Maggie's Farm

Out of curiosity, what's the name of your Dobie?

That's an interesting question.

It can't be immediacy or we'd all be using Polaroid technology to satisfy that urge. When photography became a popular technology, widely adapted by the masses, it took almost four weeks from taking the picture to actually receiving it in the mail - and that was in 1888, the Brownie #2 camera cost $1 preloaded with 117 film. Eastman's Kodak's corporate motto was "You push the button, we do the rest". Up until the late seventies when that it took close to two weeks to get a roll of film developed by an outside processor, that automated machinery was developed that could open a canister, process the film, produce photographs on paper and get the film back to you in a couple of days.

Even when you consider the advent of digital photography, it still takes some time to properly download, adjust and print images that you may or may not want to keep. Admittedly not as long as three weeks, but maybe a day or two. So I think that the underlying premise of immediate gratification is kind of bogus to tell the truth.

Now, with respect to "are too lazy to learn to paint", well that is just elitist crazy talk. :>)

Photography is just another method of portraying and/or expressing a viewpoint, idea, concept or candid moment. In fact, I would posit that photography allows the artist the ability to capture the moment "in situ" if you will - a candid moment that a painter or sketch artist would never be able to properly capture or express adequately. I would point to one of the greatest images ever caught on film - "Moonrise over Herdandez, New Mexico" by Ansel Adams as an example of being able to capture that one single moment in time that a painter would never be able to replicate adequately.

Proper photography requires the same "sense" of light, movement, position, angle, perspective, colors, etc. - in short all the same tools that a painter would use to capture a scene - only the methodology is different. I would even take it one step further and say that from a technical standpoint, photography is much more representative of a true art than painting because of it's dual nature - the immediate capture of a scene that is a single moment in time or a deliberate, focused attempt to create an emotional impression in which things are staged, effects produced, etc. What is the difference between still life as a painting and still life as a photograph? I would say nothing if both were equal in presentation.

He told me painting is teaching him to see.

Is it that learning how to paint is teaching him to "see" in the sense that it is helping him create better images or is it more a case of learning how to represent what he sees?

The eye and the camera both "see" differently - the eye is seeing the subject in three dimensions and the camera is "seeing" the subject in two. There are technical ways to overcome the two dimensional problem with photography using a concept called bokeh, good aperture control and focusing. With painting, the technique is a little different because proper and correct use of perspective creates that sense of depth because it directly representing what the eye sees.

That is why I asked that question because the two concepts, while similar, are different.

Must have been an intriguing discussion.

People tend not to see what is there but to see what they THINK is there. On this law rests all of the other problems in teaching art.

Also true in photography - you said it much more elegantly that I did.

And yes, digital cameras now do what we used to do in the darkroom. But that doesn't make for a good image.

I've had an ongoing argument with one of my professional photographer friends for years about composition and what it really is and isn't. Much too much to try and define here. :>)