Demonstration of the use of the Virtual Painter plugin filter to enhance the appearance of a photograph

[billangel]

For those interested in experimenting with the use of plugin filters

in conjunction with image editing programs to enhance the appearance

of their images, I've created a presentation called <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?

presentation_id=251769">Girl Stroking a Horse (Two Versions)</a>

<BR><BR>

This presentation illustrates, in my opinion, the effectiveness of

the Virtual Painter plugin filter in enhancing the impact of a

photograph by imparting to the image the appearance of an oil

painting. <BR><BR>

FYI, I used this plugin filter in conjunction with Paint Shop Pro 8.

[mark__5]

how does making it look like a painting improve it?

[rodolfo_negrete]

I see potential.

And I do like the effect. Although I wonder if this could be done in phtoshop with out the plugin?

[billangel]

"Mark * " wrote:

>how does making it look like a painting improve it?

 

OK, here is my rationale for making it look like a painting, and how doing so, in my estimation, improves the image. What I wanted to do was de-emphasize in the image those elements that I felt distracted from the central point of interest, which is the girl's gesture touching the horse. The two main areas of the image that I wanted to de-emphasize were the background behind the horse, and the foreground area (the door of the stable) below the horse.

 

Using the controls available with the "Virtual Painter" plug-in, I had the filter keep the girl and the horse's head sharp, while gradually blurring the horse's neck and the areas behind and below the horse's head. The problem here is that such selective blurring, if done via conventional darkroom techniques, would yield an image that a viewer would no longer consider to be "photo-realistic". Examining such an image, the viewer would be confused, thinking that he was supposed to be looking at a realistic depiction of the scene, but a depiction in which areas of the scene were unaccountably blurred (i.e. out of focus).

 

By presenting the image rendered in the style of a painting, the viewer is no longer confused by aspects of the image that are no longer "photo-realistic" in their depiction, because the viewer now realizes that the image is meant to be a purely subjective interpretation of the scene, rather than an attempt by a photographer to present the scene "realistically" i.e. as it actually had appeared

to the naked eye.

[bruce watson]

Many years ago, a group of photographers got together to form a group. The basis of this group was that all of the photographers were upset by their peers who were afraid to use photography for what it is, and instead were trying to make photographs look more like paintings. This "old" school came to be called the Pictorialists.

 

The group of rebels was called Group F/64:

 

=======================================================

 

Group f/64 Manifesto

 

The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities ofclearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.

 

The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.

 

Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number ofserious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the m鴩er of the Group.

 

Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphicarts.

 

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.

 

The Group will appreciate information regarding any serious work in photography that has escaped its attention, and is favorable towards establishing itself as a Forum of Modern Photography.

 

========================================================

 

I have to side with Mark. How *does* making it look like a painting improve it?

[billangel]

Thanks for posting the "Group f/64 Manifesto". I would agree that my approach represents a rejection of that Manifesto. I would also agree that some of my computer manipulated images, which utilize techniques derived from painting, would place me among the ranks of the "Pictorialists". But Pictorialism is not a pejorative term. I came across the following description of what the term "Pictorialism" can be taken to mean:

 

1)an aesthetic concern with making art, as opposed to a record;

 

2)the concept that only images which show the personality of the maker, generally through hand manipulation, can be considered works of art;

 

So I would assert that statement number 2,"...images which show the personality of the maker, generally through hand manipulation.." is the salient feature that I strive to incorporate into my work via the use of the Virtual Painter plug-in.

 

So to answer the question:

"How *does* making it look like a painting improve it?".

 

The "improvement" is that the final result reflects more of my own personality i.e. my subjective interpretation of what I had observed.

The communication of my subjective interpretation is the primary motive for me in creating images of this type.

[Spearhead]

The "manifesto" seems a bit absurd in its inability to understand that there is no way to obliterate the history of art. Also, this is the "digital darkroom" forum and it seems that discussion of techniques is what belongs here, not philosophy. There's another forum for that.

[mark__5]

Let me preface this by saying I have worked with photoshop for about a decade and use digitally enhanced images in my daily work.

 

 

the manifesto makes complete sense considering the viewpoint of the time that photography could not be art, therefore make it look like painting etc. to make it more legit. Groupf64 simply was defending against this, saying that photography just has to be photography to be art.

 

 

My point is that a photograph needs not be digitally manipulated nor made to look like a painting to be a departure from the "realistic" or to be an interpretation of the artists vision.

 

a strong image is a strong image regardless.

[van_camper]

I wasn't able to see any major difference in your small photos, if bigger I probably would. For now I saw mainly a difference in the gate. As far as I am concerned it STILL looks like a photo, to look like a painting you need to cut down a lot more detail. You leave the viewer confused, as if your not sure what you want it to be. To pull it off, you need to distort the image enough that no sign of photography is visible. I like the idea, but you can't have it looking both ways!

[billangel]

Re:> "I wasn't able to see any major difference in your small photos..."

 

If you click on the small versions of the images, it should bring up

the pages displaying the larger versions, which will fill the screen.

[oskar_ojala]

thank you for this post, it's informative in specifying which plug-in you used and to what effect. I don't think the artistic merits of the image, group f/64 manifestos or that has anything to do with it; this is another potential tool that one can consider using.

[mark__5]

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"

 

Ansel Adams

 

I thought this to be very appropriate.

[billangel]

As a previous poster has pointed out:

<BR><BR>

"...this is the 'digital darkroom' forum and it seems that discussion of techniques is what belongs here, not philosophy. There's another forum for that...."

<BR><BR>

With that in mind, I've posted another image utilizng the Virtual Painter plugin called <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2472871">Discarded Gasoline Pumps and Tires</a>

<BR><BR>

My intent was not to produce a pretty picture in the tradition or style of a 19th century painter working in oils, but rather to produce a distinctive and provocative treatment of a scene that a traditional artist would avoid. Please feel free to critique the image, but any discussion in this thread should be about the techniques that I used, and not about the image's value as a work of art.

[rodolfo_negrete]

I wonder if this could be done in phtoshop with out the plugin?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[billangel]

Rodolfo:

 

The following site claims to offer a "freeware" plugin for PhotoShop

to impart "painterly" artistic effects.

 

http://photoshop.msk.ru/as/simplifier.html

 

You might wish to try downloading and using the software, and then report back to the group as to its usefullness.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Thanks for digging up a 4 year old thread I would've never had seen.

 

The fact that a group had to be formed speaks more about the photographer than it does

about photography. Foto Fascism...mmh has a nice ring to it.

 

However, I agree, I really don't like a photo made to look like a painting but I don't think a

group needs to be established to point out this obvious error in taste.

[curtisneeley]

I am simply trying to be world famous as fast as possible.

<a href="http://www.Groupf16.org">Groupf16.org</a> and <a

href="http://www.figurenude.com">figurenude.com</a> are simply starts.

It was 4 years old? Sorry if it troubled.