Most photographers aren't painters, but if you were a painter would you paint what you like to shoot? I know there are time, talent, and monetary factors, but if none of that mattered would you be interested in painting something you aren't shooting?
I have a friend that calls me (often while I'm in the middle of class) and asks me to run over to a scene and take a picture of it so she can paint it later. She's pretty amazing so I do it when I'm not busy. Oh, she's attractive too and that helps.
Some of my photographs are designed/composed to later be paintings.
Available time is the shortcoming. I don't have enough time to paint now. Other priorities take all my time now.
On the other hand, because I enjoy photography so much, I see things that look so good as a photograph, I see no reason to paint them.
Also, my paintings tend to use materials that do not translate well to the type of photographs I like to make. I like to paint with wax (encaustic) and while some people do make figurative and "portraits" in encaustic, I tend to favor more abstract wax paintings. Visit my website if you want to see. My paintings on display look completely different from my photos. This pleases me with variety.
The bugs made me chuckle. No, I would not eat those.
Available time is the shortcoming. I don't have enough time to paint now. Other priorities take all my time now.
On the other hand, because I enjoy photography so much, I see things that look so good as a photograph, I see no reason to paint them. —Steady Hand
I can ditto that. I started out as a painter. My mother was an art teacher. Then I bought a camera to take studies of things to paint from. Got fascinated in the camera and haven't been able to get back to painting. I can make a living with a camera, but never did with the brush!
