Previous news story Next news story

These impressive photos will trick you into thinking they're paintings

Sep 16, 2013 at 01:41:17 GMT

Print view

Photography, as an art form, can be quite elastic. It can be used to capture the 'decisive moment' or a once-in-a-lifetime split-second shot. Or, the form expands into more studied, careful, fine-art approaches. These photos fall into the second category. Their use of color and lines, artificial lighting and repetition give them a lot in common with paintings - so much so that they might just trick you at first glance. Take a look at a few below, and head over to My Modern Met for the rest of their ten favorite can't-believe-it's-not-a-painting photos.

Photo by Frans Lanting. Camel thorn trees in Namibia.

Photo by Denis Collette.

Photo by Oscar Ruiz. Housing development in Mexico.

Photo by Barbara Cole.

Via: My Modern Met

OTHER NEWS

Comments

Total comments: 113

That picture of the dancers...is simply stunning. I don't care how they arrived at this final image, but the use of color, the fact that it resembles a fine art painting, I love it.

0 upvotes

Great images, my attempt at looks like a painting, no filters https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/38250_10150215893475165_3607317_n.jpg

0 upvotes

These are I have to admit are very good but they are not paintings they are a photograph, I often wonder why people try to make a picture taken with a digital camera retro, buy a Holga, a Diana or a pinhole camera then they will be real.

0 upvotes

Why so many comments regarding creating filters? The beauty and uniqueness of these images is that their effect is achieved without applying any creative filters (except probably for Barbara Cole, which for that reason I would exclude from this category). Most likely most of them are oversaturated to a certain degree, but that's about it. The rest is just a rare moment of visual illusion created purely by sunlight, and not by some cheap, disposable, mass-produced, "fast-food" filters.

3 upvotes

Actually, Cole's image is sx70, pretty obvious.

0 upvotes

These are amazing. I am obsessed with any kind of photography that looks like a painting. After clicking through the artists' links, I can say Barbara Cole seems to have the largest body of work in this style, its amazing, and completely original. More great photography with this aesthetic: www.piercefineart.com

0 upvotes

As a mediocre amateur photographer I find that the only way I can make some of my photos interesting is by applying "art filters" such as those on my Olympus. The best program I have found for post processing into paintings, cartoons etc is AKVIS Artwork Pro, which comes with a free 2 week trial.

0 upvotes

As noted by the ever-astute readers here, there are 4 pictures that, through 4 different methods (note I said different) have a somewhat painterly quality about them. I like them all, especially the last, which is not only composed perfectly, but captures several marvelous expressions...a wonderful shot :)

0 upvotes

Boy, you sure can't fool these DP readers.

2 upvotes

I like this conception. Especially the Namibia connection. Please continue these types of motivational photography.

0 upvotes

Nice. However, it's rather interesting that some people say a painting is really good if it 'looks just like a photograph' and now this.
Whatever, all good fun. I like number 4 best, I think number 2 looks like it could be Impressionist brush strokes but is a bit flat to be an Impressionist painting so is a near miss from my point of view - the other two are probably fine too, but don't do much for me. All subjective, but as they've managed to get the billing they have got they're better than I can do!

0 upvotes

I love the image created by Oscar Ruiz - photo, painting, or whatever, I enjoy it.

0 upvotes

Be good to have the original photos to compare with.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have a hunch I would like the originals better. This is a matter of taste and these types of images seem over cooked to me. I might like Duke Ellington and others here won't. There is room for everybody.

2 upvotes

Some comments seem to see the use of filters, software and other techniques as a detriment of the final image. IMHO, this is true ONLY when talking about photographs that are meant to be documentary or for journalism. When the artist choose a photograph as a derivative or the source of an art piece then, there are no rules. The final products is a result of what the artist envisioned and it may look simple once is done, but the idea was originated in the artist mind. That's the difference.... the challenge is never to think that it can be done with this or that tool, the artistic challenge is to have the idea/vision in the first place.

