I really thought these were photographs

[casioc...@gmail.com]

Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
these

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg

Or the light in these

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg

Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
curiosity.

We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
such appreciation may only come with hindsight.

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/

[Paul Heslop]

casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
>

this is super-realism, it's not new, by any means, but incredibly spot
on.

http://www.yoshiyuki-fukui.com/english-site/super-real/s.html

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

[Dave the Guy]

Very cool idea!

I've seen a lot of photo-realism paintings in the past decade and they
all look stunning from some distance away. You would be surprised at
how different these look when even moderately close, even up to 5-10
feet.

[Robert C.]

<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
the artist did a superb job.

--
~Robert C.

[casioc...@gmail.com]

Robert C. wrote:
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> >
>
> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
> the artist did a superb job.
>
> --
> ~Robert C.

This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg

But apparently it wasn't all he was working on, as he did plenty of
others in the 1980s, such as those in 1985 and 1986, respectivly

http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/321cntrygirl-dner85.jpg

What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
time one feels impatient.

[casioc...@gmail.com]

Robert C. wrote:
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> >
>
> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
> the artist did a superb job.
>
> --
> ~Robert C.

This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

[casioc...@gmail.com]

Robert C. wrote:
> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> >
>
> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality, and
> the artist did a superb job.
>
> --
> ~Robert C.

This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989

[Robert C.]

> What I find inspiring is how much easier it is to just click the
> shutter in photography, and yet to think of how much care he put into
> those paintings. It's amazing. Certainly something to think of next
> time one feels impatient.
>

Exactly.
Makes me think of something I read recently about digital shooters
(paraphrased): "I can shoot and then delete the ones that did not turn out
as I wanted or post edit them". I learned my photography in the days of
"manual cameras", and I still prefer to have complete control over my
photography, composing my pictures "in camera". My cameras: a Nikon FM2, a
Mamiya M645, and a Mamiya RB67.

[Colin D]

About the only thing I could find that gave away that they were
paintings is the lack of out-of-focus areas in the 'close-ups' of the
pepper, salt, and sauce images. Infinite depth of field doesn't look
quite right to a photog.

Colin D.

[Gene Palmiter]

But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine

<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

[Mark˛]

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
> like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
> technique...what message?

I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
-That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
of art!
-That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
bad habit I often fall into as well.

I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
colorles rock.
This is what I got:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original

It's not spectacular, but it's one of my favorite shots from my recent trip
(click on the image to see a small gallery of other shots from the same
trip).
My "boring" black rock might not be a masterpiece, but it's art--and so is
that "boring" katsup bottle.
:)
-Mark

[Frank ess]

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
> like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
> technique...what message?
>>

>> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the
>> gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the
>> composition in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
>>
>> Or the light in these
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
>>
>> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
>> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was
>> here
>> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for
>> later
>> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
>> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it
>> with curiosity.
>>
>> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
>> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true
>> that
>> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/

Gene Palmiter's three questions are three answers to his final
question.

[Colin D]

I also learned my photographic skills with manual cameras, a 5x4 Wista
monorail, Rolleiflex, Horseman and Mamiya MF cameras, and Pentax
Spotmatic 35mm cameras. I can have 'complete control' over my 300D if I
choose, and I compose my pictures 'in camera', that is, in the
viewfinder, just the same as you do with your three cameras.

Further, I can choose the ISO speed I shoot at for the particular shot,
which is not within the film photog's camera control without changing
film or backs.

The fact that some shooters say "I can shoot and then delete the ones
that did not turn out as I wanted or post edit them" should not be taken
as indicating that digital camera users are not capable of deliberate,
thoughtful composition and exposure. That assumption is often made by
film types, and marks them as not having much knowledge about digital's
capabilities.

Colin D.

[Paul Heslop]

Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
> not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>

I'm not sure, with super-realism but I think it was part of the
pop-art movement, and seemed to be a big americana thing. The images I
recall were always diners and shiny hotrods etc. Then there's the guy
who makes those 'sculptures' of tourists - Duane Hanson? (correction
'did' as he's passed on)

http://www.waloszek.de/f3_kal/02-duane-hanson.jpg

http://museen.aachen.de/img/lufo/l_sammlungen/hauptwerke/hanson.jpg

http://www.kunsthal.nl/im/Duane_Hanson.jpg

http://www.the-artists.org/media-new/hanson-queenie.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/c3sxr

http://www.orlandoairports.net/goaa/images/artwork/traveler.jpg

[Paul Heslop]

"Mark²" wrote:
>
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
> > But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look
> > like paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> > photos...and why not...he probably painted from photos. Great
> > technique...what message?
>
> I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
> -That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
> Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
> Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
> appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
> do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
> Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
> studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
> of art!
> -That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
> attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
> bad habit I often fall into as well.
>
> I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
> While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
> colorles rock.
> This is what I got:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
>

:O(

Pinging www.pbase.com [66.179.240.29]:

Ping #1: * [No response]
Ping #2: * [No response]
Ping #3: * [No response]
Ping #4: * [No response]

Done pinging www.pbase.com!

