Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 25 Aug 2013 (Sunday) 02:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Pondering on turning photographs into digital rendered art - your experience?

 
LindaZ
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
16 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Kalmar, Sweden
     
Aug 25, 2013 02:49 |  #1

If I were to buy art to hang on the wall, I'd be more likely to buy either a real painting (but they're very expensive) or perhaps going the budget way and buy a digitally rendered photo as a "painting" instead. Am I the only one thinking this way? I live in an area where people are pretty trendy but in a "country" sort of way. The place I live at has archipelago...untouche​d nature..picturesque town...sunrises (east coast) and lots of good food. There's plenty of photographers but there's little "art" displayed in the area. I'd like to change that, but I'd like to hear if anyone have tried this? I mean selling digital photos that has been treated to look like paintings. Do people actually buy into it, knowing it is not a "real" painting?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
armis
Senior Member
890 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Jan 2012
     
Aug 25, 2013 04:54 |  #2

I don't really understand why you'd want to make a medium look like another. Photography is photography; it allows the photographer to do certain things that painting doesn't, and vice-versa (it also works in reverse: I don't really see the appeal of photorealistic painting beyond the technical ability involved). A beautiful scene on film is still a beautiful scene - why would people be more likely to display it if it were paintified? (yes, I'm making up words) Personally, I'd find it rather tacky.


Fuji X-E2, 18-55 and 55-200 zooms, Samyang 12
www.wtbphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 49
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 25, 2013 08:18 as a reply to  @ armis's post |  #3

Yes, I agree with Armis, I just don't see the point or the appeal. If you are shooting great photographs people will want them on their walls, turning them into pseudo paintings won't make them a better picture and, like Armis, it would actually put me off. If they need fancy PS effects to turn them into something interesting, then were they good enough pictures in the first place?

When I buy a painting, I want a painting. If I like a photograph it is for the image and the way it is captured. Totally different results from the different media. Painting allows the image to be formed in a way that a photograph can't be, simply smudging pixels about to look like an oil painting is not comparable to the real thing. Equally, again like Armis, I see the amazing skill in producing a photo realistic painting, but not the point. I always think "wow, great skill, but why not just take a photograph". Again, such paintings won't see my wall because they don't look like paintings and are never quite the same as a great photograph.

There will always be people with the opposite POV, who may prefer your photo work as an "oil painting", but I suspect they will be very much in the minority. If you are going for more saleability I think you just want to concentrate on taking better photographs.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,634 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2366
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Aug 25, 2013 10:45 |  #4

LindaZ wrote in post #16237626 (external link)
Do people actually buy into it, knowing it is not a "real" painting?

Remember the paintings of Campbell's soup cans? And if you google "Pet rock" (external link), you'll see that people will buy into anything. The question should be, "Will they buy enough of it to make a reasonable profit?" ; )


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LindaZ
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
16 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Kalmar, Sweden
     
Aug 26, 2013 00:21 |  #5

PhotosGuy wrote in post #16238308 (external link)
Remember the paintings of Campbell's soup cans? And if you google "Pet rock" (external link), you'll see that people will buy into anything. The question should be, "Will they buy enough of it to make a reasonable profit?" ; )

Haha..I think you're on to something there! Well I'm going to test the market anyway, because I simply feel like it :p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 49
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 26, 2013 07:35 |  #6

LindaZ wrote in post #16240105 (external link)
Haha..I think you're on to something there! Well I'm going to test the market anyway, because I simply feel like it :p

I don't blame you. As has been pointed out, there is always somebody who will buy anything, and all sorts of things have sold well, which seem completely pointless to me.

A good comparison to the faux artworks from a photograph would be the Tamagotchi digital pet craze. I would personally only want the real thing, I see no point in a digital facsimile, yet digital pets which lived in your pocket and constantly demanded attention were a big craze (as were pet rocks). Personally, I prefer something that is really alive as a pet, but others saw something desirable in these as "pets".

