on the same lines as the last post. ( apparently iam still stuck at the same point)
check this : http://painting.about.com/od/artistreferencephotos/ss/RefPhotoAdapt.htm
and this : http://painting.about.com/od/artistreferencephotos/a/painting_photos.htm

and check these sentences :
should this be my aim ? :
"You should not try to take one "perfect" shot that you will use as the basis for your painting. Instead, take at least half-a-dozen photographs, none of which need be the perfect shot. You'll use these together to reconstruct the scene in your mind's eye. By using them as a reminder to stimulate your memory of the scene, you'll get a looser painting than if you try to recreate the scene from one photo."

"Some people scorn the idea that an artist should use reference photographs at all, insisting that the "proper" way to do it is to use a sketchbook. While making on-the-spot sketches is ideal as it means you're interpreting what you're seeing rather than merely observing it, the reality is that we don't always have the time to make the kind of detailed sketches we need for when we're back in our studio. Photographs should be considered high-tech sketchbook for busy artists."

should they really be? or will you always find one who will dismiss the painting as replacing a photo??


ending in the same question : which is superior, photo or a painting ?

I recently got a request for a custom painting , and i had a hard time convincing the requester and also knowing myself,  what i would like to paint among all the vague subjects chosen by the person. I didnt want to pick any random photo from the internet and take it as a reference ( had no inkling of interest) , still life was one option i had banked on, but it didnt interest the person ( a vase and a hand picked flower etc kind of subjects. Her logic was, a thing which can be "kept", why should it be painted and hung on a wall, why not "keep" the "live" vase as it is ), so the next option was trying to convince her about "abstract" still life and why abstract still life.In the end  iam not sure if it interested her ! ? Or may be i  should just do what i like, and put it up for grabs , take it or leave it ?

recent landscape i did from a reference photo, cant say which one is better, painting or framing the print of the photo :( ( oil paint on A3 size paper canvas )

But there is one thing i have noticed though, painting makes photos "simpler", and by doing this it keeps the viewers attention from diverting from the subject that is shown.  And the subject can be intentionally given more emphasis and space on a painting, a photo on the other hand very rarely allows this kind of creativity and manipulation with the subject in question and the composition of the over all frame be it a landscape or a still life.  But its a long way to go for me before i master this manipulation in my paintings and use it to my advantage. More often iam accused (perhaps by myself O:) ) of simplifying the photo to reduce the complexity of painting it :(

long way to go...

The Photo and The painting

I often have this moral dilemma, when ever i sit to paint ie., what is it that iam adding to the photo by doing a painting out of it.   My references to painting ( in whatever few i have done) are usually from photographs and real life . Photographs by others, even if they are good, i dnt feel the inclination to do it as much as  i have for places i have seen and clicked myself . 
I have seen many of the artists playing with this same question, some have found answers and some have found wrong answers. Not surprisingly, i have not got the answer(s) to it yet. But, right or wrong,  Finding as answer is crucial, else it will work against your painting morale, or may even pave way to losing ur artist-self ( may not have such huge consequences, but i have insecurites about my paintings on similar lines, but i usually drive it away by assuring myself that there is a long way to go before i have to confront these consequences )  . I keep thinking about this question often where ever i stumble upon it.

Painting and the Photo:

The video discussing about what a photo cannot achieve and what a post processing can. check here. Though the lecture has nothing to do with why i have put it here, but as always i pick the most tangential thing out of anythingthat is put to me.
And what is it about, rendering what the eye actually saw, to what is actually out there, to how much justice you or the camera are doing to it, and who is superior amongst the both.

Summer Trip

on a bored summer afternoon , after a long "artist's block" made this. rather dull, but productive ending in a least bit.