Photos vs Paintings

What's the difference between a photo and a painting? I would argue that painting requires more skill and more time than taking (and processing) a photo, but, in terms of the end result, what's the difference? After all, paintings can be made to be hyper-realistic, and photos can be processed in a way to look like a camera was never used.

The AI response to the question in a google search was:

Photography and painting, while both visual art forms, differ significantly in how they capture and present reality. Photography, generally, is a representational art form, capturing a specific moment in time with a mechanical device, while painting allows for more artistic interpretation and manipulation of light, color, and form, often with abstract or impressionistic possibilities.

I agree that they differ significantly in how they "capture reality", but how they "present reality" is entirely up to the artist/photographer based on how they paint / process the photo, and both could accomplish the same as the other (given enough time and assuming they had the skills to do so). So, I'm going to have to disagree with the AI response.

If I were asked the question, I would say that in most cases, photography is a quick way to record "reality" (much quicker than painting a realistic scene and requiring significantly less skill) with the intent to record (and/or present) a scene that actually happened/existed. Photography can be used to present the surreal and/or abstract, but, in general, it isn't used that way, just as paintings can be used to present something "real", but usually aren't. Even a painter sitting with paints and a canvas painting a scene isn't trying to paint something "real" -- they'd just use a camera for that. Rather, they're trying to paint a scene based on reality. Photographers, on the other hand, are typically (but not always), trying to take and present a photo of something real in a realistic (albeit often embellished) manner.

To this end, I googled the following Landscape Photo and Landscape Painting. For me, the photos, despite processed in a way that was not "realistic" in the sense that the scene would look like that if you were there, were significantly more appealing than the paintings because they looked more realistic. But if they were "too real", they would lose much of their "artistic appeal".

That's but one example, of course. I could do the same with portraits, street scenes, etc.. But I'm thinking that, on the whole, I would prefer the photos because they are "more realistic". Not every time, of course, but mostly. Others, of course, would prefer the paintings because, for example, they "capture the essence of the scene without distraction", or something like that (I'm not good at art, either in creating it or talking about it, so apologies if I sound disparaging with regards to paintings -- that's not my intent).

So, what do y'all think?

Looking at Brueghels country life scenes I am impressed by the way he manages to describe how people lived at that time. A time travelling photographer would have had problems with depth of field but also with catching all the various activities at the same instant without staying in the same place for a long time , making numerous exposures and merging them.

So I conclude that a sharp observer can record a more accurate representation of life than anyone passing by even with the most technically advanced camera. However, painting accurate scenes will take a long time both to perform and to learn.The trick some paint masters used was to employ assistants who could contribute to the process.

As for non realistics and abstraction, "Artificial incompetence", AI, is an excellent tool if fed with enough photos.

p.

But the painter would have had to also stay in the same place for a long time (or visit the same place multiple times), too. So no difference there, really.

Sure, but the two are not mutually exclusive. How about a sharp observer who paints vs a sharp observer who takes photos?

Absolutely!

For reference: petapixel.com/2022/08/16/these-are-not-photos-beautiful-landscapes-created-by-new-ai/. As I said in another thread, I think the vast majority of photography done with dedicated cameras today will be able to be done with a smartphone and advanced AI in the near future.

No 2D image captures "reality", it is not possible, they are all abstractions of a kind.

With a camera that conversion is mechanical. All the photographer needs to do is press a button and the camera creates that 2D representation for them. A good photographer may understand how that process works, how for instance aperture and shutter speed choice add DoF and motion blur, how lens choice appears to distort. The artistic photographer may understand how to create images that connect to our memories and emotions, the technical photographer can extract a level of detail and realism beyond that of the skills of a snap shooter.

But the camera still does the work. You see the 3D reality and the camera creates the 2D representation.

When you paint you have to do that conversion yourself. For instance, it is not possible to paint every leaf on every tree in every colour and shade that is true reality. You, the painter, has to decide what marks you make and where you make them on the canvas in order that the total sum of those marks when seen as a whole form a representation or a coherent image that resonates with the viewer's memory. Or in the case of our wooded landscape, how to reflect the real beauty of nature without using realism. Even with photo-realism, where artists generally started with a photograph and often used a grid to copy, you have to decide how to make the marks that when seen as a whole will resemble a photo (they mostly used air brushes to avoid brush marks I think...).

For sure. Nothing records "reality", not even our brains. I'm just saying that a photo from a camera is closer to "objective reality" than a painting, unless the painting is one of those hyper-realistic paintings.