[Chris Brown]

In article <OA6We.6380$XO6.5783@trnddc03>,

Gene Palmiter <palmit...@verizon.net> wrote:
>But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
>paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
>not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?

Artists have been painting from "photos" for hundreds of years. Indeed, the
"art" of photography arose from the use of the camera-obscura by the
portrait painter.

[Tony Polson]

"Gene Palmiter" <palmit...@verizon.net> wrote:

>But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
>paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and why
>not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?

The message is:

"Mike Henley has made yet another visit to Pseud's Corner."

Oh, how the zeitgeist is killing me. It's the new paradigm.

;-)

[Robert C.]

"Colin D" <Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:43292CB3...@killspam.127.0.0.1...

I am not saying that there are not some digital photographers that cannot
take excellent protographs, and I have seen some of the potential of digital
photography. I have also seen the contrary; like on film too. What I was
getting at is that is that unlike film, the digital format allows for
instant delete of unwanted photographs whereas film does not allow for this,
and this was something that was mentionned on this NG on more than one
occasion

[Jan Böhme]

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and
> why not...he probably painted from photos.

Indeed the vast majority of photorealistic work is painted from a
photo.

Makes it a lot less interesting, IMHO. If painted directly from the
scene, it is clearly something else than a photograph. Then it is the
expression of an artist's notion of exact rendition, which may be very
intresting in itself.

But I can't see how there is any more originality in painstakingly
copying a photograph, than it would be to go to the National Museum
here in Stockholm and painstakingly copy Rembrandt's "The Oath of the
Batavians".

In both cases, it's just a painted copy of an original. And
artistically, you might learn at least as much from copying Rembrandt
as from copying a photo.

Jan Böhme

[Ken Tough]

casioc...@gmail.com wrote:

>Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
>and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
>these

Amazing. I like his work from the '70s the best, I think.

--
Ken Tough

[salgud]

Truly and age-old question. As always, art on the fringe of whats
recognized as art is always controversial. Andy Warhol started this
kind of art. When I first saw it, many years ago, I thought is wasn't
art. Who cares about a tomato soup can that most of us have in our
kitchen cabinet? But as I've grown older, and hopefully matured a bit,
I begin to understand the art of and in the mundane.
It's kind of like how I've changed over the years with a lot of "stuff"
I own. When I was young, I'd buy something, and as soon as it became
just part of my "stuff", I started lusting for something newer, cooler,
with the latest and greatest whatever. Somewhere back in my forties, I
started getting attached to some of my old "stuff". Like the Sierra
Designs jacket I bought in the early 70's and wore all over the country
when I was a hippie, and camping all over the place since. I was sad
when it finally wore out.
I think those pictures are art. Someone said how can they be art if
they're just copies of photos. But they aren't just copies of photos.
As someone else pointed out, they have infinite depth of field,
something you can't do even with a large format camera. And they have a
distinct quality to them that photos don't have.
Even the amount of effort adds something to it's artistic value to me.
Maybe even more important, they have all of us arguing about them in
this thread, and other places as well. One definition of art is that it
stimulates thought, if no more than "Is it art?".
If it had only one or two atttibutes of art, I might not considerate
so. But is has more than that. If it has all those things, I think it's
art.

[Shawn Hirn]

In article <1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioc...@gmail.com wrote:

I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do much for
me, but the photographer might be onto something if he shoots more of
them and does a better job with his photo editing. Whether or not these
photos are called art is up to the beholder.

The first photo was adjusted too much in a photo editor. This is the
photo of the gentlemen sitting at the counter in the diner. Between the
first two bar stools, there is some digital polarization that detracts
from the quality of the image.

[Shawn Hirn]

In article <4328F504...@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

Paintings? I sure was fooled! Even so, I don't consider it these images
to be pieces of art if all they are is a copy of someone else's work.

[Mark˛]

Works fine for me...

[Shawn Hirn]

In article <zwdWe.3075$6Z1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Robert C." <robc638...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

So? A film photographer certainly has the ability to trash a photo he or
she doesn't like or perhaps manipulate it through chemistry to improve
it. The film photographer certainly takes a bigger financial loss when
he feels he has to discard an image.

A wide range of creative avenues are available to both digital and film
photographers; they just go about the post-processing work flow
differently. For someone to say that a digital photographer cannot
compose photos within the camera to the same degree that a film
photographer can is silly.

[salgud]

Here's a dollar, Shawn. Go to eBay and get a clue!