This forum is probably npt the ideal place for market research, as you don't have a decent cross-section of your potential market. Those replying are going to be heavily into photography and will view the "oil painting" or "watercolour" filters as tacky, gimmicky and cliched. However, in the photographic community such tricks as colour popping (creating a black and white image with some part left in colour) are also seen the same way, old, tired and cliched. But wedding clients seem to love a few colour popped shots in their album.

The point is, that what photographers may like, and what the massed public may like, are not necessarily the same thing. I was probably a bit harsh about your idea earlier, giving you my opinion on such images, but it is only my opinion and there are many good selling artists out there whose work I would think would be totally unsaleable, yet people buy it.

Give it a go, you have nothing to lose but the cost of making some prints and some shoe leather hiking around some potential outlets. I hope it works out well for you. If it does, let me know and I'll start doing some myself, to sell locally to me (so no competition for you) :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
P51Mstg
Goldmember
Avatar
1,336 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Mt. Carmel, TN
     
Aug 26, 2013 20:28 |  #7

I love these forums.....

Let me ask a question.....

No matter what you say I'll do what I was going to do anyways because I feel like it....

I've read that so many times... I had my mind made up in advance.

For those who think I'm saying something "bad" consider that people spent time thinking and writing a response to be sloughed off for a preconceived idea.. A waste of my time to answer.

Mark H


Too Much Camera Stuff......

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,104 posts
Likes: 140
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Aug 27, 2013 06:17 |  #8

You missed one, Mark.

No matter what you say, even if it a clear-cut, 100%, provably flawless correct answer, there will always be somebody who wants to argue with an opposing point of view.

All of which is why I pulled back years ago, or if I do answer or try to help, instantly unsubscribe from the thread and never revisit it. Why waste time arguing?

Right on the money, Mark.

(now to unsubscribe...)


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,634 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2366
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Aug 27, 2013 09:28 |  #9

P51Mstg wrote in post #16242692 (external link)
... A waste of my time to answer.

Mark H

And yet here you are! :D


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FeXL
Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
     
Aug 27, 2013 10:12 |  #10

sandpiper wrote in post #16238006 (external link)
Yes, I agree with Armis, I just don't see the point or the appeal. If you are shooting great photographs people will want them on their walls, turning them into pseudo paintings won't make them a better picture and, like Armis, it would actually put me off. If they need fancy PS effects to turn them into something interesting, then were they good enough pictures in the first place?

I think this is a remarkably narrow view of art as a whole and of the unchecked artistic potential photography has in particular.

Just because you, Armis and others don't "get it" doesn't mean no one else does.

I challenge both of you to take a look at work by Scott Dupras, Fay Sirkis and Louise Simone, amongst many others, who have taken wonderful photos to another level using Corel Painter. I know that Scott, in particular, has then taken canvas prints of his photographic work edited in Painter and used brush & oil paint to enhance the final product even more.

I also challenge you to take a look at some of the award winning work done by Joyce Wilson and Emily Connolly with encaustic wax and solvent transfers, amongst other esoteric techniques, on photographs.

Have a look at some of Robert Alvarado's pinup work on these very boards and tell me that all he's doing is dressing up a crappy photo.

These people, and many more like them, are pushing the boundaries of art (and photography) because they choose to think "out of the box" and use every tool available to them. They have vision and are fortunate enough to have the talent, skills & tools available to put that vision on paper, canvas or whatever medium they choose. We all should be so lucky.

If no artist had ever pushed a boundary, we'd all be looking for a fresh chunk of dank cave wall on which to create our latest charcoal masterpiece.

To the OP:

More power to you. If you can create a product of which you can be proud and can find a way to sell it, you go girl. Even if you choose not to sell your work, there is nothing wrong with being proud of a personal accomplishment and hanging it on your own wall.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 49
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 27, 2013 11:08 |  #11

FeXL wrote in post #16244123 (external link)
I think this is a remarkably narrow view of art as a whole and of the unchecked artistic potential photography has in particular.

Just because you, Armis and others don't "get it" doesn't mean no one else does.

Which is exactly what I said in my second post in this thread. There is lots of art that I don't like, that doesn't mean that others won't, just that I won't buy it for my collection.