13 upvotes

Spoken like a true artist, Semper - but I'm afraid there are a number of inquisitors-in-training here that would like to burn you at the stake for your belief.

1 upvote

1. Impressive - looks like some screen print art.

2. Eh? Not impressed. Simple Photoshop filtering.

3. Very impressive - how did he do that?

4. Very nice. I do not know if this is difficult or if you simply can buy that filter. Looks like an oil painting filter has been applied. Those doing work like this might know how hard it is.

1 upvote

Take a look at the source :
http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/10-photos-that-look-like-paintings/
There they have some explanations on how the pics were taken.

0 upvotes

edit

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

You seem to be judging these images by the techniques used to create them, and / or how difficult they are to create. Try to just experience them for what they are without "inside knowledge" and by calling them "impressive" or not, that misses the point and reduces them to a merely technical exercise!.........IMHO

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Yes, you are right. My judgement was regarding me knowing how to do them. I would say that #2 is very easy to make. You can do it and so can I, or at least something resembling it or at the same level. Therefore I find #2 uninteresting.

Regarding my feeling for the images. I like 1 and 4. Even though I find the last one showing slightly too young women in the sensual situation. Looks good, but gives a bad taste. IMHO.

Number 3 is a special case. It looks like it is rendered in a computer game. I wonder - do it look like this? It might be nearly not manipulated at all. Then, it is interesting. Then I would like to visit the surrealistic place.

0 upvotes

nope. im not tricked.
(been to namibia myself, rest was not so tricky)

0 upvotes

I think that photography and painting are two different ways to express yourself, and it can sometimes be difficult to see what is what. I think that these photos are
superb. F.ex. take a look at the homepage of the danish painter Daniel Goldenberg. His paintings almost look like photos.

0 upvotes

OK, how did they do it?

0 upvotes

I think Barbara Cole really aimed for that Degas 'look'. Even the subject are very Degas-style.

0 upvotes

The camel thorn trees photo by Lanting is world-famous, and it's surely a one-in-a-million photograph . It would have also been equally hailed, were it a painting.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

I don't know, looks completely photoshopped to me. Not that that reduces its value as a work of art, but to call it a one in a million shot is a bit naive, more a question of great craftmanship with the camera and computer by the artist.

0 upvotes

The camel thorn trees photo does not look that much photoshopped to me, the trees are in the shade of a dune behind or on the side, therefore the trees and ground look grey/blue. The morning sun hits the dune behind the trees and gives it the orange color.

0 upvotes

Well here are my photographic exploration of Johan Vermeer works, I have created my own story which can be read in the description..... http://levin-rodriguez.artistwebsites.com/art/all/vermeer/all
BTW, all other Galleries are also photographic explorations on Dutch Golden Age painters like Ambrosious Bosschaert, Pieter Claesz, Heda and others.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

@SemperAugustus - I commend you on some great photos! You could honorably be accused of engaging in "painting-realistic photography"!

0 upvotes

Thanks Buzz..... I call it "Photographic Painting".... which paiting by using photographic tools....here is a more detailed "definition" if you will..http://levinrodriguez.blogspot.ca/2012/08/about-photographic-painting.html

0 upvotes

Painting and photography are totally different arts. If you must paint, learn how to put paint on a canvass. Photography is a totally different medium. It may look easy but getting superb images is very hard. Photographers should not waste time imitating panting they should use their imagination at capturing the instant and the very graphical images that the medium allows to capture. Although at first photography appears very naturalistic, it can be so, it has the potential to be the most surrealistic. My opinion. If you like an image who cares what or how it's made from. Life is too short. ENJOY

1 upvote

"Photographers should not waste time imitating panting...<snip>"

I for one, am glad these photographers "wasted" their time creating these. In fact there is no wasted time at all. I'm sure you are spending significant time polishing your superb images in post-processing the same as these photographers are.