[BJ in Texas]

What is art but the artist's interpatation of what they see.
By what standard does it have to be a real, a copy or
imaginary?

--
--
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally
convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of
reflection." - Jules Henri Poincaré

[Bill Funk]

But film shooters can also "shoot and then delete the ones that did
not turn out as I wanted or post edit them", can't they? They
certainly can, and do. Not delete as digital can be deleted, but the
negatives are never used; it's effectively the same thing.
Certainly, composition should be done in the camera, whether it's film
or digital. The fact that it's either doesn't change that.
In a sense, all the change to digital does is alter the way the final
product is arrived at. Many roads lead to the same place. That you (or
I) prefer one over the other does not make that road superior.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

[Bill Funk]

Absolutely right.
And why is the instant delete feature wrong?

I've had pros tell me it's because it fosters an "irresponsibility" on
the part of the photographer, in that he's no longer taking
photography seriously because there's no penalty for doing it wrong.
While I suppose that's true to an extent, it also fosters much more
spontaneity, which means (IMO) more serendipitous shots.

It also assumes that the photographer should be more concerned with
the technical aspects of the pictures than with the subject.
With professionals, that's undoubtedly true. But there are far more
amateurs than pros taking pictures. And those amateurs are enjoying
their photography. Aren't they supposed to be doing that? Is
photography supposed to be more about rules than results?

[Paul Heslop]

yeah, 5 hours later! :O) Cool, looks photoshopped though. a very
metallic edge, alien

[Robert C.]

[...]

> And why is the instant delete feature wrong?

[...]

> I've had pros tell me it's because it fosters an "irresponsibility" on
> the part of the photographer, in that he's no longer taking
> photography seriously because there's no penalty for doing it wrong.

[...]

> It also assumes that the photographer should be more concerned with
> the technical aspects of the pictures than with the subject.

> With professionals, that's undoubtedly true. But there are far more
> amateurs than pros taking pictures. And those amateurs are enjoying
> their photography. Aren't they supposed to be doing that? Is
> photography supposed to be more about rules than results?
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Replace "g" with "a"
> funktionality.blogspot.com

I guess it is because I an just so damn passionate about things (it's in my
character) that I always have to make every one do it my way. You are right,
photography is about enjoying the medium and amateurs are enjoying their
photography. Digital, whether P&S or dSLR's have opened photography to many
people.

I have advanced myself to almost professional level: I shoot professional
grade films (Portra 160VS, EPP, Velvia 100), get them developped at a
professional lab with professional printing including colour denitometer
readings. I do portrait work in the studio and outdoors, as well as scenics.
I still prefer shooting 120 format in the studio. Nostalgia maybe about the
"SHEKLUNK" of the shutter?

I tried my hand with digital cameras (last year) and was not impressed (this
year's models may be different): I find the bodies unconfortable and the
lenses awkward (give me a fixed-focus 105mm anyday), not to mention setting
manual exposure for studio lighting (the camera, a Canon, I can't remember
what, kept trying to override the flash). Maybe when a Full Frame sensor is
made so that lens compensation is no longer required and I can use my full
set of lenses; maybe if the sensor technology can increase shadow detail,
and also increase colour depth (or have these already been solved), I will
be in a position to get into digital.

~Robert C.

[David Littlewood]

In article <jU6We.33929$ct5.23378@fed1read04>, Mark²
<mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes

>
>I don't know what the intended message was, but here's one:
>-That even the mundane has it's own beauty--worth detailing and studying.
>Have you ever really looked at familiar things? I mean REALLY looked?
>Most don't. This artist did, and in the process, he/she surely gained an
>appreciation for light, color, line, pattern, and design. All photogs would
>do well to paint a bit, because it makes you notice things we tend to miss.
>Most are too quick, or in too big a hurry to think about it, but try
>studying even a dinner fork sometime. A great many of them are truly works
>of art!
>-That we pay little attention to them doesn't diminish this fact--rather our
>attention simply dwindles until we only notice the spectacular. That's a
>bad habit I often fall into as well.
>
>I need to keep these things in mind with my own boring photography.
>While looking for a "spectacular" sunset that never came, I shot a drab,
>colorles rock.
>This is what I got:
>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
>
>It's not spectacular, but it's one of my favorite shots from my recent trip
>(click on the image to see a small gallery of other shots from the same
>trip).
>My "boring" black rock might not be a masterpiece, but it's art--and so is
>that "boring" katsup bottle.
>:)
>-Mark
>

It took me a couple of seconds to realise that it was not a rock section
under a microscope. Nice textures, nice picture. And much more
interesting and "different" compared with a sunset.

