not silly at all.

asking him was my first and only thought.

...and perhaps that one is most important - who knows more about his art than the artist?

Bingo!

no one ever asked jesus for his opinion on god.

Please update thread if you get an answer, very curious myself.

In a word:  Light.

yep!

the ambient light is key to obtaining this exposure.

the colour palet (especially of the skin), and softness....not too hard light, not too deep shadows..... i used a hazy light with this one...and the white studio reflected some back

I think it's window light, which is what painters would have been duplicating. I also think that the distance and material of the background is having an impact. I think if everything was left the same, but you changed the background to seamless paper, it would look significantly less painterly.

That's probably the 5D1 as well. It has a very distinct look, especially when used with a 24-70. I can't recognize that combination as well as I used to when that was very commonly used, but my guess is 5D1 an a lens shot at 2.8, but I'm not sure which lens. I also think it's longer than 50mm.

The question is really "what's making me perceive this as painterly" not "how did he shoot this photo"

The photographer will have no way to know what things influence the OP's perceptions.


It may just be that the photo is extremely similar in the pose and the appearance of the subject and that it's triggering a memory as opposed to being because of something technical.

right.. What struck me is the the exotic look of the model which is reminiscent of some of the models the old masters used... To go along with the Rembrandt lighting and the Seargent background.

except its a crop frame Nikon D50 with a 50mm 1.7 prime shot a bit more open than 2.8.

Do you find it possible to cleave then one from the other?

probably only if one perceived that the photographer had not succeeded 113%

ISO 400? shot at 1/40 close to wide open? sure could be.  When I  looked t the EXIF it was just to see if it was a 5D1 or not.  everything else that wasn't 100% crystal clear I didnt bother with.

I agree.

I myself do not think the image has painterly feel at all.

moving pictures wrote:
classic composition, model, clothes, pose, and no modern make.  Very natural looking.  The light is classic too, though in the sample image above, I see a beauty dish reflecting in her eyes. 

That's in camera.  In post....

Desaturated as most "classic paintings" we know have their pigments faded with time.  (see before and after images of the Cistine Chapel restoration)

Crushed blacks.  I don't think these are low contrast images at all.

He also appears to "unify" the colors.  Meaning that a single color was added slightly to the backgrounds, this giving the entire background a similar tone.  A different color layer added slightly to the skins, thus giving all the skin a similar tone. 

Then I suspect in the sample image (thought not his others) a color gradient was subtly added to the background.

I also think the backgrounds, and skin possibly to a far lesser degree, was shift a bit green.  Or the skin and hair was shift toward brown.  (or it could be just my monitor)

I've experimented with similar painterly techniques.

I don't see this image as painterly at all.

well, to each, his own.  many in the fashion industry commented that it does.

Perhaps those with a broader knowledge would comment that it doesn't.

Everybody thinks they have broader knowledge then those they disagree with. 

But as the saying goes.. eye of the beholder....

Wow.  Never thought of that, but that's a really good observation of the masters and the model in the photo the OP linked to.

I think you're right.  Or if not Romany, then maybe the Italian look?  Caravaggio style...

I'm please that you took it upon yourself to study the image and arrive at your own conclusions!  Asking someone how they did something has little or nothing to do with how you may perceive the result.

And that is why some photographs tell you something profound about the subject, while others just say, "this is a picture of _____". 

Successful communication is about the response to the message more than it is about how the message was formulated.

I see it as very painterly: the body has painterly textures and it is also very good.

Sometimes they're not separate. "Why am I perceiving this photo as out of focus?" Because it is.

"Why does this photo of a clown make me feel like a scared child?" Do some light modifiers provoke fear? Is the light close creating falloff and a dark sinister background?

In this clown case it's that the viewer suffered a childhood trauma at the hands of an evil clown and the photo shot with "happy lighting" is triggering a memory and creating a feeling. It's the content and not the technical.


Sometimes it's a mix. In all cases, the photographer can't know what's causing a viewer's perceptions, especially if they don't perceive it that way at all. Maybe Murtaugh needs glasses and doesn't know it, so he makes his post blurry to match his vision. So he's perceiving it as 100% realistic and someone else is perceiving it as "painterly".

Maybe the OP is viewing on a non-calibrated monitor.

For this type of question - which is "why" not "how" asking a group makes more sense, because you have to find people who see it the same way in order to get an answer - that may or may not be the photographer. And there's almost always going to be multiple factors responsible. The more opinions the more likely you are to have someone nail the balance.


The real way to get the answer is ask a crowd who agrees, a crowd who disagrees, the creator, and then experiment yourself and see if you can find something where one way makes it "painterly" and one way makes it not. It's really only the last part that will answer the question. The idea that there creator is the best source is wrong.

I've found that most innovators are not innovating through the technical side of their brain, but the instinctual side. They're going from a feeling, not a thought. They may know  the answer because they're doing it, but it may not exist in words internally. So even in a case where the creator knows the answer, they may not be able to communicate.


I wrote a magazine article about a technical musical recording process that someone had created. Mixing actually. They explained it to me over a 10 hour period. By the end I had grasped only the beginning of an understanding. I spent a year editing and trying it and really started to get the point by then. Years later I can explain the entire thing in one sentence.

At one point the mixer gave a 1 hour demo of the process with me assisting. He talked for 45 minutes and hadn't explained any relevant part of it. No one had any idea what the point was. I asked him if I could provide a three minute demo, where I showed a common problem that happens the normal way and then did the same thing with his approach and the problem couldn't happen. That's now how he explains it.

This has nothing to do with skill or intelligence it's all perspective. His perspective is trying to explain his instincts. My perspective is trying to explain what I saw him do. I spent a year rereading his words. Outlining what he said and the reordering it in to a more logical beginning middle and end and asked follow up questions as I got closer and closer. The thing is that my perspective was outside looking in, which is the same perspective as everyone else, and one he can never have. Communicating it is easier for me than him because of the perspective.


I'm not saying that this is the case in this instance, but the creator can't ever have the same perspective as everyone else and that may affect their ability to answer a question.

I do.

That model used to be my local bartender, so I've been familiar with his work since she shot with him. Whenever I hear Murtaugh, I think "painting".

I do think this one changes and becomes less so as you look at it.

I'm certain I'm influenced by other photos of his and my pigeonholing of his work.