10 upvotes

I disagree, no creative work is a waste of time as long as bring satisfaction and reflection to the creator and others. Just because a particular type of work has no value to you, it does not mean that this assumption applies to others. Photography can be or not a different medium, I see it as different set of tools to make something that looks like a painting.... which is what I choose to do.... and I have enjoyed enormously as it has pushed me to be more creative not just with my tools (camera, story, props) but also with the story to be communicated. At the end, it is all it matters at least to me.
You should try sometime....

2 upvotes

There is a more fundamental difference between painting and photography; everyone can take photos. If this is obvious, I apologize. If painting offered auto focus, auto exposure and instant gratification, it would be interesting to see if people still chose photography.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting

1 upvote

You contradict yourself. You accuse photographers who imitate painting of wasting their time, which is very arrogant. Then you say, "If you like an image who cares what or how it's made from." Make up your mind!

0 upvotes

Rules Rules Rules. There are no rules. Photographers are painters, painters are photographers. Who cares. Do you like the images or not? If not, ok, and if so, ok. Who cares *how* they were created, except those who wish to learn new techniques.

1 upvote

@Bill Bentley, Why must the poster see it your way? His opinion counts just as much as yours, mine or anybody elses. It really is no big deal. Tastes vary. His remarks are no big deal.

1 upvote

Just love the over-processed look! Keep them coming!

5 upvotes

Photoshop is for me a form of digital painting. So for me they are paintings, or better said digital images (very nice ones!)
Photography is partly a chemical process, and differs from digital image making.

1 upvote

No, photography was once a chemical process, but no more. However, chemicals did not define what photography is. The word photography comes from the Greek words "phos" which means "light, and "graph" which means "to draw." As long as the image originated from photons of light being captured to form the base image, it's photography. Photography is about light, not chemicals. It's *pho*tography, not *chem*tography. Digital cameras no longer use a chemical process to capture the light to form an image...does that someone using a digital camera is no longer doing photography? Of course not.

3 upvotes

@M Lammerse. Aren't you glad you commented?

1 upvote

Paintings that could trick you into believing there photo's at first glance is true talent.

3 upvotes

So how about the other way around ? That's what this one here is about.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Yeah I saw a painting of dogs playing poker once that was totally photorealistic

3 upvotes

> So how about the other way around ? That's what this one here is about.

The difference is that anyone with a phone can apply a digital filter to any image to make it look like a painting.

Whereas, you actually need talent to paint and even more to make it photo-realistic.

Sure composition and framing etc are important too, but, all things being equal.

1 upvote

@Jogger : This thread here IS about just that ; how a photo can trick you into believing it is a painting . I believe that the usage of simple available electronic filters is not really what is intended to be shown here , so maybe the Cole picture is not the best example.

0 upvotes

nevermind

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I love the watercolour filter on my Sony RX100... not sure if they are photos or paintings. Who cares.

1 upvote

This is interesting because in a Photographing Composition course I attended, we spent the whole first class (2h) trying to determine if this could be called a photo or how different this was from a photo: http://uploads4.wikipaintings.org/images/edward-hopper/morning-sun.jpg

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting

1 upvote

That any of these might be assumed to be paintings says more about the viewer's inexperience with paintings than it does about the images.

And there is the additional, never-addressed issue of reproduction: is a photograph an image or a print? It is worth always keeping in mind that you cannot ever "see" a painting on a computer (or in a book) -- all you can see is a (photo-mechanical) reproduction.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Yes, seeing a painting in an art gallery is *much* different than seeing a printed reproduction of it.

1 upvote

Especially "La Gioconda" (Mona Lisa) .... dissapointingly small, even if you ever can get any close to it ...thanks God there are tele lenses ... :-))

1 upvote

I saw a large print of "Thorn Trees" close up in a nature photography exhibition, and my first reaction was "why is that drawing here"? The illusion is partly due to the amazing contrast in lighting and color, which the eye/brain at first takes as an artist's unrealistic fantasy.

That one is in a different league from painting-like effects produced in post-processing.

0 upvotes

very inspring

2 upvotes

Love the pics, all of them, and don't care what you wanna call them. I am looking at the vision of four artists who have the right to interpret their images as their creativity sees fit. The only thing I am expecting from them is to be honest about the nature of their pictures. Let's keep in mind that fine arts' reason to be, photography included, is beauty and enjoyment. Digital photography can provide a tremendous amount of sharpness and detail. With some subjects this is a plus, with many others it is quite tiresome to the human eye. Landscapes and portraits fall into the latter category.A "simplification" of a Raw file tends to make a photo look somewhat like a painting. Lastly, processing and filtering can salvage a lousy photo but not turn it into a beautiful one. These pictures were great right off the camera.

2 upvotes

A photo need not be realistic.

5 upvotes

Since there is a thing called "photorealistic" in painting,
there should also be a "paintingrealistic" in photography.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

...and I'd rather call it "Paintilusion-photography"

0 upvotes

Or how about "photonotrealistic"?

1 upvote

They are indeed beautiful. Thanks DPR, very enjoyable.
:)

8 upvotes

Barbara Cole's image reminds me of Polaroid transfer techniques of the old days. Interesting stuff.

0 upvotes

As long as they actually do look like that when I come visit, I'm ok with them.

0 upvotes

Very probably they will not, light is ephemeral.I am a part-time pro and photograph the leaves in New England. There are places that I photographed one year and have not been able to recognize ever since.

0 upvotes

That fool me into thinking they are paintings? Eh.... no just NO. Non of them look like a painting AT ALL! My photographs on instagram look more like a painting than this and even I'm not trying to make them look that way.

2 upvotes

Link to your instagram pictures so everyone could go and appreciate them?

5 upvotes

I'd like to see one of your histograms that look like a painting, too :)

3 upvotes

It's not "histograms" Alan, you'd better start off with your vocabulary before thinking about commenting on painting, photography, or any art for that matter ;)

2 upvotes

Please attend to your guide dog...

3 upvotes

I think they looks like paintings, apart from the ballerinas. The trees especially.

1 upvote

Murmillo. I admit I got the term wrong. I doubt the KariIceland will misunderstand the intention in this one instance.

So in your eyes one 'innocent' mistake negates everything else you do? A tad harsh there?

I would still like to see one of his Instagrams.. seeing that he bashed the article's content so spectacularly. I think I have the spelling correct.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

No need to defend yourself Alan. Mudpillow doesn't seem to live in the same world as autocorrect...

0 upvotes

chill greg ;-)

0 upvotes

First pic: Sossusvlei (Deadvlei is being pictured) is a wonderful place for photographers. Dont forget to visit Sesriem Canyon and eat the apple strudel at the nearby town of Solitaire while you are there.

0 upvotes

In spite of everyone who has only half-read the descriptions, it is my belief that Barbara Cole's image ("I carefully manipulated the surface image to add dimension and introduce a painterly quality I loved.") is a painting done on top of a photograph. I don't think it qualifies for inclusion here. Many painters paint from photographs, are their paintings then photographs as well? I think not.

2 upvotes

That's complete non-sense. Did Barbara Cole pull out a bunch of tubes of paint? Did she apply this paint "on top of a photograph"? Where is the "painting done on top of a photograph" that you claim? I really don't see how what she did with the surface texture of the image is any different than someone printing a photo onto canvas, or someone applying a digital texture filter to a photo, or even someone taking sandpaper to a photo! It's still a photo, originally created from *light* (which is what *photo* means) forming an image on film or a digital sensor or photo paper or some other photo- (i.e., light-) sensitive surface or substrate. If you used paint to create an image, that's painting. If you used light striking a light-sensitive surface to form your image, that's photography.

If you're going to make accusations of a photographer doing "painting done on top of a photograph", it would be helpful to show evidence that paint was actually used.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

1 upvote

It's not really clear what she means by "surface image" or manipulation but it's still essentially photography.

