<br>

We'll probably never know for sure. </p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<p>As some other's here I am also a painter and photographer and have been both on and off for 30 years. I like photography better because it is more immediately satisfying (I don’t have the world's longest attention span). But if I come up with a good painting I feel 10 times more permanent satisfaction. It feels like the struggle to come up with a good painting is so much more than a decent (although maybe not excellent) photo, even after using Photoshop heavily on the photo in a creative way. Its actually mentally exhausting to get all the way through a painting, which may take weeks to think about and execute.</p>

<p>I also agree with another here who said not many paintings in the last 35 years come to mind. I would say more like 50 years! We all seem to remember the great master's paintings better than anything in the modern times. As well we sometimes remember the style more than any one painting, as in Picasso. Honestly I can’t recall one major photo other than some in old Life Magazines. I have no idea who took the photos. I will look at members of photo.net photos and think "good lord that's good, this person is extremely talented!" But there are so many photographers that I forget who did what eventually. Maybe that’s it; there are SO many good photographers and not that many good painters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5190018"><em>Mark Jordan</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 05, 2010; 01:05 p.m.</em><br>

<em>I like photography better because it is more immediately satisfying....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p >Mark, I'm with you.</p>

<p >To quote myself.....</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p><em>....That is, by the way, why I went back to photography. It's easier.<br /><br />Paintings are too hard. - Andy Warhol<br /><br />Bill P.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Bill, I want you to know I also appreciate and respect your work ethic. From shooting slides for decades before switching to digital, I'm quite familiar with it, and still do as much as I can at the front end.</p>

<p>Phylo, I was suggesting that painters have freedom, they are not bound in the same way as photographers, who usually shoot what is presented to them...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like photography better because it is more immediately satisfying....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Strange, I often feel that photography <em>as a process</em> is not immediately satisfying, of course working a lot with film, but also with digital there is still a lot of intermission and space between idea to execution to the photograph / image as a vehicle for satisfying a creative urge. That's why I sometimes wish for an entirely different process, for the immediacy of paint appearing on a blanc canvas or sounds emerging from a musicinstrument...and to just let it all out at once, because with photography you must let it in first.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote><br />I was suggesting that painters have freedom,are not bound in the same way as photographers, who <strong>usually shoot what is presented to them</strong>...</blockquote>

<p><em>Usually</em>. And then you have photographers who <em>also</em> shoot in a way that best shows what they want to present instead of only shooting what is presented to them.</p>

<p> Related to what Bill P was talking about...</p>

<p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-greenfieldsanders/please-dont-retouch-me_b_448165.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting observation! I think I'd have to agree with the OP's premise even though I'm not sure why it happens.</p>

<p>The surface of a painting is textured. The surface of a photograph is flat by comparison. Might this make a difference?</p>

<p>Famous paintings are often quite large, several feet on a side. Even what we consider to be a large photographic print (40x50) is diminutive by comparison.</p>

<p>Paintings are rarely done in monochrome. Black and white photography looks "dreary" compared to a brightly-colored painting.</p>

<p>There is a built-in prejudice. Paintings are perceived to be the product of considerable skill, whereas photography is perceived to be the product of technology. This perception was conditioned into our minds when we were young children.</p>

<p>A painting takes more time to produce. A lot of thought and planning goes into the development of a painting. There are exceptions, but photographs tend to be designed and constructed "in the moment" as the result of the appearance of some phenomenon.</p>

 

<p>A big part of being famous as an artist is self promotion Dali and Picasso were both excellent at it as are some photographers. Ansel Adams comes to mind. I bet you can remember some of his work as well as Picasso's work. To be know in the world of any art you got to be bold and claim your are the best there is. Then the rich snooty art collector club will buy all your stuff after you are dead.</p>

<p> We remember paintings better because they are quite unreal and look diferent.<br>

Photograph is very similar to what we see every second so it's nothing special for our brain until it's great piece of art, interesting, shocking or taken by Josef Koudelka ;).</p>

<blockquote><em>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5305394">Joe Taylor</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 05, 2010; 07:07 p.m.</p>

 

