Is there an adequate way to compare photography with painting? Is it a matter of selecting a topic, composition or the discovery of further tools in the post process? Just how to preserve technical tools without bringing about an empty form without content and without a story? Or is photography a distinct form of artistic creation to such a degree that there is no sense in making comparisons with painting?
It is absolutely certain that there are shared rules of composition and it is also apparent that through both media the creator attempts to capture and transmit a story, specific moods, and evoked emotions. It can also be seen that in a technical sense, modern photography can quite realistically imitate painting in its post process. Conversely many painters have proceeded and continue to proceed by using a photograph as the foundation for a painting.
I can't escape the feeling, however, that I would be misappropriating the strength and principles of photography if I wanted to imitate the techniques of painting. Photography is powerful in its own way. It is precisely that twinkling moment, that ringing, that point of fulfilment, which quickly fades away due to the changeable quality of the light and which the photographer tries to capture. A painter progressively layers and works on a painting in real time until he reaches the final form which fulfils his vision. A photographer, on the other hand – and this has been my own experience – constantly absorbs potential layers, contours and visions in a virtual sense, and the moment they become reality, attempts to capture them in an instant with a camera. The richer, livelier and more open a photographer's vision and experience in practice, the greater the chance of taking an interesting photo.
You can follow me also here: