• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Your photograph looks like a painting?

Your photograph looks like a painting?

June 25, 2024 JimK 8 Comments

Almost every time I have an exhibition, people take me aside and tell me how much one or more images look like paintings. From their tone of voice, they consider that to be a compliment. In the past, I’ve asked them why that thought that, and not received answers that I could truly understand. Now, I just say “thank you.”

But here’s what I really think.

I think photographs should look like photographs. Photographers are welcome to add texture to their images, paint on them, add diffuse layers, distort things, toy with perspective, and al the other things that painters do, but if at the end the image looks like it was created with brushes, oils, watercolors, or palette knives, I think “why bother.” However, I’ve seen very few photographic images that look like they were painted, unless they were actually painted on (nod to Kim Weston and Holly Roberts here).

That’s not to say that photographers can’t learn a lot from painters. Studying art history and the work of painters can make you better at lighting, perspective control, composition, subject selection, and a host of other things. I sometimes employ chiaroscuro, and I’m conscious of the debt I owe to Apollodoros, da Vinci, Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Goya.

On the flip side, I’m not a big fan of paintings that look like photographs. Thank goodness, I haven’t seen many of those either. I don’t think that hyperrealistic paintings look much like photographs; I think they are mostly their own thing.

The Last Word

← Hasselblad XCD 135/2.8 with 1.7X TC on X2D: high speed mechanical shutter bokeh Direct feedback and learning →

Comments

  1. Ken Lee says

    June 26, 2024 at 9:18 am

    Although I started out decades ago making Large Format silver gelatin prints, today I make digital images: some which resemble paintings to varying degrees, and others that look strictly like photos. I don’t distinguish or categorize images along this spectrum.

    I do the same with monochrome versus color: I use what whatever works best, on a case by case basis.

    Ultimately an image is an image, and “If you like it, you like it”.

    Reply
  2. Eric Brody says

    June 27, 2024 at 9:05 am

    When folks tell me one of my photographic prints looks “painterly,” I usually simply take it as a compliment though I’m usually not sure why.

    I never use texture overlays, almost never print on textured paper. While I sometimes enjoy the work of colleagues who modify their images, it’s not something I ever do.

    I have enough of a challenge making a print with the tools I have, Lightroom and Photoshop.

    Reply
  3. Marko says

    June 28, 2024 at 12:45 am

    I think, most people consider »paintings« to be »works of art«, »made by masters«, »worth to be shown at exhibitions«, just like what most people would think about paintings from Rembrandt / van Gogh etc.
    I think, it is just another way of saying »I like it very much« or »I could not have done it, even though I have a good camera«.
    Just taking it as a compliment is probably the right way.

    Reply
  4. CAT Productions says

    July 14, 2024 at 5:12 pm

    And the flip side, how about hyper-realistic paintings that look like photographs (e.g. Chuck Close)?

    Reply
  5. Paul Grecian says

    July 17, 2024 at 7:09 pm

    I hear this comment about my work all the time. I’m puzzled by it somewhat but think I may be coming to a conclusion. I feel there’s no reason for a photograph to look like a “photograph” if the techniques used are truly photographic and not some software program that artificially adds brushstrokes. I’m not sure that the people who make this comment about painterly photographs fully know what they are thinking. But “painterly” doesn’t mean it actually looks like its made with paint but rather texture isn’t the primary objective, compositions are tight and purposeful, light is soft, color palette is limited. These are things that I believe observers of my images also associate with paintings and so they feel my work looks like a painting.

    Reply
  6. MikaFoxx says

    November 29, 2024 at 8:22 pm

    There’s many ways a photo can look like a painting beyond brushstrokes, I believe. Composition for one. Sufficiently great compositions approach levels of satisfaction that match what someone could imagine for all the “rules” of photography and art. There’s also lighting, and some quality of light can be unnatural like a full flash, or just exceptional natural light that often people never see or appreciate, and feels more dreamlike. There’s also color palette, and more. I would take it as a compliment. It doesn’t mean your upscaler gave it a slick smudgy oil painting look, for most people anyways.

    Reply
  7. Mike MacDonald says

    May 11, 2025 at 1:21 pm

    One day, I asked my wife why she thought so many people MISTAKEN my highly detailed color landscape images of the flower-filled prairies and woodlands for paintings. And her reply was genius, “Everything is in its place.” She was referring to how painters work hard to simulate the glorious chaos of nature with a random swoosh of grass here and there while keeping the compositon “orderly.” And that made all the sense in the world because I work very hard on that very thing, but in extremely beautiful, yet messy, flat places unlike the clean, open, inherently photogenic mountains. Through my photographic eye and style, I’m able to find “the painting on the landscape.”

    Reply
  8. Mike MacDonald says

    May 11, 2025 at 6:14 pm

    Correction: “The painting IN the landscape.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.