Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Can a photo be better than a painting.


JackAllTog e2
5 4.0k 58 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2013 11:02AM
From the BBC website Kate portrait: First official painting revealed
I looked at this from a portrait photo taking point of view.
I contrasted it with a simple photo of Kate taken a few months ago

Would/Could a good photographer actually produce a better image (whatever better is). Would they resort to digital painting on the initial image anyway?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

GazzaG2003 11 252 England
11 Jan 2013 11:46AM
I will keep this short & sweet, this imho is the possibly the worst portrait I have ever seen.
widtink 2 406 2 Scotland
11 Jan 2013 11:59AM
Aye of course it can, esp a bad painting Tongue Some beautiful photos are miles better than paintings imho but its all a matter of taste

Rod
widtink 2 406 2 Scotland
11 Jan 2013 12:02PM
Update both of these "images" are pretty crap
SlowSong e2
6 4.8k 29 England
11 Jan 2013 12:16PM
Those eyes! Looks like she's got a hangover.
And they could've toned down the red in the photo. Too hard.
Don't like either.
LVanDhal 2 126 1 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2013 1:11PM
Not that I have any experience of painting the royal family ( for some bizarre reason they have never asked me, though I am sure we could agree a price, Tongue )
I should imagine its a strange gig at best for an artist, and the pressure to produce something that fits in with everyone's idea of what it should or should not portray must be immense, it would take a strong personality to say I am doing it my way and that's it, and lets face it, would that attitude get them the commission in the first place, possibly not.
Personally I think the painting of kate is awful, but I've only seen the image on a computer screen so fair play to anyone who has and can say it works better when viewed as it was meant to be.
To my mind asking which is better in terms of photograph or painting is like asking which is better a car or a motorbike, both have their die hard fans but really they are nothing like each other in terms of skills and talents.
cameracat 11 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
11 Jan 2013 2:08PM
Crikey! Both of these portraits are pretty horrible, If I was her I'd sue for deformation of character.

Both look as though she is on drugs, Or at least doped up to the eye balls.

As Chris has mentioned the reds in the simple photo are pretty awful, Who the hell processed that rubbish?

I'd want my money back ..Grin Then " Off With Their Heads " .....!!!!

Surely they could find someone, Anyone who could produce something a little more flattering for our future Queen.

How about Rolfe Harris, He done a nice one of Liz a few years back...Smile
KenTaylor e2
10 3.0k 2 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2013 2:15PM
A long standing question with me has been why we tend to spend more time looking at a painting/drawing than a photographic print.
As said any judgment should be by viewing the original.
66tricky 8 742 Scotland
11 Jan 2013 2:27PM

Quote:Not that I have any experience of painting the royal family ( for some bizarre reason they have never asked me, though I am sure we could agree a price, Tongue )
I should imagine its a strange gig at best for an artist, and the pressure to produce something that fits in with everyone's idea of what it should or should not portray must be immense, it would take a strong personality to say I am doing it my way and that's it, and lets face it, would that attitude get them the commission in the first place, possibly not.
Personally I think the painting of kate is awful, but I've only seen the image on a computer screen so fair play to anyone who has and can say it works better when viewed as it was meant to be.
To my mind asking which is better in terms of photograph or painting is like asking which is better a car or a motorbike, both have their die hard fans but really they are nothing like each other in terms of skills and talents.



An ex-girlfriend of mine was commissioned to paint a portrait of a member of the RF years back. She received death threats from angered royalists for some time after. It's a poison chalice commission but does raise the profile whether the publicity is good or "bad"... The member in the portrait rather liked it and enjoyed the sittings but that wasn't important to the fervent toadies who get outraged about stuff in which they have no involvement.

re the photo linked: Looks like a standard press conference snatch shot (excuse the expression) so hardly a fair comparison.
66tricky 8 742 Scotland
11 Jan 2013 2:27PM
Oh and PS: who cares?
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2013 2:35PM
Strange how different we see things, my wife who is a painter, not a photographer, thought it was "Lovely", me - I thought it was competent

But - as said above - who cares, if Kate and Will liked it, that's all that matters (a bit like our own portrait photography come think about it Wink )

And, if you think her portrait was bad have you looked at the garbage that wins thousands of pounds in the big international portait photography comps - now that is crap! Grin
LVanDhal 2 126 1 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2013 3:08PM

Quote:Strange how different we see things, my wife who is a painter, not a photographer, thought it was "Lovely", me - I thought it was competent

But - as said above - who cares, if Kate and Will liked it, that's all that matters (a bit like our own portrait photography come think about it Wink )

And, if you think her portrait was bad have you looked at the garbage that wins thousands of pounds in the big international portait photography comps - now that is crap! Grin



I often think its strange how the winning entry in these big completions all seem to fade away after the initial hullabaloo, over the years i have tried
(and repeatedly failed) to get my head around what makes the winning entry's " winning" because i accept that there maybe something about the image that I have yet to understand and i want to learn, but time seems to agree with my initial bewilderment, as who can recall a really good winning entry from say five years ago? or is it just me ?
p12owe 2 101 2 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2013 3:49PM
I'm not sure that the portrait example shown is the best, but as a painter prior to being a photographer but in a completely unbiased wayWink I have to say that the painting would still win over for me.

The photographer has to work with what he has as a subject and use his own skills to bring out the character of the model, all in all a much harder job without a compliant or photogenic model. As a painter you always have license to inject far more of yourself into the image that is created. You are able to interpret what you see rather than just record it, adding emotions and character if needed. It will be interesting to see, with the explosion in photography whether the old masters will ever be superseded in big auction houses by photographic images. I for one, hope they will at least be one day be on a par.
MrGoatsmilk 6 1.5k England
11 Jan 2013 4:22PM
You could hang the painting over the fireplace would be better than a fire guard to keep the kids away
KenTaylor e2
10 3.0k 2 United Kingdom
11 Jan 2013 4:28PM

Quote:You are able to interpret what you see rather than just record it

Also the viewer has to understand what is being presented.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.