David
--
David Littlewood

[William Graham]

<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
>
> Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that with time
> evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I forgot who it was here
> that said he photographed mundane scenes of ordinary things for later
> decades to entertain. Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving
> interesting and whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> curiosity.
>
> We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good attempts at
> capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it may well be true that
> such appreciation may only come with hindsight.
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
>

Realism, if well done, has always impressed me. My parents, who were both
artists, said that it was a sign of my artistic naiveté......

[William Graham]

<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126755127.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robert C. wrote:
>> > http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
>> >
>>
>> What are they? Paintings? If they are, they are really close to reality,
>> and
>> the artist did a superb job.
>>
>> --
>> ~Robert C.
>
> This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg

He got the pepper too red........

[William Graham]

"Gene Palmiter" <palmit...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OA6We.6380$XO6.5783@trnddc03...

> But, is it art? I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like photos...and
> why not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>

Sometimes the great technique is the message. I admire them for the brush
control.....The same thing that leads me to admire Dali.

[Dave the Guy]

Grinning from ear to ear.

[Neil Ellwood]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:10:07 -0400, Robert C. wrote:

> I am not saying that there are not some digital photographers that cannot
> take excellent protographs, and I have seen some of the potential of digital
> photography. I have also seen the contrary; like on film too. What I was
> getting at is that is that unlike film, the digital format allows for
> instant delete of unwanted photographs whereas film does not allow for this,
> and this was something that was mentionned on this NG on more than one
> occasion

The difference is of no importance - it is the end result that counts.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email

[no_name]

Shawn Hirn wrote:

>
> I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
> Be that as it may, these are okay photographs. They do not do much for
> me, but the photographer might be onto something if he shoots more of
> them and does a better job with his photo editing. Whether or not these
> photos are called art is up to the beholder.

They're not photographs, they're paintings.

[Chris Brown]

In article <srhi-FD9C1D.1...@news.giganews.com>,
Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:

>I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.

*sigh*. Willful ignorance is one of the saddest things in the world. I
suspect it took you far longer to compose your reply than it would have done
to type "define zeitgeist" into google.

To save you the trouble, the zeitgeist is the spirit or characteristic
property of the era. For example, Rubik's Cubes were part of the '80s
zeitgeist.

[ASAAR]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:28:30 GMT, Chris Brown wrote:

>>I have no idea what a "zeitgeist" is nor do I have time to look it up.
>
> *sigh*. Willful ignorance is one of the saddest things in the world. I
> suspect it took you far longer to compose your reply than it would have done
> to type "define zeitgeist" into google.
>
> To save you the trouble, the zeitgeist is the spirit or characteristic
> property of the era. For example, Rubik's Cubes were part of the '80s
> zeitgeist.

Now why did you go and explain "zeitgeist"? That'll annoy some of
our denizens that need their daily doses of schadenfreude*.

* Not exactly the right word, but close enough.

[wilt]

<< I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
photos...and why
not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>>

You appreciate the technical skill and the artist's eye. Give 100
artists the same photo, and only a very few can reproduced that photo
with reaslism to make you think you're looking at a photo! An artist
painted seascapes so realy that you swear you could see the moonlight
coming thru the breaking waves. My father (rest in peace) painted a
still life of some persimmons, so real you'd think you were seeing the
real things. Yes, it is a very different skill to paint like Picasso
or Renoir or like a camera.

Why does there have to be a message? Is there one provided by a
unaltered photography of the Eiffel Tower, or is there one of the
Eiffel Tower shot with a Cokin filter?!?! or solarized in a traditional
darkroom? No, merely artistic expression.

[Duncan J Murray]

<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs. I even admired the composition in
> these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
>
> Or the light in these
>
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg

I'm dubious - they look realistic in that they look like a photograph, not a
scene.

Duncan.

[Mark˛]

I agree that it looks odd, but that is exactly how it looked.
It was wet/splashed rock, and the strange water is actually moving, but
smoothed via a long exposure (a second or so). The rock appeared slick,
with a strange reflectance. Though it looked slippery, it wasn't. I didn't
alter that image in ANY way that affected it's texture or "look."
-Mark

[Mark˛]

Paul thought it was "photoshopped" for a metalic look.
It wasn't. :)
It's about a 1 second exposure, and the rock surface appeared exactly as
shown--with a strange reflectance from the just-set sunlight. The water
looks odd, too, since it's passing bubbles...smoothed by the low-light,
longish exposure. I was exposing for the rock face, and the reflection I
hoped would be created on the water--after it was smoothed a bit by a slow
shutter. It worked! :)
Sometimes you get lucky...but this one came off just as I hoped.
-Mark
-Mark

[Paul Heslop]

"Mark²" wrote:

> > yeah, 5 hours later! :O) Cool, looks photoshopped though. a very
> > metallic edge, alien
>
> I agree that it looks odd, but that is exactly how it looked.
> It was wet/splashed rock, and the strange water is actually moving, but
> smoothed via a long exposure (a second or so). The rock appeared slick,
> with a strange reflectance. Though it looked slippery, it wasn't. I didn't
> alter that image in ANY way that affected it's texture or "look."
> -Mark

It's an excellent photograph, Mark. Sorry if it came over like I was
dissing it, I just meant that it APPEARED that way.