In regards to the original question, what's the difference between a photo and a painting, given that either can be transformed to the other (given enough talent and time)? Back in the day, before cameras, some painters may have seen paintings in the same way we see photos today. But what about today? How do people see paintings as opposed to photos? In my opinion, photos are perceived as "more real" than paintings (unless the photo is heavily processed, so much so, that it even looks like digitally created art and the painting isn't hyper-realistic).

In other words, in my opinion there's a fundamental difference between a photo and a painting. Pencil art and charcoal art have more in common with a painting than does a photo. And that difference is based on the perception of the photo being more "realistic". That said, I'm thinking others may see it completely differently. Some may see neither as more "objectively real" than the other. If so, why photography instead of painting. Or why not both? Is it simply a matter of convenience, time, and/or talent and has nothing to do with any king of "reality" that they are representing? If all photographers had the skills and talent necessary to paint, and time were not an issue, would we do both more or less equally and for the same reasons? Or is there a reason we would do one instead of the other?

I think you may be confusing this with the difference between a forum photographer and a painter:

The photographer is always trying to link the image to some objective reality, how the object is described by science, some objective truth that exists as a common theme that is a constant 'reality" that human experience can always be measured "relative" to.

The painter has always understood that there is not truth in an object. Their marks on the canvas are always understood to be illusion, and an illusion relative only to human perception and memory. There is no scientific data recorded, simply the marks on the paper and how we interpret those against out experience an memory.

No, not at all. In Greco-Roman times infinity was a concept rather than a mathematical truth and so there is no common vanishing point. Each object has perspective but lived in it's own space. Through the middle ages the church held power and pictures represented the exact 2D reality that they were, no creating false images. Even in the Renaissance, supposedly based on scientific discovery, it was about creating illusion and not reality. Pigments were naturally based and very limited, so no saturated colour and very limited pigments that were really vibrant. Once mixed these always moved away from saturation never towards so the basic colour palette was always restricted. Then add in the transport medium that the pigment was dissolved in (oil/water/gum/egg) and how they combined, or how you applied and layered the paint to produce the effect you required from smooth gradation to sharp line. It has never been possible to recreate the scientific reality of an object with the medium of paint because (a) it simply isn't possible to do it with the medium, and (b) you're using your human perception as both guide and measure of the "reality" in both the initial object and the "truth" if the representation. There is no "capture" independent of human perception and based primarily on the real transmission of light from the object as you get with a camera.

So yes there is a fundamental difference between a photo and a painting. They have never been interchangeable, in fact it is only with modern materials and process that we can create the photorealistic illusion with paint.

I don't get this need to be relating everything to a common "underlying truth", and for it to be the same as we use to measure our photography, the metrics we understand, science. It's like insted of trying to expand our vocabulary and understanding we just re-order the words we already know to get what we don't understand to fit inside what we already do. In this there is no learning only the illusion that we do.

No. We look at a painting and primarily see something we can't create ourselves. It is always unique, it is always from the imagination of somebody else. We look at a photo and we know the place exists and that we can go there and photograph it (much, much, better) ourselves. And we often do. It is rarely the unique vision of a single imagination and especially not these days when we all have access to a camera and are all versed in skills to do it.

If you did then I guarantee that your opinion would change. By actually painting you would be forced to understand the process of making coherent marks on a canvas and would expand your vocabulary to understand the concept; "there is no truth in an object". You would also be more critical of paintings in general as you would then be able to do it (much, much, better) yourself.

I think anyone risks getting into terrible tangles if they start to make generalisms of any kind when talking about art forms. It's tempting but unwise. Your charcoal case, for example : www.brucepercy.co.uk/1817#/fjallabak-minimalism-17/

For many people, especially those who are active on camera forums like DPR, super-sharp, super detailed, super realistic photographs seem to be very important. In my photography, I often find I'm trying to suppress detail by various means such as fog, grain, snow, shallow dof, long exposures, minimalist composition.

I also find I'm often trying to suppress depth, aiming for very flat 2D renderings (for a painting world counterpart, think Mondrian as inpiration). There are many ways of doing photography that may have correspondence with painting that don't require artificially making your image 'painterly' in photoshop...

(click the postage stamp sized images at the bottom of this post for the high res versions)

Where I think photography is very different is in its ability to portray fleeting moments in real time. A painter, of course, can portray a fleeting moment, but it has to be from their memory/imagination as painting takes far too long. Photography can record unexpected stuff, simply because of the speed of the process.

One thing that photography and painting often do have in common is the particular quirks of observation of the artist.

I can't paint or draw at all, nor can I create images in my mind out of thin air, so I suspect that even if I could paint, photography would still be my medium of choice. In a lot of photography you 'find' your subject through observation rather than create it. After that, it is down to your skills as to how you render it.