Paintings — Yes or No?

Andy.

I think the problem lies in the fact that some people perceive them to be painted images rather than photographs. To me they are obviously photographs, numbers 3 and 4 being particularly good. Number two is probably not quite so clear because the photographer wouldn’t have much time to take what is probably the most spectacular shot they’ll ever take. I can’t comment on the photographic processes Damien has described, that’s a language I don’t understand. I do however, understand why Damien suggests the photographers might feel aggrieved at the suggestion the images look like they have been painted.

Regards,

kev35

Guys no need to get a little heated here… I DID clearly state in the first post (If you’d bothered to read it) That NONE of these pics are paintings.

Damien Why would they be discusted? To my knowledge no one has called them frauds?

If you were doing a P51 painting, would you really do one with the canopy covered, and such a cluttered background?

the first two definitely are paintings the third one of AA kinda is not sure, the only giving reason that would give it away to be a painting is that the chrome on the colour scheme is not shiny enough, and for the fourth one, its not a painting im sure!!!

That building in the first one really looks like it was painted in.

Actually they are all real pics, the photographer has used a filter, probably a Cokin Grey ND 4x (#A 153) or a Diffuser 2 (#A 840). I have them as well and they produce a magnificent effect.

The first two certainly look like paintings, but as you say it’s probably just the lighting