As said before, the way watercolour reacts on paper is unique and almost impossible to recreate through digital means. It is more difficult to emulate the look of watercolour digitally than it is to do for oil (in my limited experience). They are much richer in color and provide a more 3-dimensional feel through the use of techniques like impasto. Oils, on the other hand, actually never “dry” as there is no use of water in the process and hence one can work on an oil painting indefinitely till one is satisfied. The way watercolour spreads and the pigments accumulate when wet paper is used is very typical and characteristic of the medium which gives it that “ethereal” look. Watercolour has a “transparent” look and the subsequent layers of painting interact with each other very differently than in oil which is an opaque medium. It would help immensely, though, to know the nuances and typical looks of the two most important painting mediums, watercolour and oil. Is Knowledge of Paintings Necessary for Creating Photo Art? Though I am yet to figure out what are the factors in the composition/color/contrast of a photograph that make for good painterly conversions, in general: photos with a dominant subject, not an overly simplified background and no details of importance placed near the edges make better photo art. So there is some kind of a “keeper” ratio involved here too. I have also noticed that even within the same genre, some photographs make for very good painterly effects whereas some others simply don’t work. These are my personal observations and are in no way conclusive. Any photograph that depends mostly on details and micro-contrast for its visual appeal-namely, macro photographs-may not make a good subject for photo art as it is not possible to show such details in a painterly version due to the inherent nature of paintings.
Which Kind of Photos are More Suitable for Photo Art?Īny kind of photograph should make a good candidate for digital painting though still life, portraits and landscapes fare better as these were the predominant subjects for traditional painting. Breaking down the photograph into layers of progressive features so as to emulate the look of a painting.Removing details-partly or fully-from selective areas of the photograph, and.Making painterly photo art from photographs, therefore, involves two important steps/approaches that are counter-intuitive to a photographer’s way of working. A photograph, on the other hand, comes up fully developed in an instant. A painter builds up the painting through successive processes starting with an underpainting and then going on to add details of varying levels wherever he wants. The other difference being painting is iterative whereas photography is instantaneous. In other words, a photograph depicts everything that is in front of the camera faithfully whereas a painter might leave out parts of a subject or depict them with broad strokes so as to only indicate their existence leaving the viewer to imagine the details.
A photograph is descriptive whereas a painting is often indicative. Within the limited scope of this article and what would be more relevant for creating photo art, we need to be aware of two very specific differences in the languages that are used in photography and painting. Part II – Tools and Techniques Separate Idioms KuvatovaĬontinuing from where we left off in the Part I, the above goes on to indicate that photography, since its early days, has contributed to how fine art painting has taken shape and changed course. They caught their subjects at unusual angles and often framed their artworks in a photographic rather than painting way.”įrom “Impressionism: The History, The Artists, The Masterpieces” by V. “The impressionist painters mixed compositional methods used by photography and Japanese art and developed quite a new approach to painting.
Photography taught painters to praise an ‘accidental’ natural look of the artworks.” “The appearance of photography with its dissolved compositional center and melted boundaries between the subject and the background contributed a lot to the new aesthetic vision.
0 kommentar(er)
