Think of photos as paintings
There’s a lot to be said for how the accessibility of affordable digital cameras has improved the level of photography overall, and I’m strongly in favour of the idea that digital photography is a good thing.
The downside of digital photography is that we are seeing a whole generation of people who never saw a frame of film as something precious. There are thousands upon thousands of photographers out there who only started thinking about photography when they weren’t limited to 24 or 36 frames before bringing the film to the local shop, and then wait for hours for the results.
Waiting for 2 days for a letter to arrive? Rubbish — Use e-mail! Looking up something in an encyclopedia? Bollocks to that — throw yourself at Google, and you’ll have an answer in seconds. You don’t even have to know the alphabet or be able to spell the word you’re looking for anymore.
The same thing is happening to photography, and it’s happening fast. In a way, it is sad. I remember when I started out taking photos. I was given a 24 exposure film, and it had to last me a month, because I couldn’t afford to buy, develop, and print more than a single roll of film per month. Digital cameras didn’t exist, computers weren’t powerful enough to do even the simplest image editing, and learning of your own mistakes was a terribly long-winded process.
Everything is different now, and it is difficult to say if it is better or worse. I’m guilty of it myself: Instead of planning carefully, measuring light properly, framing everything perfectly, I snap 20 photos to get the light right, 15 more to get the framing right, and a few test shots for good measure.
All in all, it took a painter with a photo camera to remind me what I am doing wrong with photography.
As part of my Photo Critique sessions, I received an e-mail from Kate Ferris, who lives in Scotland. She’s special in the fact that she doesn’t classify herself as a photographer. In fact, she’s an artist first and foremost, and uses photography almost as a tool to help her along. I don’t know if her workflow is meticulous and slow or quick, measured, and precise, but whatever she is doing, it’s showing in the her photographs.
As she says: “I take photos as paintings”, and I think it is a philosophy that is worth exploring further…
Photographic impressionism
Kate submitted 4 photos for critique, and for the first time in Photocritic history, I’m going to use them all in the critique. The first photo is by far the least good of the lot, but it is being let down on technical grounds rather than on the idea. Titled “Inside looking Out”, it is a photo of an urban scene photographed through a window. The neon yellow near the bottom of the photo looks as if it could be a police officer. The yellow reflections in the window make me think that perhaps the photograph was taken from a bus, and the absolutely ridiculous amount of grain evident in the photo tells me that she was really pushing her camera to the max. It’s probably the only way to capture this photo — especially if it was taken on a moving bus — but the neon, combined with the red light towards the right side of the photograph (a brake light? A stop light) and the more yellow light above it appeals to me.
The great thing about this photo is that it would be easy to re-create, and easy to get it right. The effect is created by streams upon streams of water cascading down the window, and the tasty bits of the image are due to the reflected light. So — grab some lanterns, and re-create the photo in your front garden. Different color lights in the lanterns. Camera on a tripod at a low ISO (100 would be great). Get the water hose out to get the window properly streaming with water. And start experimenting. This photograph is impressionism at its finest.
You can’t see anything of what is going on, and yet it is appealing on a level I can’t quite grasp myself. This photo is rubbish — but the idea behind it is fantastic, and all it needs is some more experimentation, a little more planning and a bit less grain.
Photographic realism
The next step on the arts ladder in our adventure in photography is realism. You know those paintings you see in museums where the scene looks as if it could be real, but then doesn’t quite work out? I recently went to Edward Hopper’s exhibition at the Tate in London, and found his works to be downright unsettling. With every photo, there would be something subtly wrong, which upset my photographer’s eye for a picture. Eventually, I worked it out: It’s the lighting. Shadows are missing. Shades are going the wrong way. The most important parts of the images don’t have any highlights on them.
The second photo in this critique invokes that very same feeling on me. I have no idea what I am looking at here — it looks like copper nailed to a wall, perhaps in an old museum or a theatre — but that is not important. The strong, but interrupted vertical lines, along with the unidentifiable object to the left, and the strongly contrasting colours on the right really appeal to me, somehow. It is quite obviously the case of spotting something which appealed to Kate, which she set out to capture. Again, the grain is rampant in this photo (and the particular way the grain manifests itself indicates that this photo is a victim of heavy increases in contrast in Photoshop), and the photograph would have been far better if it had been a more pure representation of the scene, but the idea behind the photo is great. Kate, if you can, go back to the same place, bring a tripod, and try again. I love how you’re thinking, it’s just the execution that’s letting you down.