[Mark˛]

Ha ha ha!!!
Now THAT is a truly funny post...but he clearly won't understand WHY it's
funny.
:)
The bottom line, I guess, is that the funny post is a testament to the
incredible work of the painter.
Simply astounding work.

>This is the
> photo of the gentlemen sitting at the counter in the diner. Between
> the first two bar stools, there is some digital polarization that
> detracts from the quality of the image.

Grin. :)

[Mark˛]

Something that looks like a photograph can't be a "scene"??

????

What would you call photo-realistic painting???????

[Mark˛]

wilt wrote:
> << I am not impressed by photographs that try to look like
> paintings so why should I care that paintings can look like
> photos...and why
> not...he probably painted from photos. Great technique...what message?
>>>
>
> You appreciate the technical skill and the artist's eye. Give 100
> artists the same photo, and only a very few can reproduced that photo
> with reaslism to make you think you're looking at a photo!

A "few"?
I would put money on NONE out of a 100 painters could do it.
Perhaps 1 in a 1000 or more.
Just the skill of mixing colors that preciesely is extrordinarily difficult.
It is a skill most artists don't ever have to master, because most paintings
do NOT require that kind of accuracy. Most painting styles use an extremely
simplified color range--even some of the greatest portraits of all time use
colors that clearly and unmistakably mark it as a painting due to the color
palatte.

>An artist
> painted seascapes so realy that you swear you could see the moonlight
> coming thru the breaking waves. My father (rest in peace) painted a
> still life of some persimmons, so real you'd think you were seeing
> the real things.

Your father was far more skilled than you think. He was one in....a lot
more than a hundred.

>Yes, it is a very different skill to paint like
> Picasso or Renoir or like a camera.

Yes!

> Why does there have to be a message? Is there one provided by a
> unaltered photography of the Eiffel Tower, or is there one of the
> Eiffel Tower shot with a Cokin filter?!?! or solarized in a
> traditional darkroom? No, merely artistic expression.

Absolutely.
See my other post if interested.

[satbunny]

Art is often a re-interpretation of other work or reality or a
synthesis.
I am not a fan of super realism.

[Gene Palmiter]

> Art is often a re-interpretation of other work or reality or a
> synthesis.

But...not just a copy. Super realism seems to have as its goal just, and
only, that.

[Gene Palmiter]

> Just the skill of mixing colors that preciesely is extrordinarily
> difficult.

How do you know how accurate the colors are? We don't even know that the
scene is accurate. Not that this is important...in fact its not important at
all as the camera is better if accuracy is important. That is why I posed
the question...is it art? Or is it some Rain Man sort of talent? What does
it say about the artist but that he is anal? What does it say about the
subject? The camera freed painters from the need of accurately recording
events. It freed them to explore ideas and feelings that the camera cannot.
This painter didn't go there.

[Mark˛]

Gene Palmiter wrote:
>> Just the skill of mixing colors that preciesely is extrordinarily
>> difficult.
>
> How do you know how accurate the colors are? We don't even know that
> the scene is accurate.

By accuracy, I don't mean in relation to the particular colors of the real
scene so much as accuracy in relation to the colors in the painting, and how
convincingly they transition and interact. It means endless color mixing,
and careful vision that identifies the extremely subtle portions of those
transitions.

>Not that this is important...in fact its not
> important at all as the camera is better if accuracy is important.
> That is why I posed the question...is it art? Or is it some Rain Man
> sort of talent? What does it say about the artist but that he is
> anal? What does it say about the subject? The camera freed painters
> from the need of accurately recording events. It freed them to
> explore ideas and feelings that the camera cannot. This painter
> didn't go there.

Why should he go there?
In an art world where just about every "styled" versions of anything is
cliche', he's found something unique that makes people think about unnoticed
detail. That's not a bad thing. It reminds me of some of the world
wonders. An extreme example might be teh pyramids. -They are famous to no
small degree simply because people marvel at their raw ability to produce
such things.

[Chris Brown]

In article <amrji1l5jhot69pqb...@4ax.com>,

Guess I'm just an old softie at heart. :-(

[ian lincoln]

"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:qHsWe.23812$sx2.14508@fed1read02...

