photos that look like paintings
John Buol
How can you take a photo that looks like a painting? I've seen a couple of
photos recently that, at first take, looked like a painting. The June 1999
issue of the "American Rifleman", page 38, is the best example I've seen
recently. For those of you who watch TV, the opening scenes of the CBS
sitcom "Becker" has the same look, even though it isn't a photo.
Please respond off line to jb...@chorus.net
Thanks,
John
Todd & Sharon Peach
The most common method is via digital manipulation in Photoshop or a
similar product. These are elaborate digital "filters" that are applied
to give varying degrees of brush-stroke effect.
You might search through back issues of the magazine PC Photo for this
topic; they covered it in the last 6 months.
-Todd
--
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington (zone 7)
tpe...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/tpeach/NoPlaceLikeHome.htm
Owner, Manual Focus Nikon Mailing List: Nik...@onelist.com
deltablues
> > I'm new to photography and have a question.
> > How can you take a photo that looks like a painting?
<snip>
> The most common method is via digital manipulation in Photoshop or a
> similar product. These are elaborate digital "filters" that are
> applied to give varying degrees of brush-stroke effect.
<snip>
ACK! PHOTOSHOP!... Sorry, I'm a purist. I'm of the opinion that if you
can't do it with the camera, the lens, and a little creativity, then why
bother with using film as a media at all?
Now, back to the original question. I haven't seen the examples you
mentioned but there are two ways of making a photo look like a painting.
The first would be hand coloring a black&white print image. This can
give you very surreal looking compositions depending on the color's you
choose.
The second is something called a poloroid transfer. I'ver never done
this myself. But it invovles peeling apart a poloroid photo while it's
still wet, rolling the image side onto paper, canvas, printing paper,
etc... and then peeling it away to leave a painted image effect.
Or... you can just click a button in photoshop. But where's the fun in
that?
--
"Blues ain't nothin but a good man feelin bad,
thinkin about the woman he once was with..."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
HRphoto
>> similar product. These are elaborate digital "filters" that are
>> applied to give varying degrees of brush-stroke effect.
Another method is to apply brushstrokes to the photograph. There are several,
laquer type materials available at art supply stores to do this with. In
addition, part of the photograph can further be alteres by applying acrylic or
oil colors to further enhance the impression of a painting.
Heinz
HRphotography
http://hometown.aol.com/hrphoto/myhomepage/index.html
JRiegle
photographer will shoot a series of slides "normally". Next, the photog,
projects the best image through a piece of textured glass or plastic. With
the camera behind the glass, the photog. will photograph the image created
by the glass as the light is altered by the texture. I imagine that it would
take a lot of experimentation to get the right effect, but I have seen
photos that look like impressionistic styled paintings.
JCR
John Buol wrote in message <7j5uul$epf$1...@news.itis.com>...
>I'm new to photography and have a question.
>
>How can you take a photo that looks like a painting? I've seen a couple of
>photos recently that, at first take, looked like a painting. The June 1999
>issue of the "American Rifleman", page 38, is the best example I've seen
>recently. For those of you who watch TV, the opening scenes of the CBS
>sitcom "Becker" has the same look, even though it isn't a photo.
>
>Please respond off line to jb...@chorus.net
>
>Thanks,
>John
>
>
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] > > I'm new to photography and have a question.
[] > > How can you take a photo that looks like a painting?
[]
[] > The most common method is via digital manipulation in Photoshop or a
[] > similar product. These are elaborate digital "filters" that are
[] > applied to give varying degrees of brush-stroke effect.
[]
[] ACK! PHOTOSHOP!... Sorry, I'm a purist.
You say that like it's a good thing ;^)
[] I'm of the opinion that if you
[] can't do it with the camera, the lens, and a little creativity, then why
[] bother with using film as a media at all?
It's ART. Technique in art is subjective, not pure. Besides, when
you're talking about making a photo look like a painting, how can you
be a "photographic" purist -- you're already leaving the realm just
considering the alteration.
[] Now, back to the original question. I haven't seen the examples you
[] mentioned but there are two ways of making a photo look like a painting.
[] The first would be hand coloring a black&white print image. This can
[] give you very surreal looking compositions depending on the color's you
[] choose.
I hate to point this out to you, but this is an artificial technique
that is modifying what you're camera and lens recorded
Why bother using film as a media at all?
[] Or... you can just click a button in photoshop. But where's the fun in
[] that?
It's just an option. It could be one step of many to get to a point
that would decidedly not look much like it was a photograph at one
point.
Chris
--
"I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think,
all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the
friends I want to see." -- John Burroughs
..............................................................
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
Xchr...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA.
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
deltablues
> [] > > I'm new to photography and have a question.
> [] > > How can you take a photo that looks like a painting?
> [] <snip>
> []
> [] > The most common method is via digital manipulation in Photoshop
> [] > or a similar product. These are elaborate digital "filters" that
> [] > are applied to give varying degrees of brush-stroke effect.
> [] <snip>
> []
> [] ACK! PHOTOSHOP!... Sorry, I'm a purist.
>
> You say that like it's a good thing ;^)
>
> [] I'm of the opinion that if you
> [] can't do it with the camera, the lens, and a little creativity,
> [] then why bother with using film as a media at all?