Photographic Expressionism
Taking a leap of faith into yet another photographic period. The third of Kate’s photos is a bound into expressionism. Moving away from the documentary sphere and into the realm of emotions, the expressionists bend reality to illustrate a frame of mind. To me, this photograph, obviously taken on a beach somewhere, very strongly invokes the feeling of just that. The only frame of reference is a very small speck of sand that isn’t blurry. The rest of the image is a wild mixture of motion, turmoil, and very strong contrast.
Is it a technically perfect photo? Far from it — the foam on the wave is over-exposed, the darker areas of the foam have a very odd blue tinge to them, and I wish a little more of the sand had been stationary and in sharp focus. Having said that, this photo succeeds where many other entries to my photo critique completely fail: It’s illustrating an emotion and has a message. More than that, the photographer saw something that nobody else saw, and decided to try to express it in a way that would show it to casual observers: By capturing it as a photograph.
De Stijl
The last photo from Kate is a lot more conventional than the others, but is also the most technically accomplished. The sharpness is spot-on, the exposure is fine, and the colours have a subtle vibrancy in their own right. The-unhurried simplicity of the ropes hanging in the water is an image of deep, heart-felt tranquility.
I know I’m probably pushing the comparison a bit far, but if I were to compare this photograph to a photographic style, it would have to be De Stijl. The most famous Stijlist — Piet Mondrian — became famous for the forced simplicity in his art works as he introduced a strict minimalism and what he saw as a level of order and harmony beyond what common humans could achieve normally. This photograph is rather close to that ideal: Dark colours, prime colours, simplicity and tranquility united in a photograph that would have looked marvellous on my living room wall. Why? Because anybody could have taken it, but one person took the time to capture it for all to see.
Have you completely lost your mind?
Well, probably. The thing is, I’m a little surprised myself at how moved I am by these photographs. Normally, I’m the first to point out the technical flaws in a photo.
There’s a moral to this story, though, and that is that there is a name for people who take perfectly exposed, impeccably focused and faultlessly framed photos every single time: Technicians.
If I were a photography teacher, I’d take on a visionary student without the technical skills over a technically perfect photographer who lacks the imagination. Every time.
So, if you learn one thing from this critique, let it be this: Take a closer look at painters, illustrators, and other artists of times gone by — visit a gallery or two, and stop to think why their art works. Then take as much time as you need to re-create some of it as photography. Trust me, there’s greatness on that path.
Let’s all try it: The 5 shot challenge.
Finally, I have a challenge for you. Take out your digital camera, and go for a walk outside. On your entire walk, you are only allowed to take 5 photographs, and they have to be of 5 different scenes. If you screw up a photo for any reason, you have lost that scene, and are not allowed to try again.
Think of photography as painting. Be meticulous. Be precise. Spend a lot of time looking through the viewfinder. When you’re sure everything is perfect, pull the trigger.
If you try this, I’d love to see the results — post them in a Flickr gallery or on your blog or something, and post a link to it in the comments to this post.
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
With regards to this critique and Kate’s photography, I’m not a big fan though. I’ve always felt artistically impaired. I don’t get a lot of art that is proclaimed to be genius. The last really cool art thing I saw was Brian Jungen’s work at the Vancouver Art Gallery and that was over a year ago.
With the possible exception of the surf (which I like because of it’s technical flaws), these all seem uninteresting. Kate may be an artistic genius , remember I am le non-art, but I sincerely dislike these shots and not on technical grounds. They’re just plain uninteresting. They evoke no emotion and tell me no story.
That being said, I *really* like the idea of a five-shot challenge. I’ll see what I can do about getting this going. It reminds me of a Q&A session I went to with a magazine photographer who’s name I can’t recall. He spoke of doing magazine covers and shooting nine shots. No more. He said the pressure helped him focus and improved his shots beyond what he’d get if he shot a thousand frames.