I think what is saying is that they look too much like photographs. In so
far as they ARE PHOTOS. Anybody that good should be super famous.
Something like that ear chopping fellow would be childs play. Personally
the flower painting he did when he was six was better than that drug induced
weirdo schizo stuff he did when he was older. I've seen more talented
pavement artists. Did someone post a link here pavement artists stuff that
was 15 feet square and looked 3D?

[Chris Brown]

In article <V5xWe.70240$2n6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

ian lincoln <jes...@sux.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think what is saying is that they look too much like photographs. In so
>far as they ARE PHOTOS. Anybody that good should be super famous.
>Something like that ear chopping fellow would be childs play. Personally
>the flower painting he did when he was six was better than that drug induced
>weirdo schizo stuff he did when he was older. I've seen more talented
>pavement artists. Did someone post a link here pavement artists stuff that
>was 15 feet square and looked 3D?

That is an absolutely superb London cabbie impression. Do you do children's
parties?

[Tony Polson]

"Gene Palmiter" <palmit...@verizon.net> wrote:

Well said, Gene.

[no_name]

Gene Palmiter wrote:

I'd say it's art, but different strokes for different folks.

[ian lincoln]

"Chris Brown" <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:uvkqv2-...@narcissus.dyndns.org...

Gaw blimey guvna don't get me started on those poncy wine drinking arty
types i knows what i likes and i likes pavement art. Some of that stuff
should be hanging in the national gallery not like that poncy unmade bed,
who bleedin commissioned that load a rubbish then?

[Neil Ellwood]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:47:38 +0000, ian lincoln wrote:

> Gaw blimey guvna don't get me started on those poncy wine drinking arty
> types i knows what i likes and i likes pavement art. Some of that stuff
> should be hanging in the national gallery not like that poncy unmade bed,
> who bleedin commissioned that load a rubbish then?

Did any one commission it? I thought she just had a dirty weekend.

[Shawn Hirn]

In article <rGsWe.23811$sx2.5137@fed1read02>,

I "see!" SHEEPISH GRIN!

Definitely fine work for paint and a brush!

[Mark˛]

Hooray for you!
:)
You got it!
:)
Just the ability to fool you (and others...) is a statement of how
incredibly effective his painted rendition was/is.

[Duncan J Murray]

"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:qHsWe.23812$sx2.14508@fed1read02...

Photo-realistic is just that - only as realistic as a photo. Spot the blown
highlights and blocked in shadows - it's a painting of a print, rather than
of a scene. (Though I do admit, the lighting is incredibly realistic).

Duncan.

[Ken Tough]

Graham <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> This one he did over 4 years, 1985-1989
>>
>> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/331marbcounter85-89.jpg
>
>He got the pepper too red........

Blown reds? Very authentic!

--
Ken Tough

[Shawn Hirn]

In article <V6gWe.1093$2J3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"BJ in Texas" <bjt...@hotmale.con> wrote:

> Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> || In article <4328F504...@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> || Colin D <Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> ||
> ||| casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> ||||
> |||| Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at
> |||| the gallery and I thought they were photographs. I even
> |||| admired the composition in these
> ||||
> ||||
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/200tally-ho-diner90.jpg
> ||||
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/111sabrett.new.jpg
> ||||
> |||| Or the light in these
> ||||
> ||||
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/424schharieDner79.jpg
> ||||
> http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/210doub-ktchp96-97.jpg
> ||||

> |||| Anyhow, the content is interesting - mundane things that
> |||| with time evolve a 'spirit' - a zeitgeist if you will. I
> |||| forgot who it was here that said he photographed mundane
> |||| scenes of ordinary things for later decades to entertain.
> |||| Well, for me, the 1970s are already proving interesting and
> |||| whenever I see a shot from that time I look at it with
> |||| curiosity.
> ||||
> |||| We need to have a 'zeitgeist' shoot-in, to see good
> |||| attempts at capturing the 'spirit' of 2005/2006, though it
> |||| may well be true that such appreciation may only come with
> |||| hindsight.
> ||||

> |||| http://www.ralphlgoings.com/
> |||
> ||| About the only thing I could find that gave away that they
> ||| were
> ||| paintings is the lack of out-of-focus areas in the
> ||| 'close-ups' of the pepper, salt, and sauce images. Infinite
> ||| depth of field doesn't look quite right to a photog.
> ||
> || Paintings? I sure was fooled! Even so, I don't consider it
> || these images
> || to be pieces of art if all they are is a copy of someone
> || else's work.
>
> What is art but the artist's interpatation of what they see.
> By what standard does it have to be a real, a copy or
> imaginary?

For imagery like those paintings, art has to convey a unique perspective
on the scene in the work, the photographer's eye. This is a fine line
and I concede that this work can be reasonbly considered art by some.

