Photography Without a Camera

A coworker recently recommended the 2014 documentary Tim’s Vermeer which chronicles the obsession of one man who sets out on a five-year project to see if the Dutch painter, Johannes Vermeer, had used technology found today in modern cameras to create his classic paintings. Influenced by a David Hockney book Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters, Tim Jenison observed clues in Vermeer’s paintings that seemed to indicate that Vermeer had employed some pretty fancy technology to help him achieve the near-photographic quality his work was famous for, 150 years before the first recorded photograph was ever taken.

Johannes Vermeer, “A lady at the virginals with a gentleman (The Music Lesson)” (c 1662–65), oil on canvas, 28.9 x 25.4 in (via Wikipedia)

In the documentary we see Jenison slavishly reproduce the studio and all its contents to duplicate the setting of one of Vermeer’s paintings. Since there is almost no surviving documentation about how Vermeer worked, he had to devise a set-up that only used items available to 17th century painters. Through inspiration, trial and error, he managed to produce a convincing facsimile of Vermeer’s The Music Lesson that proved his point.

From my perspective, what made this documentary so interesting was Tim Jenison himself. He wasn’t a painter or a photographer, or even an art historian. Jenison is most noted as the co-founder of New Tek, a company that, early on, developed software that allowed artists to create and render photorealistic images using personal computers. The software is called Lightwave 3D and, in the hands of a talented artist, its rendered images can be hard to distinguish from photographs.

Paint to pixels

The basic analogy used in most 3D software is that of a camera. Much like a photographer, a 3D artist has to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of photographic theory. But, unlike a photographer, the artist must be able to create life-like computer models of everything visible in the scene. And one of the most challenging aspects of that is creating surface textures that mimic real-word materials. Faithfully recreating the way light is reflected, absorbed, scattered or transmitted by an object is what makes good computer generated (CG) imagery.

The best way for a CG artist to learn is to observe those qualities in photography. Even recreating photographic artifacts such as bokeh effects, depth of field and lens reflections can make computer generated images feel more authentic because people are used to seeing them in photography. In Tim’s Vermeer, I could see how Jenison came to many of his conclusions because CG artists train themselves to look for these specific qualities and artifacts in photography, and because of this he was able to see them in Vermeer’s work.

Advances in CG technology has skyrocketed since its early days. And even though it’s become much more commonplace, good CG is elusive because the viewer unaware they’re looking at a rendering and not at traditional photography. In a 2012 Wall Street Journal article, IKEA admitted that about 12% of the images in their catalog were computer generated. According to interview with CGSociety last June, the current 2015 catalog contains about 75% of shots showing and individual item are CG and 35% of room shots (such as kitchens) are completely CG. But why replace traditional photography with CG? It would seem that photographing a kitchen studio with all your product would be much simpler than building and texturing a complex 3D environment.

In reality, the logistics for a photo shoot can be really involved. Shots have to be planned, prototypes of new furniture need to be made and shipped to the photography studio where sets have to be assembled, and much of this takes place 10 months in advance to meet production and printing schedules.

Now imagine that the manufacturer making the furniture runs into a glitch and cannot get a specific material for a sofa and they opt for an entirely different fabric. Now imagine this happens after all the photography has been shot. The sets have been torn down, the props and prototypes have been returned or discarded. The effort involved in reshooting would be significant. In the case of CG, this change would be incredibly easy by comparison.

In the beginning IKEA never planned to create elaborate rooms using CG. It started with a simple chair against a white background in their 2006 catalog. In a way, that was a test to see if anyone noticed. No one did. As the team became more adept at CG they gradually undertook more complex shots. There had been a tendency by upper management to disregard CG as being inferior. In 2009, the catalog team was told to cut back on the amount of CG, but when they asked which images were the most problematic, their critics actually pointed to images that were traditionally photographed, not the ones created using CG.

Pixel perfect

The technology revolution has already had a huge impact on the world of photography. Most commercial photographers have long since abandoned film for digital cameras. The practicality of going straight to a digital file that can be sent anywhere trumps any argument die-hards have about film’s benefits. DigitalImaging Group (DIG), based here in Houston, has found the nature of their work affected in the same way.

uaspine

DIG was founded by Beverly and Wayne Gilbert as a photographic retouching business in 1978, where photographic prints and transparencies were literally retouched by hand. With the addition of business partner Ray Burnette in 1990 their work went entirely digital and who more recently led their advances into 3D modeling and rendering. “I estimate that our CG work has grown from about 10% five years ago to about 75% today.” says Juan Guadiana, who spearheads DIG’s marketing. Like IKEA, many of their clients are racing to bring products to market at a pace that requires the development of advertising materials and packaging months before the actual products roll off the assembly line. Recent CAD/CAM technology has produced prototypes made from parts that were 3D printed, assembled and then shipped to a photographer’s studio to be shot. But even rapid prototyping is slow compared to taking the same 3D files and producing high-resolution renderings. It’s a technology that allows for almost infinite flexibility. Renderings of some products can be shown with optional components, finishes and accessories and at multiple angles that would simply be impractical using photography. Clients routinely request shot variations that would have been insane to attempt using traditional photography. This flexibility is then brought to the web where consumers can see a variety of options that would have been impossible before.

The invention of modern photography nearly 200 years ago no doubt had a huge impact on painters and illustrators, but they certainly didn’t disappear. In 1983, the year I graduated from art school, typesetters still produced galleys that had to be waxed and pasted up to produce mechanical art for printing. The following year Apple introduced the Macintosh and since then most typesetters have closed shop. However, typography is still a valued art. There is always push-back when new technology emerges, especially when it looks like it threatens traditional methods. Ultimately, the graphics industry is driven by economics, not nostalgia. Cost and speed end up determining what path creativity takes from the artist’s table.

Start typing and press Enter to search