How to improve photography through the art of painting

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The idea is to improve my photography skills through the eyes of painters and the way they set up composition and the style they used.

 

I wondered if anyone knew some useful books where different painters' styles were described and explained. My main target would be portraiture, landscape, and a bit of architecture.

 

I know I'm asking about the book about everything, but maybe someone could give me some hints/directions.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Peter H]

This is an excellent way to think about photography, although you must not forget that photography is a very different thing from painting. But thinking about the differences as well as the similarities may also be highly instructive and inspiring.

 

I'd strongly recommend reading one of the classic books on the history of art: The Story of Art by EH Gombrich. I'm sure anyone interested in visual arts will find it fascinating and helpful, and liberating to your imagination too!

[Michael Hiles]

I can't recommend a specific book, but the idea is absolutely solid. Look at pictures! Learn aboute classical ideas about composition. Understand the ideas behind the golden section. The natural sense of form will gradually become important and second nature, and your pictures will improve in subtle but important ways. There is more to it than intuition and hoping for the best.

 

I recently saw a short video of a Romanian photographer who spent a day shooting with Henri Cartier Bresson. In the video we saw a picture by Cartier and roughly the same picture by the Romanian. Cartier's picture was better even though the subject was essentially the same - the difference was slight differences in the geometry of the composition. Cartier understood the power of geometry and the other guy didn't get it quite right. Neither picture was memorable, but Cartier's was much better. This can be learned and nothing is better than looking carefully at paintings.

[stuny]

Visit good art museums, some of which are at large universities. Many offer free docent tours.

[sblitz]

i think it's a great place to start, and as Stu mentioned there are plenty of museums to go to see art. BUT, and there is always one of those, early photographers (HCB among them) transferred what they learned in art school in regard to composition and even color (not HCB) to how they took a photograph. Since then, I think many have since broken that plane so a good more modern photo book might be of use as well.. always good, however, to start with the basics.

[elgenper]

This link may be of interest. Adam Marelli is quite good at explaining the connections you´re after. There are quite a few other gems on his site as well.

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I were going to read one art book, it would be the one Peter H recommends, The Story of Art by Gombrich. As for learning from painting, the most effective way os through sketching: although it's hard to discipline oneself to do it, in my view, one can understand the composition of a painting by sketching it schematically, for which one doesn't have to be very good at drawing. But then, if one goes on further, drawing is very rewarding for itself and for either painting or photography, because drawing is, in effect, learning how to see. As for color, look at the painters whose color you like: take your choice, Vermeer, Gauguin, Cezanne, Caravaggio — one could go on and on.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[Paul J]

I love painting. I started off painting and think it helped me a lot because you have to construct your composition from a blank canvas and that is how I treat my photography. From concept I start with a blank page.

[Jeff S]

Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain

 

The concepts for drawing translate well to painting and photography. Inverting the drawing (one of many techniques presented), for instance, is somewhat analogous to using a view camera to improve compositional skills.

 

Recommended.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

As others have rightly said, the Gombrich book has been the definitive guide for many years, it is well worth having on your bookcase if for no other reason it is a great book.

 

For examples of how painting has influenced photographers in the past, look no further than a Google search on 'Pictorialism'. It was pre-mature dead end in photography, simply because it was affected by a lack of clarity (in both senses, visual and intellectual) at a time when high resolution was becoming possible in the 1900's. The painterly images of the Pictorialists had many great success's with photographers like Steichen, Stieglitz, Coburn etc. Look at Josef Sudek for a very European slant on a similar style. But it was more to do with the intentional degradation of the image, to express a feeling, but people like Adams and Weston were starting out and going in the other direction of sharp resolution that caused its downfall. Today you could say Pictorialism is alive and well in the iPhone generation and their apps. using 'expressive' filters. Ideas about Pictorialism have evolved and many photographers have got over the need for resolution simply because quest for ultimate resolution in itself is another dead end. So look for the work of Sally Mann as an example of the new expression of making photographs in a painterly way.

 

Steve

[Bill Allsopp]

.........you must not forget that photography is a very different thing from painting.

 

Why?

[Bill Allsopp]

Look at pictures!

 

a great suggestion. Although I have no recommendations on books of the type you suggest I would recommend you look at the work of Salgado (Genesis) and Edward Hopper whose work could so easily be photographs with a little imagination.

