I don't paint photorealistic

I recently painted my fourth kereru (below). This blog post shows the progression. I don't have a set style (or at least I don't think so). Photorealism is an art style, painting or drawing with a lot of detail to look like a photograph. I don't paint photorealistic (or is that photorealistically?)  In this blog post, I will try to explain why.

Also, it doesn't really matter what one paints, to make a progression with subjects less frequently painted. Every painting is a learning experience. I like to paint a variety of subjects. I now specialise with acrylics but I have had previous small  group tuition in traditional oil painting.

'Water Brings Life' (2024)

The main reference for the painting

Above is the main reference I used for the painting, 'Water Brings Life'. I took the photo myself and it achieved 'commended' at the New Zealand Amateur Photography Awards (NZAPA). The photo was taken with a handheld camera in dim lighting conditions without a flash. With an entry price-point mirrorless camera and lens.

I use the reference as a guide and change things as I see fit. If you compare the painting and the photo, they may have some resemblance, yet they are quite different. The beauty of being an artist, is we can change things.

I knew that going into this painting, the background was too plain for my taste, plus taking too much space. I needed to do a bit of experimentation. I haven't painted the rocks exactly the same. I liked the idea of a leaf floating on the water but moved it and changed the shape. The bird was actually painted without a drawing; I just did a loose sketch with paint. Painting and drawing are different disciplines. 

Someone who saw both, said the bird in the painting looked more 'majestic' than in the photo. I was very pleased to get the photo but in the photography world, it's not an excellent photo. It's pretty good. It's more than good enough as a reference. Something to bear in mind is that the camera will detect things differently to our eyes. This will be more apparent with painting from life rather than a photo.

Oftentimes, reference photos aren't even particularly ideal to work from. 'Photorealistic' from the above photo, would be painting in every twig on the ground. Missing out on the opportunity for creative expression. I see photorealism as high in detailed technical skill but low in creativity. It doesn't fit my personality and goals. I like to have the freedom to improvise, choose colours that may be different from the reference, change the lighting etc. I can observe the details but I am more of a big picture person, not trying to paint every leaf.

Symbolism and metaphor are important to me. Painting is also a form of therapy (I have a mental injury of PTSD with bipolar disorder).

I painted my first kereru (below) five years ago in 2019.

'Abundant' (2019)

 'Abundant' was my first attempt to paint a kereru plus my only attempt so far, to paint miro. This painting was inspired by a photo I took near the same place as the other kereru. I remember feeling so excited taking my first photos of a kereru. One of the reasons I painted in a stylised way was to stop feeling anxious that I was doing it 'wrong' if it's not 'perfect' (I have perfectionist tendencies, which can actually cause stress).

For 'Abundant', I was using what paint colours were available (borrowed paints). I managed to find the original main reference, a photo I'd taken myself and had printed (photo of it below). I don't usually print out photos now (cost plus taking up physical space I don't have the luxury of having). I wanted some berries for the kereru, so added some in. My painting skills have developed since then. My photography skills have also improved. I mostly take photos as potential reference pics as paintings. Plus, I enjoy photographing birds anyway.

Painting is a different discipline from photography. What is seen as ideal (say for portraits) in photography, can be flat in painting. Trying to copy a photo exactly - well that means potentially there is not any original expression. Several people could make pretty much the same, if it's 'photorealistic'. I don't aspire to photorealism. Professional art photos aren't even 'real' anyway - they are highly processed digitally, to try to evoke emotion etc, similar to a painting.

I saw a plein air painter compare his paintings with photos of the same scenes. The photos lacked the mid-tone colours he could see, so his painting was more interesting.  The midtones were lost into shadows of photos of the same scene.

​Anyone who believes a photo is a realistic capture of reality, doesn't understand much about photography. I think the term 'photorealistic' is a bit of an oxymoron. I used to work as an assistant for photographers at a publishing company. They altered all of their photos, to seem more vibrant than the actual scene, yet depicted as 'reaslistic'. Even stitched together elements from different photos but portrayed as though it was originally taken as a single photo.  It's not honest if saying it's 'real'.

Of course, as artists, we make the scene more vibrant if we like and make a composition how we like. I have however, seen some photographers slap a filter on a photo and then call it 'fine art photography'. The filters are AI (artificial intelligence) generated and have a particular style, themselves.

Some digital images are merely generated AI generated. Others are photos which are altered by applying a filter. Technology without creative input isn't art, in my view. It's getting harder to tell apart, digital art where the artist applied deliberate strokes, from AI images (including style filters). In my view, real art takes time, not generated in a few seconds.

I don't see AI as art, as I believe art needs an artist. These days, AI can make photos look like paintings. Or can generate a scene, based on styles of real artists (most likely scraped from imags uploade to the internet). A lot of artists are upset about this, saying it's theft and plagiarism.

I saw a video clip from a teaching class from a high-end portrait artist. What was remarkable is that all the paintings looked like clones. Almost exact imitations of that artist's painting, using his exact palette, method etc. I suspect all the students were given a canvas with a drawing, as there were no perpective issues. All the exact same proportions, size, colours, subject etc. 