I’ve recognized the lack of care that photographers who work and learned in primarily digital (read: me) before. I used give myself film limits for a walk. I’d say “okay, I have a 24 frame roll until I get to so and so’s house” which is an hour’s walk, two if I’m shooting. Normally this is the kind of thing where I’ll come away with one or two hundred frames and pick out three at the end.
I’ve always been more prone to liking the artistic side of photography, but it’s hard to let yourself go the way Kate did when the world is full of technical nitpickers. I’d love to be able to get really creative with my camera, but the engineer in me just won’t let it happen usually. Good point on slowing down and thinking about what you’re doing. This may just be the answer to my being artistically challenged when I have a camera up to my face.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head; it’s too easy to take a hundred photos on the off-chance of getting the one you want with a digital camera and I am making a concerted effort to stop doing it – before I started in photography I was a painter and when you make a mistake on a painting you have to live with it or start again, you can’t photoshop it out. I am trying to get back to that way of thinking. I’ve been to countless art galleries; the paintings that moved me were often not technically perfect – Van Gogh’s paintings with the completely distorted perspective for example. Utter genius. They are good because he had the vision to paint something differently. I know that approach doesn’t strike a chord with all photographers but it does with me.
I encounter a lot of ‘technicians’ who intimidate me as a photographer because they know how the camera works down to the tiniest detail and can waffle on about all the technical aspects of photography – I am far more bothered about what I’m actually taking the photo of so I tend to burn out highlights etc in my haste to capture the shot I want before the moment passes.
I love this style of photography, I like what Kate is doing and this critique is very interesting. I shall be out looking for my 5 perfect photos this weekend!
I, too, struggle with the artistic. I’ve never understood much of the items that get: “What an artistic genious”, or similar statements. Most of those are so uninteressting to me. I know this is just me, and I can completely understand others liking it. They probably feel the same way looking at that certain image, as I do when I see a perfectly captured macro-shot of an insect or perhaps a moody bird and/or landscape shot.
I really got excited last night, as I read this post. I’m not very experienced in photography, but I did learn a thing or two taking photography as an extra class in school. Started out using film and I do remember beeing in the darkroom as we made our filmrolls prior to going out and shooting. Also the ever-lasting time after returning to the darkroom, waiting and waiting.
Got my very first Digital SLR last night, and I saw this as a great opportunity to learn all over again. I also got a compact digital a couple of weeks back, and as I read this, I realized my thoughtprocess now was focused around getting as many shots as possible, making sure I got it right.
Have to use one of these days for this, just as soon as I figure out this new camera…
Fortunately, I do not experience problems with the artistic aspect. If there is no inspiration, then there are no photos to be taken. It’s just plain simple, just because there is space on a Flashcard, that does not mean you have to take anough photos to fill that space. :)
I just enjoy looking around in an environment and all of a sudden there is that interesting object emerging into my view to take photos of. Or I think of something and try to create it… Funny thing is that for many people, photography is so closely related to technical issues that indeed, most people ask me about technical questions (“how to get that flash right?”). Technical knowledge is of course important (especially with DSLR’s, it is good to know what you’re doing), but it is striking that very few conversations are about what to do with “that 10Mpx camera” or “this lens”. I suppose it is a lack of inspiration or a different way of looking at photography.
I often hear “If I have this, I will be able to do that” but not “I can do this with this camera I have.” When I take multiple images, it is mainly because my old Rebel almost falls apart (yes, after taking too many photos) and it suffers from some weird technical malfuntions. But it makes me creative in dodging the technical flaws. :) For me, somehow, limitations work best. Putting on a 50mm prime or trying to be creative with a wide angle lens can be quite inspiring…
I guess endless possibilities do not work for everyone. I like the assignment of going out and taking 5 photos. I will give it a shot!
Sendermen: “For me, somehow, limitations work best.”
I imagine it’s much like the whole ‘I work best under pressure’ most students eventually come across in crunch time :)
I’m glad there’s been so many insightful comments on this one so far. Thanks, all, and keep ‘em coming.
It is very interesting to hear your views and to realise how diverse photographers and artists using other media are in their critique of my digital work.
I guess it might shock some of you know that I am fully aware of the ‘grain’ apparent in the reflections in the brushed steel door are. This door is a plain soft, brushed silver and the colours I have shown are all from passing cars and street lights.