[Paul Furman]

Someone commented that the pepper was to red in this pic:
<http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/211marbcounter85-89.jpg>
My guess is the artist chose to add some red in the pepper to tie the
image together better. At least I hope the artist made some adjustments
like that and did not simply duplicate a photograph! Maybe there is some
novelty in walking up closer to a full size painting and realizing it's
hand done but that alone wouldn't qualify it as art.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

[William Graham]

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:dridndi4GJm...@speakeasy.net...

> Someone commented that the pepper was to red in this pic:
> <http://www.ralphlgoings.com/images/all_paintings/211marbcounter85-89.jpg>
> My guess is the artist chose to add some red in the pepper to tie the
> image together better. At least I hope the artist made some adjustments
> like that and did not simply duplicate a photograph! Maybe there is some
> novelty in walking up closer to a full size painting and realizing it's
> hand done but that alone wouldn't qualify it as art.

I did, but I was just being facetious....They said something about the
artist taking three years (I think) to paint it, so I just HAD to find
something wrong with it! - The only thing I could come up with was a
slightly too red tinge in the pepper....Actually, this guy is amazing.......

[salgud]

And full credit to you Shawn, for admitting it. Sorry about my previous
post.

[Tony Whitaker]

<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
> and I thought they were photographs.

Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist painted over
photo enlargements of these scenes? The realism is a little too striking to
believe he painted these scenes from his memory of them. My hypothesis could
be confirmed by analyzing the proportions of the painted objects in
comparison to the actual objects. For example, if the porportions of the
painted ketchup label match PERFECTLY with an actual ketchup label, one must
conclude that the artist simply painted over a photo or a slide projection.
If a single case doesn't convince you, examine many cases and see if they
are consistently perfect. If so, there's only one conclusion.

I'm not claiming this is what the artist did. I'm just posing a hypothesis.

[William Graham]

"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:VqAZe.4765$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

There have been artists in the past who could paint like cameras....Harnett,
Jan van Eyke, Salvador Dali, to name three off the top of my head.....If you
ever get a chance to see Dali's, "Last Supper", (it hangs in San Francisco's
Palace of the Legion of Honor, I believe) take a good look at the
tablecloth, and wine glass, and piece of broken bread. No camera could have
done it better......

[no_name]

Tony Whitaker wrote:

> <casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
>>and I thought they were photographs.
>
>
> Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist painted over
> photo enlargements of these scenes?

Possible, but unlikely.

[Paul Heslop]

From this web page

http://tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Arts/Content?oid=oid%3A456
------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo-Realism and Super Realism, along with the less popular terms
Hyper-Realism and Sharp-Focus Realism, are used interchangeably for
the art movement popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Photo-realists
typically use photographs or slides as the basis for their images.
Some artists project the photographic image onto their image surface
and use a graph system to literally replicate the photographic image.
Not all photo-realist artists use this process and not all of them are
slavish in reproducing a final image that is an exact (or near exact)
replica of the original photographic image. Super-realist artists use
all types of two-dimensional, as well as three-dimensional, media,
including oil, acrylic, silkscreen, watercolor, airbrush, pencil and
ceramics. Regardless of the medium, the surfaces of their
two-dimensional images are typically smooth.

Photo-realists want their media to be transparent the way snapshots
are, so that they won't distract the viewer from looking at the image.
Many photo-realists chose what seemed like banal subjects at the time:
dilapidated cars, signs and even grocery displays. American icons turn
up in various guises: diners, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, cowboys and
even Las Vegas. The irony is that over time things that were once
banal have been imbued with a nostalgic sense of times past and places
quickly disappearing. In taking on the guise of cool, objective
photography, photo-realists have acquired one of its integral traits:
an indelible bond to time and memory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

the projection thing makes sense if you're going for precision.

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

[no_name]

Paul Heslop wrote:

> no_name wrote:
>
>>Tony Whitaker wrote:
>>
>>
>>><casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1126748757.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Those fooled me until I saw the about section. I looked at the gallery
>>>>and I thought they were photographs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps they ARE photographs. Is it possible that the artist painted over
>>>photo enlargements of these scenes?
>>
>>Possible, but unlikely.
>
>
> From this web page
>
> http://tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Arts/Content?oid=oid%3A456
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Photo-Realism and Super Realism, along with the less popular terms
> Hyper-Realism and Sharp-Focus Realism, are used interchangeably for

> photography, photo-realists have acquired one of its integral traits:
> an indelible bond to time and memory.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> the projection thing makes sense if you're going for precision.
>

Perhaps I misunderstood.

I read the question as "Did he paint these on an existing photographic
print?", not as "Did he use some form of projected image to guide the
painting?".

I think the former is possible, but unlikely; the latter is possible,
and I have no opinion of the likelyhood.

[Paul Heslop]

and I'm more confused than ever. Yes, I think the questions was did
the artist simply paint on top of a present (enlarged) photograph,
whereas what they do is project the image onto a surface...
apparently.