[Jeff S]

Since some mention Gombrich,

with Charlie Rose may be of interest.

 

His interest in music prompts the thought that music, and interest in life in general, which Gombrich seems to embrace, all help to improve one's photography, directly or indirectly.

 

Jeff

[stunsworth]

Why?

 

Because photography will (roughly) capture the geometry of what ever is put in front of the lens. With painting the artist has the ability to 'make stuff up' if what he sees doesnt fit with his vision. So painting can be an idealised version of what the artist sees, where ad te photographer has to, largely, work with what's there. It's a different way of seeing.

[Bill Allsopp]

Because photography will (roughly) capture the geometry of what ever is put in front of the lens. With painting the artist has the ability to 'make stuff up' if what he sees doesnt fit with his vision. So painting can be an idealised version of what the artist sees, where ad te photographer has to, largely, work with what's there. It's a different way of seeing.

 

But that does not mean that what is captures has to stay where it is, nor that things cannot be added with modern tools. (If that is what one wants to do of course.)

So .....photography.... can be an idealised version of what the artist sees ......

[Peter H]

"You must not forget that photography is a very different thing from painting."

 

Why?

 

 

Photography is a very different thing from painting. It has a very different relationship with the world outside and the mind inside the artist.

 

There is a huge amount to be learned from paintings from antiquity through to modern times that can help a photographer to think about his or her photography and hopefully to improve it. But If you don't think seriously about the differences between the two media you won't learn as much from looking at paintings, or photographs, as you could.

[NZDavid]

A fascinating topic and question. Both painting and photography are a creative response to the world. Each form can benefit the other.

 

For example, have you thought of trying the other approach? Try to sketch and paint a scene based on one of your photographs. A landscape is ideal. This exercise teaches you about composition and makes you realize how incredibly detailed even an apparently simple scene can be. Is there too much detail? Could you vary the scene for more impact? Is the balance between foreground, middle ground, and background about right? Where is the eye drawn?

 

I tried this a few years ago with a picture of Manarola, one of the Italian Cinque Terre villages, but was not entirely pleased with light and perspective. A mountain scene may be easier.

 

Some inspirational paintings: Landscapes by Turner, Canaletto, and also Italian Renaissance painters such as Giorgione for subjects combining people, architecture, and landscape.

 

For portraits, the Dutch masters such as Rembrandt, and Leonardo. Handling of light is wonderful. Try to imagine if these were photographs what lens might have been used. Perhaps a 50 Summicron for the Dutch masters; a 35 'cron or 'lux for Leonardo? All in available light of course, no flash. Chiaroscuro -- the handling of light and dark -- is important in painting as in photography.

 

Architecture: Once again, look at the Italian Renaissance paintings for composition and perspective.

[stunsworth]

But that does not mean that what is captures has to stay where it is, nor that things cannot be added with modern tools. (If that is what one wants to do of course.)

 

That's true, but the painter is able to play around with perspective, and the spatial relationships between objects in the painting in a way that isn't always possible with say Photoshop.

[Bill Allsopp]

I hope you realise I am just furthering discussions...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Peter H]

I agree with Steve, but I think it goes far further than that too.

 

A painter can imagine up anything and paint it. Some do. Those who don't, those who try to make their paintings as representationally realistic as possible, are making a conscious decision to do so. Whatever a painter does, whether they sit a model down in from of them and copy it as precisely as they can, or whether they dream up a field of colour or a row of dots, the painting comes from inside their heads because they make all the choices and decisions.

 

If they decide to try to make their painting look realistic, they have to consider how to do it (and why, but that's another interesting subject). This is one reason why some painters drifted away from representational painting, because they felt the "reality" of a subject went deeper than its external and traditional appearance. I saw a short film once in which Picasso said that the real world moves and the viewer moves but paintings stand still, so he wanted to change what paintings look like so they remind us of the true reality, not the frozen artificial representation we've come to expect from traditional paintings. Photography, though you can play around with long shutter speeds, montage, Photoshop and the rest, still has a very direct relationship with the light that fell from the outside world onto the film/sensor when the shutter was released. Painting doesn't. It originates in the mind of the painter and grows, via his imagination and his brushes, over whatever period of time he wishes.

 

They are so different and if we neglect these differences I think we'll miss much of the beauty that exists differently in both painting and photography.