"Photography and painting occupy the same position on the spectrum because there are no salient differences between them in how we experience time and space. There are however interesting differences during the creation phase. A photograph captures a scene all at once and is then developed over a period of time and in the dark. A painting starts out “invisible”, in the light, is developed gradually, but remains visible the entire time. Any effect that is achievable by painting is achievable by photography, and vice versa. For instance, multiple exposure is more easily achieved in photography but the appearance it creates is equally representable by the painter."
"There are many similarities between paintings and photography. First of all, photography and painting are similar in that they can both capture moments in time that are accurate.
Although some consider photography to be the truth in capturing moments, painting is able to do the same whether it be actually on site or from a photograph. They are both able to manipulate their "subjects" as well, which has become more apparent and prominent in modern day photography. Photography and paintings are both able to use the artists imagination in order to capture what they are thinking, both can be abstract, precise, indirect, direct, etc. Some consider the main difference "between a painting and a photograph is that the painting alludes to its content, whereas the photograph summons it, from wherever and whenever..." however, I disagree, because I feel like, especially in modern day, artists have created ways to simulate both photograph and painting with the other (Wells, 29).
Something else that painting and photography interestingly share is each other. That is, the incorporation of photography in artistic paintings and visa versa. Though most painting can be done digitally now, there are
Wells, Liz. Photography: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge 1996.