ArtsArt
ANSWERS: 9
  • Idk. A portrait can capture more subtle things about the subject than a camera can. Think Picture of Dorian Grey or Portrait of Jennie. A portrait can make its subject look more alive and vibrant.
  • I think the line can be blurred between a painter's vison and photographic effects.
  • probably to take pictures
  • A picture since flaws can't be easily hidden.
    • mushroom
      Air brushing has been around for a long time, and these days Photoshop can cover many sins (or create others).
  • A skillful painter can show things about people that the camera cannot.
    • Jenny_Rizzo
      That's because the camera will have to zoom in closely on a person of your short stature.
  • taking pictures is faster
  • A painting is subjective. It's more of the artists interpretation of what another person looks like. A photo tells no lies.
    • mushroom
      Cinema is photography. Tell me there are no lies in cinema.
    • Archie Bunker
      I don't get the feeling that the question is asking about Photoshop and CGI. Being that the question is in the Art section, I'm guessing that the question in regards to that area, not special effects.
    • mushroom
      There's plenty of propaganda in cinema, effects or no effects. Still photography can also be manipulated using backgrounds and lighting. Look at all the appeals for charity: they often use images of extreme conditions, not necessarily reflecting the true picture. Here's another example where simple low-tech cropping changes the meaning of the image: https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image-cropping-change-everything-61__605.jpg
    • Archie Bunker
      I don't disagree with you, mushroom, but I think you're missing my point. A photograph is going to be more accurate than a painted portrait.
  • A painting is a great way to add interest, but a picture is anything that fits into the frame of your eyes.
  • Taking pictures is better.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy