Photography ruined realistic paintings like to what the movies have done book. Why expending lot of time to reproduce a landscape on canvas if you can have it quickly done by the machina?
Its a whole different art form! I hate when painters and drawers think they are soooo much better than photographers. It takes major skill to make a good photo!
because its all in the fun of it.
a photo takes a few seconds to actually shoot it (adjust the focus/aperture/f stop/ect if its slr or dslr), and if its digital and it doesnt come out right it takes a few more minutes and shots to get it right. if its film, well, its a bit of a guessing game.
painting, on the other hand, the fun is in the process. it takes hours for most people to make a painting (im on the fast side, and its just like an hour or two for me sometimes), and then they go back and rework it and what not sometimes.
and the feel of painting... its relaxing, its exciting... its whatever you want it to be. and it has texture, its something that is more tangible (to me at least) than a photo, especially if the photo is shown on the computer.
not that one takes more or less skill than the other, they just feel different. i personally have found that decent painters can take decent photos (they have the eye for it) but decent photographers cant make as decent paintings, cause they dont have the hand-eye coordination that is built up over time.
Trust me, drawers and painters cannot automatically take good pictures. I go to school with someone who is living proof and I went to an art class that also proved this.
I do understand what you mean about the relaxing part though. I love being able to sit down and work on a drawing for hours and finally see the end result.
But for me, photography is the same way. When I know my pictures are turing out well, I feel excited and comfortable and relaxed. I think people who don't have respect for photography really haven't seen GOOD photos. Because there are an enormous amount of mediocre pics out there.
Trust me, drawers and painters cannot automatically take good pictures. I go to school with someone who is living proof and I went to an art class that also proved this.
oh im well aware, its not a 100% of the time thing. ive always noticed that photo students simply cant draw or paint. there was a girl in my figure drawing class who was a photo major and she drew stick figures... literally. but sometimes, they can, and some can quite well.
its just a different way of looking at things. im alright in both drawing/painting and photography. ive got a few gems in both, as well as many pieces of crap in both.
This is a pointless battle because who ever does either will try to make everyone think that their side is better.
Personally, I prefer film photography because I like the feel of using the camera to manipulate light to how I want it to looks, and then taking that further when I get to develop my photos. I can further alter the photo with light or different chemicals or different processes.
I've noticed that painters/sketchers/drawers tend to feel superior to photographers because, "it's and art where the image is just given to you. you don't have to create it."
Most of the people that have said that to me have never looked into all the different aspects of the camera that cause photography to take just as much (if a different set) skill as any other form of art.
Aug 04 '08 by
Torakamikaze on Aug 04 '08 at 6:24pm