I painted 'Phoenix Kereru' (below) in 2021. It's easy for me to check when by flicking through my art journal or art photo album. Clearly this is not 'photorealistic'. It's very stylised and I painted it while dancing. Anyone I show it to immediately knows it's a phoenix (with a kiwi flavour). It's been described as having energy, power and movement. The orange from the beak represents fire and voice.

Phoenix Kereru (2021)

I actually used a lot of photos as inspiration. The pose was actually inspired by a photo I saw online. To significantly change it (copyright), I did some sketches, then didn't look at the photo at all. This meant that the painting looks nothing like the original inspiration (which had 'ordinary' colours).  Most of the sketches were from my own photos, to make me think about the approximate shapes, colours etc before I got painting. So I could get very creative, with hardly looking at any photo reference pics. I felt tremendous freedom with expression.

I didn't attempt to paint the tail feathers exactly, as I was more capturing mood, story, movement and energy. My psychologist said the kereru looked like it was erupting out of a volcano. I painted this artwork as the proposed cover for a book, Soar Purpose. The initial pen sketches and notes to think about anatomy. colours and possible composition were in my art journal:

'High Hopes' (below) was inspired by a photo I took with my phone. I was actually just taking a pic of my surroundings and a kereru flew towards me. I have combined elements of three or so phone photos taken around the same time. I was aspiring to climb a local mountain. I did climb some of it but I am not sure if I will be able to make an attempt to the summit (recent knee injury etc). Can't say I didn't give it a go.

​I am now riding a bike a few times per week instead (hadn't ridden a bike for years). A climb to the mountain summit is not a realistic goal unless I can drop some weight and improve my fitness.

'High Hopes' (2024)

The main reference was from roughly stitching together a few photos taken that afternoon into a reference. I didn't have to do this but sometimes it makes it simpler to work with. Phone pics aren't that great photography-wise for birds but they can be adequate as reference pics for landscapes.

I decided to make the kereru larger in the painting. Artists have artistic licence, after all. If you compare, I have put my own interpretations, used more vibrant colours etc. I also ditched the reference (like I usually do) and adjusted the bird etc to suit my preferences. 

I now use a tablet to display my reference images while painting. This means I can zoom in to help compensate for my eyesight challenges. I have three different eyesight issues, which means I have difficulty seeing both my reference and my painting clearly (no single set of lenses can work well for the range I need). One or the other is blurry, just like with a camera lens can be.

Just another reason why I don't bother trying to paint photorealistically. I can't see all the details, unless zoom right in, anyway!

Phone pics stitched together as a reference pic

Kereru Fine Art Prints

I invested in a camera which takes sharper pics when I decided to go semi-professional with my art. As a bonus, it takes better pics of birds in dim light (so some reference pics I wouldn't have been able to get before).

I have since learned how to take better art photos too. One thing I have learned is that the lighting matters and I also don't vanish my paintings until after I take the photo for the prints. If you look at the 'Abundant' photo, there is a reflective sheen from reflected light on the surface, which interferes with the painting. So, I had probably varnished it before taking the photo. This can be even more obvious with gloss varnish (which I rarely use).

I have fine art prints available of three of the kereru in this blog post. There are various size/price options with and without a border.

'Phoenix Kereru' Fine Art Print

NZ$35.00 - NZ$95.00

Combining the kereru (New Zealand wood pigeon) with the metaphor of the phoenix rising from the ashes into fire.

Phoenix Kereru is a fine art print reproduction from an original painting by Xanthe Wyse.

Vivid colours with movement and energy.

Giclee pigment-based inks on 275g soft-white, matte, acid-free art paper. Archival- rated print.

Available in three sizes with and without a border. Canvas texture is visible in the print (adds to the painted effect).

Shop

'High Hopes' Kereru Fine Art Print

NZ$35.00 - NZ$55.00

Kereru flying in the clouds above a mountain. Fine art print of an original painting (acrylics) by artist Xanthe Wyse from New Zealand. Inspired by the artist's local surroundings, including Mount Tauhara.

Archival-rated giclee fine art print with pigment-based inks onto 275gsm textured, matte, soft white art paper.

Options with 8 x10 " (203x254mm) with a wide border or without a border. A4 (210x297mm) without a border.

Price is in New Zealand dollars and does not include shipping.

Shop

'Water Brings Life' (Kereru aka NZ Wood Pigeon)

NZ$35.00 - NZ$75.00

Inspired by a kereru (New Zealand wood pigeon) seen drinking from a rock pool, surrounded by native bushland, in a nature reserve.

Giclee, archival-rated fine art print reproductions from an original painting by Xanthe Wyse. Pigmented inks on 275gsm soft white, acid-free, textured, matte paper.

Options various sizes, with and without a border.

Canvas texture is visible in the print. Prices are in New Zealand dollars and exclude shipping.

Shop