There is a difference!

A convincing example, and a negative example at that, that photography is a medium quite different from any other such as painting, one needs look no further than the work of Julia Fullerton-Batten displayed in the most recent internet Hasselblad Newsletter. Presented are photographs of staged reproductions of some rather well known paintings. Compared with the original paintings, her photographs look lifeless. The same lifelessness appears in work that does not attempt to copy a known painting but attempts to be painterly, such as the Themes beachfront picture.
When viewing a photograph our expectations are of a different sort than when viewing a painting. We really don’t expect or appreciate the kind of formality that is contained in a painting when looking at a photograph. Even a photograph of a landscape has an immediacy that a formal landscape painting lacks, although a painting has other virtues.
Take a look at the Newsletter. What is your impression? Incidentally, I am not denying her technical ability, which is quite amazing.

A) How about a link to that Newsletter?

B) Please reframe your point: you seem unaware of better studio photographers than Fullerton-Batten (such as Penn and Avedon) as well as many landscape photographers...for example Michael Berman http://michaelpberman.com/about/
and Sebastiao Salgado https://www.icp.org/exhibitions/sebastião-salgado-genesis

Granted, neither photographer produces the usual crowd-pleasing mountains/cloud images.

Do we really need convincing that photography is very different from painting? Just as sculpture is very different from playing an instrument...it's all a form of art.

cramej said:

Do we really need convincing that photography is very different from painting? Just as sculpture is very different from playing an instrument...it's all a form of art.

Click to expand...

No. This is obvious. It is an attempted controversy where no controversy exists.

guangong said:

When viewing a photograph our expectations are of a different sort than when viewing a painting. We really don’t expect or appreciate the kind of formality that is contained in a painting when looking at a photograph.

Click to expand...

Is that so?

cramej said:

Do we really need convincing that photography is very different from painting? Just as sculpture is very different from playing an instrument...it's all a form of art.

Click to expand...

faberryman said:

Yes. It is an attempted controversy where no controversy exists.

Click to expand...

Next they'll try to convince us that we need to be convinced that birds & fishes are different creatures.

Helios 1984 said:

Next they'll try to convince us that we need to be convinced that birds & fishes are different creatures.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not convinced yet. Fish fly and birds swim...


A more thorough read of the article reveals that only one painting (John Everett Millais’ Ophelia) is recreated and, in fact, is done quite well. The entire series is about the River Thames and inspired by events or stories that happened there.

I agree - controversy where none exists.

https://www.hasselblad.com/news/the-tales-of-old-father-thames-julia-fullerton-batten/

guangong said:

When viewing a photograph our expectations are of a different sort than when viewing a painting. We really don’t expect or appreciate the kind of formality that is contained in a painting when looking at a photograph.

Click to expand...

AgX said:

Is that so?

Click to expand...

I believe he's got a point here. For instance, you rarely see multiple subjects in a photograph outside of group portrait photography, whereas it's quite common in painting. There is also usually less narrative and symbolism in a photograph compared to painting. I'm not saying you can't find photographs that demonstrate multiple subjects, a larger narrative, or symbolism. I'm just saying that overall, it's less common.

I believe a large part of that is that in most photographs, not every element is considered. Nor is the narrative determined by the artist prior to the taking of the photograph. Photographers have a tendency to work with what they are given. It's less common for a photographer to have a vision, and then recreate that vision for a camera. Whereas a painter must consider every object that they paint. Everything on canvas must be deliberate, at least in it's creation, if not conception.

An example would be "Venus and Mars" by Botticelli. There are tiny wasps in the painting that are a nod to the Vespucci family who commissioned it. Vespucci means "tiny wasp". This isn't the type of thing most photographers would include in their photos. How many photographers would add a small detail like that, especially at the risk of themselves and their models, just for an obscure symbolic reference? Some might. But it's not common. Yet in painting, practices like this are quite common.

I think it is luck experience and creativity, sensitivity, imagination as well.

I've been in many museums and art galleries around the world and to me paintings are not all the same, just as photos are not the same and always sharp, in focus.
Paintings with photographic details and real light schema are nothing unusual and common. It could be today's painters who could paint to make it looks exactly like photographs.
Or it is old school big names with realistic light representation. I look at some of their paintings just as the practical guide for my photography. I often would study the painting to understand how light adds to it and I use these principals in my photography.

And it could be creative photographers who abolished gear heads dogmas like "must be sharp and in focus" and their work gives exactly the same impression as many painting do.

On another side, I'm not AA follower, not landscapes die-hard, but then I looked at Adams photos, they looks like art and more like paintings. Yet, it is in focus and sharp.

So, it is not this primitive and vs if you are willing to open your mind and use your diffusive, inner part, not just staring at the image with to pairs of eyes.
Many landscapes and portraits are not sharp and not perfectly in focus. Would it be painting or photo. Yet, it somehow more effectively triggers inner vision, imagination in you.

But it might be hard to try and explore with Hasselblad. Try it with Holga.

guangong said:

We really don’t expect or appreciate the kind of formality that is contained in a painting when looking at a photograph.

Click to expand...

How so? Not really.

guangong said:

Even a photograph of a landscape has an immediacy that a formal landscape painting lacks, although a painting has other virtues.

Click to expand...

Since when?

You are just stirring the pot. There is nothing there and there is no controversy. Much ado about a lack of nothing.

but could someone paint a gregory crewdsom photograph using a paper towel,
or paint a room 2 coats in 1 hour ?
that's the real question.
BTW the reason why her photographs were not like paintings
is because she was using a hasselhoff and zeiss lens.
if she used something else, anythng else maybe her images wouldn't
have been so clinical and lifeless.

And I was thinking that pictorialism is death since First World War.

OP...photography can be used in all sorts of ways. Personally I don't like staged, mental masturbation photos. I like candid social documentary work. Others have said they find photos of people boring and like landscapes. That is the beauty of photography, there are so many choices to concentrate one's eye on. A photo is not a book, a dance, a drawing, a song or a sculpture. It is just one of the many arts in the aforementioned list that a practitioner can use to make sense of their world.

slackercrurster said:

OP...photography can be used in all sorts of ways. Personally I don't like staged, mental masturbation photos. I like candid social documentary work. Others have said they find photos of people boring and like landscapes. That is the beauty of photography, there are so many choices to concentrate one's eye on. A photo is not a book, a dance, a drawing, a song or a sculpture. It is just one of the many arts in the aforementioned list that a practitioner can use to make sense of their world.

Click to expand...

First, I must apologize for not providing a link. I wrote this thread on my iPhone but my three and a half grandson was not available for technical assistance so I had to give reference solely from memory.
Still, I find the attempt to use photography as a way to imitate painting not only something from a long ago time but also somewhat lifeless. The keen eye of an A A landscape still has the vitality of a captured moment. A Cezanne landscape draws its power and vitality t from his ability to move his mountains and choose his palette to achieve his intentions.
Yes, in a way I was trolling, just to read what others had to say. APUG is populated with a sharp bunch of photographers and I enjoyed reading all of their remarks, especially those who disagreed.
Still away from home. This also from my iPhone.