Critique Welcomed Two Views of the Samish River

[Brian Moore]

A couple of months ago I attended a workshop on using Photoshop to "make" photographs. The idea was that you take a photo from your archive and modify it various ways using photoshop filters and layers or whatever. It was quite interesting. These are two photos I modified as a result of the workshop. My goal was to achieve something that looked like a painting.

I tried the "Oil Paint" filter in Ps but it wasn't satisfactory in and of itself. It looked too much like texture of one kind or another applied over the image. I didn't like the look. So I tried different things. In the end I did apply a version of the oil paint in Ps, but then brought the images back into Lightroom where I played with sharpening and noise reduction until I got something I could live with.

I applied other changes such as hue and saturation. And for the river I applied Photoshop's "Liquify" filter to simulate some kind of flow.

I recognize this is very artificial and not everyone's cup of tea, but I quite like the images I ended up with. I refer to them as "digital manipulations." I would enjoy hearing your comments, pro or con.

The photos were taken at different times, but they were both taken from about the same spot, standing upon a road bridge that passes over the river. I think I shot both with my Sigma DP1 Merrill.

Looking east


Looking west

 

[Gianluca Drago]

I want to comment these two without reading your introduction first. Later on I will read the context explained and maybe I will add something.
I love them both, but the first one is for me astonishing. Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like you are crossing the boundary between photography and painting arts. William Turner (with much more white paste squeezed into them) comes to mind. Also the second one creates awe, but the first one is something else.

Generally I don't like heavy editing in photography, but these two deserve an exception.

Please forgive me because I don't know what I'm saying.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

I swear I had not read your preamble before commenting, now that I have done so, my previous comment becomes silly (or on topic, it depends).

I would like to know if in editing the photos you had in mind any particular painting, or any artistic period, because the history of painting spans through many centuries. It seems to me that you had Romanticism in mind.

 

[Brian Moore]

Please forgive me because I don't know what I'm saying.

Yes you do!

Generally I don't like heavy editing in photography, but these two deserve an exception.

Me neither!

my previous comment becomes silly (or on topic, it depends).

Definitely not silly. On topic I'd say.

I would like to know if in editing the photos you had in mind any particular painting, or any artistic period, because the history of painting spans through many centuries. It seems to me that you had Romanticism in mind.

I did not have any particular painting in mind. It was more a style I was looking for. Although I did not have Romanticism front of mind, in retrospect it was landscape painting from that era that I was trying to emulate.

Thank you for your comments, Gianluca. I appreciate it.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

You are welcome @Brian Moore. You answered extensively to all the questions I had.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Very interesting, Brian. I think I’d seen the second image on Instagram at some point.

I confess I’m in two minds. They are both fascinating and beautiful images. So on one level that’s all we can ask for. But there is an uneasy feeling beneath the appreciation, that these are fake. They lack the physicality of the brush stroke, which is created by hand on brush on rough canvas - a strongly physical activity that dates back to cave paintings, making our mark on the world. On the other hand, this is a relatively new medium: digital manipulations, and they are as real as that medium is in this digital age. It recalls the moment when my brain was stopped in its tracks when a photographer said to me he was disappointed when he finally saw the Mona Lisa in a gallery, the original. He preferred the false-colour images of it he had viewed for years on glossy paper or a TV screen.

Further thought: It’s a new take on something that happened soon after the birth of photography: Pictorialism. Where photographers attempted to portray the new medium as having artistic worth, so copied paintings of the Romantic era. But photography really came into its own when it stopped doing that, and created its own aesthetic and scientific rules, stopped imitating other art forms.

So, yes, I’m conflicted. I like the images you have created, very much so. But a hae ma doots, Brian! I’d like to see what you could come up with by using the same techniques without reference to art history…if that is at all a possibility.

 

[Brian Moore]

an uneasy feeling beneath the appreciation, that these are fake. They lack the physicality of the brush stroke

That is my over-arching feeling, too. Although I like the pictures I feel like I have cheated.

But photography really came into its own when it stopped doing that, and created its own aesthetic and scientific rules, stopped imitating other art forms.

That is something to consider,...the not imitating part. We are all imitators at some point. I'd say the goal of an artist is to transcend that. (I'm not making any claims to artistry here,...just saying what I think.)

Thanks for your comments and critique, Rob. I think I may post the original photos, just by way of comparison.