lightbrush kids "Flora"

I've been looking at this and wondering what makes painting with a light-brush any better than carefully controlled studio lighting. For that matter what makes it superior to (ugh) painting with PhotoShop? I guess it could be argued that painting with a light brush is more purely photographic than painting with pixels. On the other hand it could be argued that painting with paint is more painterly than painting with a flashlight.

 

As a founding member of the cropping squad, I thought about cropping this on the top (get rid of the patch of blue) and the right. I thought a tighter composition might have more impact. Then I reconsidered and decided the problem was largely due to the relatively small viewing size shown here.

 

I was wondered if this photo was created for the photographer's own artistic interests, or if it had been commissioned by a client? It appears to have involved extensive planning and preparation. I do like the effect and the overall appearance of this photo but I wondered if I would ever be interested in doing something similar myself. I think that this type of work would have to be near flawlessly executed in order to be effective. I'm not sure I could handle the frustrating experience of the learning curve. I also have a tendency towards thinking of photography as documenting things in real life. At the same time I realize that photography is mostly an illusion and can be bent to show the world as the photographer wants it to be.

 

This work is provocative in the sense that it challenges the boundaries between media and technique. Early photographers including the impressionist artists used painter's techniques when composing their own photographs. They also understood and employed photographic perspective in their paintings. The limiting factor with early photographic portraits was the long exposure times, making for some pretty stiff looking subjects. I imagine this photo could spark quite a conversation on the definitions of photography, art and computer animation. It's not really a new debate, just an ongoing one.

 

Compliments to the photographer.

 

I really love the lush, classical piece that you have created. It is a truly painterly work. Thank you for the pleasure of seeing it.

I didn't know such results were possible except with brush and paint. Absolutely breath taking. Magnificent!

Jesus! Back to 1890, but in living, vivid, excessive color. Yes it looks like a copy of a painting, but a 10th rate painting.

When I first saw this, I swore it was a painting. I'm still unsure! I've been seeing a lot lately about this painting with light technique, and just read what exactly it is. It is basically what I thought... but I'm amazed by this picture. First of all... how long do these people have to sit still for? Second of all... How did you get such amazing results? If I was ever going to even attempt such a photo, I wouldn't know where to start.

 

I'm really curious as to how long of a time period this was shot in, and from the description it seems that the background and models were shot seperately, or first background the models over it? I'm curious as to how long the models were sitting there.

 

This is a truely amazing photo and well worth the POW. It goes to 11. Amazing job and keep up the great work! Congradulations on the well deserved POW!

Kiev 88! I don't have one (I have a Kowa), but I am glad to be seeing that the Kiev 88 is getting some showing in POW land. The Kiev ain't bad (although i prefer Kowa Super 66 cuz i got one).

 

Bizarrely great image!

 

-Scott

The remarkable thing about this photograph is the "lightbrush" technique used to create it, which, as many have noted, makes it look like a painting. But -- Carravagio? Rembrandt? Give me a break. More like Maxfield Parrish, I think.

Really it is like a painting.A fine example to see

how one can use photography as

an art. Babujayan

Not to my taste, but an interesting piece of work. I would fall into the group who can't really see the point in making a photograph look like a painting, even if like this image the work is very well done. I think I would buy a print of a Caravaggio rather than this. The image obviously has flaws (the feet etc.), as already pointed out, and the technique seems unduly combersome but, if you are prepared to do the work ... why not. I think that with such long exposures, you are creating a rod for your own back. The image has lovely textures and colours and certainly has been cause for discussion ... the whole point of POW as I understand it and therefore a good choice.

 

By the way if one of these two is the mother, then she must have given birth very young! To me the models look to be of very similar age.

38 comments and no photoshop debate? Is this a first?

 

Oh, and for the moderator, I like the warm color values in this week's POW.

 

(subliminal comment: Light painting: Good; Photoshop: Bad. ---Discuss)

 

Also for the moderator, how about placing a link to the POW on every member's workspace? If you can't do it for every member, how about just doing it for me?

The affect you get from moving one low watt light source quickly and uniformly over the subject can not be duplicated with studio lights or PS. It is very hard to control. Look at the brightest spot. It's there because Jorg wanted to bring out detail in the dark sleave below it, so you're dealing with issues of reflectivity, distance between light and subject - remember the 'inverse square law', time of 'exposure' of the light over each small area of the subject, and trying to remember where you're been so you won't 'double expose'.

 

The facial expression is 'captured' only for the brief moment that light passes over it. She could get up and dance around the room half way through the exposure and you'd never know it.

that the woman on the left is looking out of the scene?

This is a totally splendid example of fine art in photography. Decades ago, my father made a few simple B&W photos using painted light, so I think I can imagine the enormous amount of effort required to produce this image. All I can say is thank you for sharing your vision and inspiration.