The grain to me is an integral part of the picture – not an unfortunate side effect of taking the photograph at a high ISO. The view out of the bus was a snap capture of a moment in time. Yes, grain again, but it still has ’something’ in the image which pleases me.
The shore photograph was a deliberate attempt to capture movement and jolt the viewer because so little was at rest! The final ropes in the water just leapt out at me for their utter stillness and the pattern they conveyed.
Hi Kate,
Grain can be great in a photo. Not in all photos, but sometimes it really does look great. I sometimes try to use grain in my photos, but mostly I only like clearly visible grain in monochromatic images (BW).
I think most people are really scary of any noise in a photo, influenced by stock agencies and clean visual design everywhere around them. However, I noticed that noise on 100% view looks far worse than when you print photos.
Using noise as a design element can be cool. I like it in the second photo, less in the first one, but that’s my taste. :)
Haje Jan Kamps Says: “I imagine it’s much like the whole ‘I work best under pressure’ most students eventually come across in crunch time :)”
Yeah, but I think it’s not only good for students to have certain limitations. It makes you aware of ways to be creative. It’s the same with composing music on a computer. How to create anything if there is gigabytes of samples waiting for you? You have to make up at least one decision to initiate something…
In my opinion if you would be able to shoot whatever you see, just the way it looks without artefacts then most of my photos would be boring. I the way some photos turn out and surprise me.
For me those examples are looking like snapshots. No genuine ideas, paradoxes, whatever. They would not been saved even if they would have been executed with better technical skills. As a base idea 1. and 4. are thereabouts, but they need definitely more work to become landmark pictures. I would like to see stronger and more original compositions here.
You should go out more frequently with camera and talk less ;)
Well, such rudeness certainly leaves me speechless (not that I talk a lot!).
Kate: I get the impression that Janus thinks that I took the photos, and that I’m waffling on and on and on about my own photos… Or something.
If anything, Kate, you were too terse in the e-mail, because I knew little about you or how you normally work :)
Seems to me, I am the one who’s waffling here… :)
Well as they say – never a truer word than those spoken in jest. Whoever Janus thought the photos belonged to, he made his feelings clear enough! LOL Perhaps he could post his website to show me what ‘landmark’ pictures look like!
>LOL Perhaps he could post his website to show me what ‘landmark’ pictures look like!
For a starter, you can have a look at photo.net critique forum picks. Lot of overdone post processing, but also brilliant, good stuff. I’m not going into dog-fight competition of whose daddy is better fighter, I just politely expressed where I’m thinking your level of work is right now ;)
Work harder for both technique and vision. Photography is different medium than painting, with some new skill sets needed. But you will learn if you have a talent. Good luck.
I’ve done the 5 photo challenge! Only 3 of the 5 were decent enough to post but I’ve stuck them on Deviantart. http://evelynzee.deviantart.com/ – if anyone wants to peruse. I’d do it as a link but I’m not that technical, sorry.
I’m hoping I’m not one of the ‘technicians’ Anna talks about. I’m a bit geeky about everything I do in my life but I certainly don’t think knowing facts and figures automatically makes someone a better photographer.
I used my first digi camera much as I had done the 35mm camera that preceded it. Well, with the occasional deletion of an image that I’d completely messed up. Programs like Lightroom suddenly allow me to just take every possible permutation of a shot, which can be as liberating as it can be limiting.
I had a go at the 5 photo challenge. It took me a little while to really get into the spirit of it. I’ve only actually done four because I threw my fifth away when I saw a different angle for one of the shots I’d already taken.
I decided I’d rather get the other shot and forfeit the challenge than miss the photo. It is about the photos, after all.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marwood/tags/fivephotochallenge/
It was a good experience and certainly more valuable than my attempt to only use a 50mm lens for a weekend. Which I was rubbish at.
Can we rotate #1 CCW and #2 CW? I think this will calm down their static. :) nice work.
Great info guys! I will check back all the time!
terenoddophotography.blogspot.com
I agree that thinking of paintings and making this analogy is a worthwhile effort. Here is a work of mine where I was trying to paint –
http://www.sumitdua.net/painting
Share your wisdom