1 upvote

Agreed. She has taken a 'photograph' and then uses image manipulation techniques to make it look like a painting.

Does she deserver recognition? Yes.

Does this image deserve to be including in this category with these other largely non manipulated images? No.

All digital images have some degree of processing, but this has been manipulated to achieve the other-worldly look.

If this deserves to be included then so do all the OTT HDR images or even those applying paint filters via photoshop.

3 upvotes

@Jen Yates - "... but this has been manipulated to achieve the other-worldly look."

Back in the film days, there used to be all kinds of filters that added a pastel look, or starry look, or gauzy look, or romantic look to photos that gave photos an "other-worldly look". Heck, some photographers would even smear Vaseline on a glass filter and shoot through that to give their images an "other-worldly look." Cole has simply applied this look manually, post-capture...but it's still a photo. I've seen photos printed on to tin, wood, stone, linen, etc. that also give photos an "other-worldly look"...but they are still photos. The notion that any time any photo deviates from actual reality (i.e. "pther-worldly") disqualifies it as being a photo is simply absurd. Photography is an art form, but its basis is simply the idea that you originally acquired the image by capturing light.

2 upvotes

I would hazard a guess that a large percentage of people here who continue to complain: "if it ain't SOOC (straight out of camera), it ain't a photograph!" still believe the earth is flat.

11 upvotes

If I adjust the picture with brightens,levels, curves it's still photography?
If I adjust the picture locally (gradient, mask, color mask, color adjusting, color balance) it's still photography?
If I adjust the picture with brush tool (smoothing, darkening, lighting with brush tool) it's still photography?
If I adjust the picture with copy (stamp tool, copy past of the picture, remove a part of the picture) is it still a photography?
If I adjust the picture by painting a small detail with brush tool is it still a photography?
If I paint the picture from scratch is it still a photography?

Everybody will probably agree that 1 is a photography and last isn't, but where exactly is the line this is photography this isn't is hard to say.

That's why only think to me witch matters is if I like the result, in this case 1,2,3 I don't, in case 4 it's not bad but still nothing great.

3 upvotes

Wait . . . so, irmo, you're saying you can accept even radical post-processing, but if you don't like it, it isn't photography?

0 upvotes

Photographie - Painting with light.

7 upvotes

Exactly. Check Moholy-Nagy

2 upvotes

Frankly, every other dpr challenge winner looks like a painting.

0 upvotes

Good one! Funny stuff. If half these photos had been posted on DPR forums asking for CC the same people currently raving would instead be posting they were over done, HDR, over processed etc.

1 upvote

HaHaha.. so true.

0 upvotes

Bunch of PS filtering and printing on canvas maybe?

0 upvotes

IMHO, the amount of post processing on so many photos these days means they *are* more like paintings than photos. The only image I would consider to be a true photo here is the house one, and possibly the first one (if so this *is* a remarkable illusion). We need a new term for these sorts of images - they may be based on photos, but have been taken far from them.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

9 upvotes

Indeed...

0 upvotes

They're still photos to me. I don't see anything wrong with simply saying that a particular image is "a photo with post-processing or artistic filter applied."

By the way, the fourth photo, Barbara Cole's, was done with Polaroid film, careful lighting, and careful manipulation of the film surface to give it that "painterly quality." I don't see how she shouldn't be able to call her image a photo, while Ansel Adams spent hours in a dark room manipulating the tones of his images from his negatives so that they appeared a certain way on the surface of photo paper.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

What was it Ansel Adams said - The negative is the score and the finished picture is the symphony.

He would spend days getting the look he wanted, and that's what it's all about - getting the look you want.

6 upvotes

Well Ansel Adams did alter his pictures in his darkroom. But it was during the process of printing/enlarging the negatives and what he was playing with was light to alter the contrast of various parts of the images. It's basically the same as taking a picture - letting light fall on a surface.

I'm with ljmac on this one. We should give this sort of pictures a different name. It's a different kind of post-processing.

1 upvote

The first picture could be straight out of camera. It really looks like that every morning. Sun on the dunes but shadow (caused by more dunes behind the photographer) on the salt pan with the dead trees.

4 upvotes

photings and painto's :)

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting

1 upvote

@Hugo808: interesting point, made moot by the fact that Ansel's final images were quite far from looking anything like paintings IMO

0 upvotes

The houses photo looks real.

These make me want to shoot with the Sony watercolor setting! (just kidding).

0 upvotes

@ageha Indeed. I always wanted to reply like that.

0 upvotes

Frans Lanting is National Geographic's Premier photographer and one of the modern greats. He is a master of light and one of favorite (if not my favorite) photographers.

2 upvotes

My favorite is Barbara Cole's photo, and I also would appreciate it if I could find out how she achieved that effect. Beautiful!!

0 upvotes

Very inspirational images. Barbara Cole's photograph is very stunning. Some guidelines to achieve this quality, would be greatly welcome.

0 upvotes

The last shot looks more like a painting than a photo. Hmmm...

0 upvotes

Did you read the article headline?

6 upvotes

I did. But the last shot still surprises me... more so than the rest. Someone above pointed out it was done with 'careful manipulation of film surface'. That was the answer I was looking for, not your smart-alecky attitude.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

Smart Dougy actually! : )

1 upvote

I like all of these except the houses. I print a lot on canvas and many people think they are paintings. I'm not sure exactly why, but I sure don't try to make them look that way.

0 upvotes

The 2nd is more natural, the rest are results of filters/PP applied to it to make it look like paintings.

1 upvote

Actually the first one has this description on the national geographic site:
"Tinted orange by the morning sun, a soaring dune is the backdrop for the hulks of camel thorn trees in Namib-Naukluft Park."
So, it is not special filters, rather a very lucky situation.

3 upvotes

You should head over to the site and read the descriptions. I think you'll be surprised.

2 upvotes

I like these, I try to achieve similair sometimes but never to this excellent standard.

4 upvotes

Very impressive...

1 upvote

Total comments: 113

Editorial content

Product database

Community


Decaying dresses make photographer's landscapes personal Sep 22, 2013	Behind the Shot: Lost in Space Sep 20, 2013	Photo project documents rivers of the interior U.S. Sep 11, 2013	Bleak and surreal: Photographer turns satellite images into open-source art Aug 28, 2013

	Nikon 1 AW1 Sep 19, 2013
	Fujifilm X-A1 Sep 17, 2013
	Olympus OM-D E-M1 Sep 10, 2013
	Leica C (Typ112) Sep 8, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sep 5, 2013
	Nikon Coolpix S02 Sep 5, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX100 Sep 4, 2013
	Sony Alpha A3000 Aug 27, 2013
	Sony Alpha NEX-5T Aug 27, 2013

##### WHAT HAVE YOU DONE IN M43 THIS WEEK? #####	150
Okay Fuji, so now that the experiment is over....	107
How many shots do you take to get a shot?	83
D610 to be announced within 48 hours (as of 10/5)	81
While everyone ooohs and aaaahs over the ...	78
More leaks about K3 specifications	74
Anyone for Sunday Scapes (2013-10-06) ?	66
E-M1 Trouble focusing on moving objects	55
After 3 weeks & thousands of shots: NEX-6 + ...	51
The Sunday BIRD Volume 9, Issue 15 October 6, 2013	47
Counterfeit lens caps from Amazon	42
GX7: Extended ISO125 Image Degradation?	40
E-M1 as E-5 successor - first week experience	37
Help deciding between Sony NEX-6 or Olympus ...	36
Weekend Catch : 5-6 October 2013	35
X-pro1 vs x-a1 (or is it X-A1 vs X-pro1) using ...	32
I'm going broke buying E-M5 Eyecups!	32
Sensor Technology (The Software Engineer Way)	31
Shutter shock verdict is not present here. ...	30
Info: Split forum threads, now forbidden here.	30

Your email address:
Your name: