What is the origin of the flat Earth?

Ah, I thought you were suggesting that as the camera obscura had been around since the tenth century, it substantiated his point about photo-realistic paintings not existing until after the invention of photography. Sorry for the confusion!

Quote from: c47man on May 06, 2011, 02:31:56 PM

photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.

Sorry for the bump, but I just had to correct this, because it hurts me to see it unrefuted:

http://pwlawrence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/waterhouse_1024-769.jpg

http://arttattler.com/Images/Europe/England/London/Royal%20Academy%20of%20Arts/J.W.%20Waterhouse/St.-Cecilia.jpg

http://attachments.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1085377&stc=1&d=1287524388

http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/W-X-Y-Z/John%20William%20Waterhouse/john_william_waterhouse_16_saint_eulalia.jpg

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that these paintings could possibly be mistaken for anything but paintings? 

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that these paintings could possibly be mistaken for anything but paintings? 

In the last decade or so, probably not, but at the time they were painted and for many decades afterwards they were far more 'realistic' than contemporary photographs, and for a significant period after that I would say they were at least on a par. I personally think that Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott looks a lot more like a stylised photograph than it does a painting.

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 07:03:27 PM

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that these paintings could possibly be mistaken for anything but paintings? 

In the last decade or so, probably not, but at the time they were painted and for many decades afterwards they were far more 'realistic' than contemporary photographs, and for a significant period after that I would say they were at least on a par. I personally think that Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott looks a lot more like a stylised photograph than it does a painting.

Granted, that is a beautiful painting, but remember that it measures 153 cm ? 200 cm (60 in ? 79 in).  You would be surprised at how much different the full sized original looks compared to a rather smallish reproduction.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 02, 2011, 07:14:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 07:03:27 PM

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that these paintings could possibly be mistaken for anything but paintings? 

In the last decade or so, probably not, but at the time they were painted and for many decades afterwards they were far more 'realistic' than contemporary photographs, and for a significant period after that I would say they were at least on a par. I personally think that Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott looks a lot more like a stylised photograph than it does a painting.

Granted, that is a beautiful painting, but remember that it measures 153 cm ? 200 cm (60 in ? 79 in).  You would be surprised at how much different the full sized original looks compared to a rather smallish reproduction.

I know; although I haven't seen that particular painting in real life (unfortunately), I have seen many other pre-raphaelite paintings, and they tend to be rather large. However, when you stand back from them (as you should), they practically come to life. Moreover, they're still far more accurate and realistic than any photograph of equivalent size, at the time or for many years afterwards.