<p>A big part of being famous as an artist is self promotion Dali and Picasso were both excellent at it as are some photographers. Ansel Adams comes to mind. I bet you can remember some of his work as well as Picasso's work. To be know in the world of any art you got to be bold and claim your are the best there is. Then the rich snooty art collector club will buy all your stuff after you are dead.</p>

 

</em></blockquote>

<p>And there you have it.<br>

The truth that nobody wants to admit.</p>

<p><em><strong>"It's 98 percent P.R., man......"</strong></em><br>

<em><strong>Miles Davis to Bryant Gumbel, 1982 interview</strong></em></p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 05, 2010; 02:09 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill, I want you to know I also appreciate and respect your work ethic. From shooting slides for decades before switching to digital, I'm quite familiar with it, and still do as much as I can at the front end.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, thank you for the kind words and I always look forward to chatting with you. Yes, shooting slides requires serious artistic discipline to arrive at the desired results. Slides are a great training tool, I shot slides for years also.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 05, 2010; 03:51 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Related to what Bill P was talking about...</em></p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-greenfieldsanders/please-dont-retouch-me_b_448165.html" target="_blank"><em>(link)</em></a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, what a fascinating article, thanks for the link!<br>

That is how I see beauty. Honest. Up front. Real.<br>

Here's the link to a short film put out by Dove. It's been around for a while, but always worth another look.<br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U</a></p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Not many of us can view astounding paintings in person, and probably nobody reading this could create one, so it is easy to remember the really good ones. We can all view amazing photos simply by using photo.net, and there are so many good ones it is easy to forget all that we have seen.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bill P. wrote: I'm still marvelling at your "bottles" collection.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />You should see the painted versions. Nope, nothing online. As one of a kind items, I decided against sharing those. What I can say is that an almost universal reaction to being in the presence of several of those paintings together gives one a profound sense of unease. At one gallery opening, after everyone had done the obligatory walk-through among the paintins, the attendees were all clusted at the back of the gallery, as far away from the paintings as possible. But those are several times over life-size, and also contain a number of hidden imagery that (I think) pushes the viewers' buttons psychologically.</p>

<p>Let's look at some examples: <a href="http://www.edition-lgc.de/sonst/kbbilder/097.htm">Here is a painting</a> that's simple and easy to remember.</p>

<ul>

"Every [real] artist is a world by himself"

</ul>

<p>- as this (unkown) painter said.<br>

ciao Jina</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"><em>Tom Watt</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 06, 2010; 12:05 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Bill P. wrote: I'm still marvelling at your "bottles" collection.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><em>What I can say is that an almost universal reaction to being in the presence of several of those paintings together gives one a profound sense of unease.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom,<br>

I find the photographs charming. <br>

I can't imagine why oversized bottle paintings would disturb anyone. Since this is on topic, could you speculate?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Not so simple, but easily recalled (and perhaps pushing some buttons along the way):<br>

<a href="http://www.donaldrollerwilson.com/">http://www.donaldrollerwilson.com/</a><br>

And a pretty neat guy in his own right. No longer teaching though.</p>

<p>Well if you say paintings take more time i have to disagree. I don't know many painters that have traveled 8,000 miles to hike another 10 over a mountain freezing to death to paint. They can just go into their warm and cozy room, turn on their favorite style of music and start painting mine or your picture they found in a magazine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1971417"><em>Kevin OConnell</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Feb 09, 2010; 10:13 a.m.</em><br /><em>Well if you say paintings take more time i have to disagree. I don't know many painters that have traveled 8,000 miles to hike another 10 over a mountain freezing to death to paint.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's see, you've got one photo posted, a barn im Missouri. It doesn't look cold, and it doesn't look like you had to hike ten miles over a mountain.<br />Since it is 8,010 miles from home, I guess you live in South Korea or Iran.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Yes Bill, haven't used this site in years. Didn't even know I had a picture on here. That was prob a pic I did in Missouri for a friend. The reply I made can be any photographer, didn't think I said it was a barn in Missouri, but if you are really interested I did a series in Antarctica for six months. Sounds to me like you are a painter</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1971417"><em>Kevin OConnell</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Feb 09, 2010; 11:48 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Sounds to me like you are a painter</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin, I'm a graphic artist and Fashion Designer by training, a disaster with a paint brush.<br>

I do photography because it's easy.<br>

Seriously.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>