An outstanding work of art. The pose and composition work well, as do the harsh coloring. Reminds me of the paintings from the "old masters" that you see in various galleries. The appeal strikes me as strictly European and it is masterfully done. On first look I thought it was an oil painting, but the description details the work otherwise. This is about as close to "painting with light" as one can achieve.

prolly the least offensive of the folder despite the clumsy posing. again, claymores and mermaids and mysticism ain't my bag. i'm sure yer average middle-aged harry potter-loving loser would worship it.

 

but it ain't art,

 

me

 

p.s. it's impersonating art. and while it may be sincere flattery... it's not art.

This is a most remarkable work of art in photographic media I've ever seen. Besides, it is the proof that good photography can be made no matter what piece of equipment. I own a Kiev too. Mine is K60. BTW, my mother's name is Flora and also my elder sister.

 

Thanks for sharing such a marvelous work.

Is photography being used rightly when it is used to simulate old masters' style paintings? Of coures, there is no "right" way to use photography, however, the old painter guys, Rembrandt, et. al., have already made pictures like this. Isn't photography's destiny to create new styles? Or at least to firmly establish its own character? If that were true, you could say this POW was uncreative, that it was a copy cat of some old European painter. Isn't this what the F/64 group, and Edward Weston and all those guys sought to accomplish, that photography was separate from painting?

 

Just a thought.

Jorg, I'm not going to comment on your great photos (portfolio) for now, Ill do so when I have more time in my hands so I can appreciate your work to its full extent. Surely it is redundant to tell you how much we all (those without prejudice) admire your work. I can already give you a solid 10 for most of the photos in your folder, I cant help but to ask myself one question thoughdo you have a lot of experience in theatrical play or cinematography? Surely the characters, themes, lighting and backgrounds could be adopted from or inspired by looking at the great paintings of the masters, but where do you find the props for, and how do you get the inspirations for your photos? (You need not answer this question in the forum, you can answer me via e-mail if you want to, but dont feel forced to do so). In other words, to me all this speaks of someone who is actively involved in live theater drama. Is this where you get your inspiration ideas and maybe even the studio set up? One more thingin my opinion you need to work on the titles you give your photographs, some are kind of crude! Especially when considering how careful you were in creating them, it only makes more sense to pay just as much attention to the titles.

Congratulations Jorg, you know ,I appreciate all your work.You deserved this recognition.I love the extraordinary use of lighting on this one and on most of your works.Ciao,Anna

Doug asked:

 

"Is photography being used rightly when it is used to simulate old masters' style paintings? Of coures, there is no "right" way to use photography, however, the old painter guys, Rembrandt, et. al., have already made pictures like this. Isn't photography's destiny to create new styles? Or at least to firmly establish its own character?"

 

My response to this would be that nearly all forms of art borrow from the past, with varying degrees of cyclicallity. One art (?) form which most would be able to identify with - and which operates on a very short cycle - is fashion. Fashion designers are constantly borrowing from the past, yet progressively developing the style each time by adding their own unique twist.

 

Here we have a photographer who is developing a style that clearly borrows from painters of the past - his cycle is measured in centuries, not decades. Whatever, many have wondered how original any photograph can truly be, since literally every subject that one can possibly photograph has been done before. To me, originality stems from the treatment of the subject and, if applicable, the (continued) development of a style with roots long established by artisans (including other photographers) of the past.

While I can appreciate the craftsmanship, I don't really care for this picture in any way. To me it is simply corny. As for photographic "painting", I much prefer the SX-70 manipulation done by a master of that such as Michael Going. Checkout www.goinggallery.com if you want to see some very artful and contemporary work.

BRAVO!!!

This is the first time I have the privilege to see such beautiful work of art. Mr. Grundler, you have inspired me, and showed me the endless possibilities of working with lights. THANK YOU

"There are outsiders, for whom Flora is not even photography, because it was not created by conventional means."

 

Of course it is. Your'e looking at what he saw. He provided his own light source. There is no manipulation of any kind, although as I've said, I think a color correction or a different choice of filter to produce a different color temperature would have been more to my liking, but that's a difference in taste, nothing more.

 

"As for photographic "painting", I much prefer the SX-70 manipulation done by a master of that such as Michael Going. "

 

These would be in an alternative process category, along with a host of other traditional and nontraditional processes. To compare the two is to show little appreciation for the distinction between capturing and creating. While Jorg does use setups rather than recording the 'real' world', it is still a pure form of capturing light . . . . as opposed to distorting it.

yes, that's it exactly. corny is quite sellable though. you perfect this 'style' jorg and yer liable to be the next anne geddes.

 

still, i'd rather be poor,

 

me

Too poor to post photos to photo.net ??? Sorry!

Thanks for all comments. I´ll write more soon, but here is a lot work to do...