>
> It's ART. Technique in art is subjective, not pure. Besides, when
> you're talking about making a photo look like a painting, how can you
> be a "photographic" purist -- you're already leaving the realm just
> considering the alteration.
<snip>
Definition of "artistic" technique is the point at which we disagree. In
handpainting you have to be able to compose and expose your subject with
some degree of "artistic" and photographic talent in order to have a
useable base image. Then addtional "artistic" technique needs to be
employed to weild the paintbrush in a manner pleasing to the eye.
How does that compare to the artistic ability needed to click on
'brushstroke filter' and watch photoshop do everything for you in the
blink of an eye?
The original reason why I said "why bother with film as a media at all"
is that using a digital camera makes much more sense if you're just
going to digitally manipulate the image anyway.
ps: I have and use photoshop. I just don't try to pass off doctored
images as photographic masterpieces. I save that for the ones I get with
just the camera. ;)
deltablues
hrp...@aol.com (HRphoto) wrote:
> >> The most common method is via digital manipulation in Photoshop or
a
> >> similar product. These are elaborate digital "filters" that are
> >> applied to give varying degrees of brush-stroke effect.
>
several,
> laquer type materials available at art supply stores to do this with.
In
> addition, part of the photograph can further be alteres by applying
acrylic or
> oil colors to further enhance the impression of a painting.
Cool! I didn't think about that. I guess you could even get that crackle
look of a very old weathered painting as well like this.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] How does that compare to the artistic ability needed to click on
[] 'brushstroke filter' and watch photoshop do everything for you in the
[] blink of an eye?
Photoshop is not limited to hands-off, one-shot filters of a
photograph. In short, I feel that you can make "art" with Photoshop,
but you disagree. No biggie.
[] The original reason why I said "why bother with film as a media at all"
[] is that using a digital camera makes much more sense if you're just
[] going to digitally manipulate the image anyway.
Well, that's debatable. First off, I don't know a lot about the "under
the hood" with digital photography or processing, but I wonder if
Photoshop can process higher resolutions than a digital camera can
currently capture. Regardless, it's still valid for someone who will
digitally process a film-based photo that will be distributed on the
web while still retaining the ability for prints from negatives when
they want to distribute a print.
Since color balance on a scanned print or slide could shift from what
a print would look like, digitally correcting the image makes a lot of
sense, especially if your web site is selling these images as
non-digital prints.
The trouble with being a purist is that you have to hold to an
extreme, which leaves out all of the valid possibilities between the
two opposing poles, simply because of what they suggest.
Alan Shutko
> Well, that's debatable. First off, I don't know a lot about the "under
> the hood" with digital photography or processing, but I wonder if
> Photoshop can process higher resolutions than a digital camera can
> currently capture.
Certainly. I don't know the exact specs, but I believe that you can
process images as big as your memory can hold. (Or maybe bigger.)
A 10,000x10,000 image would be child's play for it.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - Looking for a job in Long Island!
Check http://rescomp.wustl.edu/~ats/ for a resume.
Stamp out organized crime!! Abolish the IRS.
Adam Smith
paiting look, and the process is really simple, and does not require a
'puter...sorry if this is out of line, but it is a really neat looking
process that you might consider if you don't want to use Photoshop...
Barry Twycross
wrote:
>Xchr...@microsoft.comX (Not A Speck Of Cereal) writes:
>
>> Well, that's debatable. First off, I don't know a lot about the "under
>> the hood" with digital photography or processing, but I wonder if
>> Photoshop can process higher resolutions than a digital camera can
>> currently capture.
>
>Certainly. I don't know the exact specs, but I believe that you can
>process images as big as your memory can hold. (Or maybe bigger.)
>A 10,000x10,000 image would be child's play for it.
Photoshop will do images as big as the spare space on you hard drive. It
gets painfully slow if its bigger than available memory though. More is
even better.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
JBC, OETKB, California branch.
mber...@my-deja.com
I scan slide into Photo CD and then use Adobe Photoshop.
Check out my site. Images "Night parck" "Do not forget to click here",
"Toronto park" "woman&blossom" are good examples, I hope ;)))
regards
Michael
> recently. For those of you who watch TV, the opening scenes of the
CBS
> sitcom "Becker" has the same look, even though it isn't a photo.
>
> Please respond off line to jb...@chorus.net
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> wrote:
[] >Xchr...@microsoft.comX (Not A Speck Of Cereal) writes:
[] >
[] >> Well, that's debatable. First off, I don't know a lot about the "under
[] >> the hood" with digital photography or processing, but I wonder if
[] >> Photoshop can process higher resolutions than a digital camera can
[] >> currently capture.
[] >
[] >Certainly. I don't know the exact specs, but I believe that you can
[] >process images as big as your memory can hold. (Or maybe bigger.)
[] >A 10,000x10,000 image would be child's play for it.
So then, there's a valid reason to use digital processing for
non-digital images, such as film based photographs. At least, in
respect to resolution.
[] Photoshop will do images as big as the spare space on you hard drive. It
[] gets painfully slow if its bigger than available memory though. More is
[] even better.
Memory's cheap, large hard drives are cheap.... but you always end up
just processing larger files ;^)