That doesn't mean I have to like it, which is my opinion as given originally, and I have every right to that opinion. I don't have a "narrow view of art", just a narrow view of which art appeals to me. Piles of bricks, unmade beds, heads made of frozen blood, a lightbulb in an empty room and a guy kicking a can down the street do nothing for me either. I appreciate that the likes of Hirst and Emin have a following, I am just not part of it. Now, show me a Banksy and that is another matter.

The sad fact of the matter is that 99.99% of photographs treated with the oil painting (or watercolour, whatever) filter are done because the photographer sees that the picture needs something extra, because the actual picture is lacking, so they whack a filter on it to spice it up. This almost never really works, as you still have a dull picture, just one that looks like it was done in oils, not a camera.

Images taken, from the start, to be part of a mixed media artwork and shot with that in mind, by an artist chasing a vision is one thing. The OP sounds like they just want to convert a few images as a cheap option to real paintings and see if they sell. That doesn't sound like the same sort of artistic vision the artists you mention have.

My opinion stands. I don't see the appeal of a photographic print, trying to look like an oil painting. Now, one filtered, then printed on canvas, and having paint applied, is a whole different ball game, it becomes mixed media, it has the texture that I like in an artwork etc. But a sheet of flat A4 paper trying to be a painting, sorry, that does nothing for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FeXL
Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
     
Aug 27, 2013 12:24 |  #12

No one is attempting to stifle your opinion. And, most of us have a fairly narrow view of what appeals to us in the very diverse field of art. No problems with that. No argument.

The OP simply floated an idea. However, before any real information came out you wrote it off as

sandpiper wrote in post #16244280 (external link)
they just want to convert a few images as a cheap option to real paintings and see if they sell.

Perhaps she was considering taking dozens of hours in Painter to take a photograph to another level. Perhaps she was looking at mixed media. Maybe she was simply considering an 8 second PS filter. I don't know.

Save the OP, nobody knows 'cause no one asked for clarification. People immediately climbed down her throat and basically said, "It's a stupid idea" without even knowing what her concept really was. Nobody even gave her a chance to explain.

That's where my criticism lies.

As to this:

sandpiper wrote in post #16244280 (external link)
But a sheet of flat A4 paper trying to be a painting,

So you like the texture of a "real" oil painting. Fine. That said, I've seen some very nice pieces of art created (some printed, for that matter) on nothing more than simple, flat A4 paper: watercolour, charcoal, pencil & ink, whatever. And, while I didn't even care for the final product at times, whatever the media, I understood the effort and would encourage anyone who wants to try.

(edit)
There is also a far cry between a PS filter and the hours required in Painter to create a final product. Interestingly enough, you can take a very dull photograph and turn it into something very nice in Painter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
P51Mstg
Goldmember
Avatar
1,336 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Mt. Carmel, TN
     
Aug 27, 2013 14:18 |  #13

PICTURE NORTH CAROLINA...... You are right... I missed the obvious... Even if the answer is indisputably correct, then everyone still wants to argue......

PHOTOSGUY...... I need a life. Strange as it may seem I keep coming back to Detroit to shoot THUNDER OVER MI airshow too... Place has changed over the past 30 years too. Motown is getting pretty scary now (not like it wasn't in the 1980s)...

Oh well.... Im going to go give someone else some really good advice..

Mark H


Too Much Camera Stuff......

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 49
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 27, 2013 18:33 |  #14

FeXL wrote in post #16244524 (external link)
The OP simply floated an idea. However, before any real information came out you wrote it off as

sandpiper wrote in post #16244280 (external link)
they just want to convert a few images as a cheap option to real paintings and see if they sell. That doesn't sound like the same sort of artistic vision the artists you mention have.

Perhaps she was considering taking dozens of hours in Painter to take a photograph to another level. Perhaps she was looking at mixed media. Maybe she was simply considering an 8 second PS filter. I don't know.

Perhaps she was. But I see that you carefully edited my comment to make it sound that I was making a statement of absolute fact "They want to ..... " when what I actually said was

sandpiper wrote in post #16244280 (external link)
The OP sounds like they just want to convert a few images as a cheap option to real paintings and see if they sell. That doesn't sound like the same sort of artistic vision the artists you mention have.