I tried my hand at photorealist drawing, it is a very precise skill
and much maligned

[ASAAR]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:01:18 GMT, Paul Heslop wrote:

>> I think the former is possible, but unlikely; the latter is possible,
>> and I have no opinion of the likelyhood.
>
> and I'm more confused than ever. Yes, I think the questions was did
> the artist simply paint on top of a present (enlarged) photograph,
> whereas what they do is project the image onto a surface...
> apparently.

I think that some artists may have used aids such as pantographs
instead of projected images.

[Tony Whitaker]

"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:nKRZe.75803$Jp.18...@twister.southeast.rr.com...

> I read the question as "Did he paint these on an existing photographic
> print?", not as "Did he use some form of projected image to guide the
> painting?".
> I think the former is possible, but unlikely; the latter is possible, and
> I have no opinion of the likelyhood.

I meant either. I thought the artist might have painted over a printed
enlargement or over a slide projection. Either method would account for a
PERFECT reproduction of an actual scene. I don't believe any painter could
consistently create perfect reproductions of actual scenes. IOTW, I think
that if a painter painted a scene by eye, one could compare the proportions
of items in the scene with the actual items and would discover that,
although possibly very close, there was not a perfect reproduction. Maybe
the stools in the diner would be an inch or two too high, or the table would
be 6" too short, or that intricate company logo would be missing a few
spokes in wheel, etc. etc.

[Mark˛]

If he painted directly onto a photograph, then how would you explain it
taking him two full years to produce it?

Answer: He didn't paint over a photograph.

[Mark˛]

Tony Whitaker wrote:
> "no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nKRZe.75803$Jp.18...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> I read the question as "Did he paint these on an existing
>> photographic print?", not as "Did he use some form of projected
>> image to guide the painting?".
>> I think the former is possible, but unlikely; the latter is
>> possible, and I have no opinion of the likelyhood.
>
> I meant either. I thought the artist might have painted over a printed
> enlargement or over a slide projection. Either method would account
> for a PERFECT reproduction of an actual scene. I don't believe any
> painter could consistently create perfect reproductions of actual
> scenes.

You don't need the scene to stay the same over the entire process.
He merely needs access to the environment.
We can assume that the lights will continue to shine similarly on objects in
the room.
The most dificult portions of those images are in the way light reflects and
distorts off of/through various objects. These can be modeled again and
again over the course of many days/months.

[Tony Whitaker]

"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:%r1_e.37505$sx2.23379@fed1read02...

> If he painted directly onto a photograph, then how would you explain it
> taking him two full years to produce it?

How many minutes a day did he spend on it?

[Mark˛]

Don't know.
I just think he deserves far more credit than the naysayers here are giving
him.

Heck...even to paint OVER a photo that well would be truly impressive.

[Tony Whitaker]

"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message

news:Qa2_e.37514$sx2.32339@fed1read02...

> Don't know.
> I just think he deserves far more credit than the naysayers here are
> giving him.
> Heck...even to paint OVER a photo that well would be truly impressive.

I wasn't trying to criticize his work. I was just suggesting that
photography may have been a major aid in the creation of these images. I
mean - they are sooooooo real looking. I just can't believe he painted them
from memory alone. Or even by just sitting there and painting what he saw.

The images are wonderful. Well, I'm not too keen on the woman sitting beside
a - what was it? - a hot dog stand? I can't get to the images right now.
"Bandwidth Exceeded" it says.

[Paul Heslop]

without doubt, specially when it first kicked off.

I was just thinking of those fun toys which projected kids drawings
onto the wall and stuff and imagining all these artists using them to
create their masterpieces.

Seriously though, the artform seems to have never been really
appreciated, putting it alongside stuff like fantasy art.

I've always liked it though

[Paul Heslop]

Honestly, mark, photorealist painting has always been maligned. I
recall being into it way back when it was semi popular and it was
sneered upon as being nothing better than copying. My thought then and
now is I wonder if the critics could do it, even with a projector?

[Neil Ellwood]

Even in the late 18th century artists were using the camera obscura to aid
in their work. To my mind it is the result that counts, how it was
obtained is incidental.

[no_name]

Neil Ellwood wrote:

> Even in the late 18th century artists were using the camera obscura to aid
> in their work. To my mind it is the result that counts, how it was
> obtained is incidental.
>

Fifteenth & Sixteenth centuries - Both Da Vinci and Michelangelo used it.

The oldest surviving description is from an eleventh century Arabic
manuscript on optics (translated into latin during the 12th or 13th
century).

[Stewy]

In article <VqAZe.4765$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Tony Whitaker" <tony...@mindspring.com> wrote:

It's surprising what you can do with with Photoshop and Illustrator
together.