In other words I was commenting on the impression I got (it was the OP that referred to it "as a budget way" of getting a "painting" - their quotes on that one - if you can't afford the real thing). They referred to it as a "digitally rendered photo to look like a painting", to me that sounds like applying a simple filter and not spending hours creating digital art. If this was going to be someones true art form, I doubt they would be referring to it as a cheap way to imitate something else, they would see it as an art form in it's own right. I may be wrong, and they truly do intend to make spectacular artworks, but that is not the way it sounds (imo) in the original post. My comment was based on what they said and how it sounded to me, not to mention that 99% of photos turned into oil paintings are just a quick digital filter, not an art form in themselves (the fact that a few people have made it a serious art form does not alter the fact that for most people it isn't). It was an opinion on how it sounded, not a statement of absolute fact, as you are trying to make out.


FeXL wrote in post #16244524 (external link)
People immediately climbed down her throat and basically said, "It's a stupid idea" without even knowing what her concept really was. Nobody even gave her a chance to explain.

That's where my criticism lies.

Well, if the crux of your criticism is that "people" said "it's a stupid idea" then please point out where this was said. I never said it was a stupid idea, the OP asked "Do people actually buy into it, knowing it is not a "real" painting?" (again not the sort of comment that suggests they are treating this as a primary art form, I don't imagine the artists you mentioned saying it about their work). A couple of us answered the question honestly with our opinions about whether people would buy into it. I know several local outlets for photographs and paintings (my brother is a painter and sells his work too, we both know a lot of people who sell locally to us, in both media, and we know the people who run the outlets and shows.

I have looked into what sells (I have to, I don't have a proper job and don't claim benefits) and the big sellers are photographs that look like photographs and paintings that look like paintings. There are some people that convert their photos into faux oil paintings or watercolours, but their sales are lower. I tried to put that across, in order to answer the OPs question.

I never said that she wouldn't sell any, just that I see it as less popular than straight photography or actual paintings. I certainly never said it was a stupid idea, and I don't see where anybody else has said that, let alone it being said by multiple people as you claim. And I see that you are still completely ignoring my second post, where I gave the OP some encouragement to try it out and said I hope it turns out well for her.

FeXL wrote in post #16244524 (external link)
So you like the texture of a "real" oil painting. Fine. That said, I've seen some very nice pieces of art created (some printed, for that matter) on nothing more than simple, flat A4 paper: watercolour, charcoal, pencil & ink, whatever. And, while I didn't even care for the final product at times, whatever the media, I understood the effort and would encourage anyone who wants to try.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out :rolleyes:, actually I have several watercolours and pencil drawings so do appreciate their qualities. I see a big difference in a medium not having significant texture by it's own qualities, and something that looks like it should have texture (like an oil painting) but doesn't, because it is a photograph with a filter applied.

Anyway, you are clearly only here to make an argument, you have made no attempt to answer the OPs question, or help them in any way, just interfere with their thread and derail it into an argument. I have no intention of making any further comments, and drag this thread down further. It is pointless trying to debate with someone who selectively avoids the context of quotes in order to make a point, ignores anything said that doesn't help their cause and whos arguments are based on putting words in peoples mouths that they never said, nor are they a reflection of what they think.

I am going to follow P51Mstg and unsubscribe, out of respect for the OP.

Linda, I apologise for taking up space in your thread with this useless twaddle. As I said earlier, give it a go and I hope you do really well. I also apologise to you, if I have got the wrong impression and you are looking at spending several hours on the conversions to create genuine art, rather than do a fairly straightforward application of an "art" filter and just twiddle a few sliders, like the people around here who sell this sort of thing. I would be interested in seeing your results if you are going the whole way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FeXL
Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
     
Aug 28, 2013 10:25 as a reply to  @ sandpiper's post |  #15

The sandpiper doth protest too much, methinks...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,596 views & 0 likes for this thread
Pondering on turning photographs into digital rendered art - your experience?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lindascott
909 guests, 282 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.