British photographer David Osborn creates images that are more reminiscent of Old Masters than photographs. In winter/spring 2025, they are being shown in Konstanz (Constance, on the lake of the same name), for the first time in Germany. Here, Osborn explains why he works the way he does.
There’s something about these pictures. All the details say: this must be a photograph. But the light, the mood, the absence of anything modern says: painting. What can be seen in British artist David Osborn’s first exhibition in Germany is literally food for thought. It opens on 17 January at Leica Galerie Konstanz and runs until 5 April 2025.
But who is David Osborn? David Osborn was born in London in 1961 and earned his spurs as a photographer for news agencies and newspapers, including Reuters, Associated Press, The Independent and The London Times, to name just a few. He then spent time in Asia, where he documented the Muslim struggle for freedom in Mindanao in the Philippines.
In 1989, he settled in Sydney. After eleven years in Australia, Osborn returned to London and began to focus entirely on airports. In addition to a series on airports around the world, he also documented the reconstruction of London Heathrow.
It all about how our brain works
In fact, no one will fail to notice that David Osborn’s images are somehow different and that they are the result of intensive post-processing on the computer. David subjects his images to an in-depth process in Photoshop and, as he says, uses techniques that directly target the perception of images in our brain.
In doing so, he is directly inspired by the great painters of the past. These are above all the Old Masters of the 14th to 18th centuries. It is obvious that the Renaissance and Baroque periods in particular have a great influence. The images by David Osborn’s images are — for once, the term really fits — painterly.
David Osborn says that this method of image manipulation is the central part of his creative process. Even more, it is an appropriate answer to the digitalisation of photography. And his approach is scientific in a way because it is about how we perceive images and how we react to them.
David Osborn is convinced that the brain works with learnt patterns and evaluates each new visual impression on this basis. What is entirely familiar gets ignored. What is completely disturbing triggers either a process of cognition or a rejection.
Images on the border between the familiar and the disturbing
He aims to create images that are located precisely on this boundary between the familiar and the disturbing. Familiar are the places or settings in which the pictures are taken, for example Prague, Pisa, or Konstanz. What is disturbing is that the photos do not show what we expect to see there.
This is due to the post-processing, in which David Osborn removes many elements from his pictures and adds others. These include, in particular, lighting effects that guide the eye and a gradation of the level of detail. You could consider Rembrandt’s paintings as a model.
Nobody, says Osborn, looks at simply beautiful pictures because there is nothing surprising about them. What is too familiar does not arouse the viewer’s interest. On the other hand, anything that is too different from the familiar makes it difficult for us to relate to it. David sees this as a universal pattern in the way we humans process visual impressions.
Visual perception is a matter of science for David Osborn
He sees his work as a “proof of concept”, and wants so show that a theoretical project can be realised in practice; in his case, that his images work. The aim, he told me a few days before the opening of the Konstanz exhibition, is to create “pictures that stimulate people” — and not to produce “pictures that people like”.
David Osborn is very much concerned with technical skills, which he also teaches in his workshops. In Photoshop, he works intensively with layers and many of the tools available in this software. Not surprisingly, he also sees a strong focus on craftsmanship in his historical role models.
According to him, it was the painters who had the best craftsmanship that prevailed and established themselves to this day. This is quite a contrast to the ubiquitous emphasis on originality and creativity in the art world.
What David Osborn contributes to the discourse of photography
In his technical-scientific approach, David Osborn focuses on three areas: He is convinced that light, three-dimensional form and spatial distance are three core qualities that an image must possess. From these, he then develops his images. As a result, they explore the limits of photography in a new way by putting such an emphasis on post-processing. Thus, he also scrutinises photography as a “medium of authenticity”.
David says that he creates something new and unique, and that he also uses photography as an opportunity to gain knowledge. With his pictures, he also wants to understand on an abstract level how we humans actually perceive and process images.
If you would like to see this for yourself, you can visit David Osborn’s exhibition at the Leica Gallery in Konstanz, Germany, next to the Leica Store Konstanz in Gerichtsgasse 14, until 5 April. Or browse his website, where he also offers workshops in which he shares his experience and insights.
Read more on the Leica Galerie Konstanz
Read more by Jörg-Peter Rau
A cup of coffee works wonders in supporting Macfilos
Did you know that Macfilos is run by a dedicated team of volunteers? We rely on donations to help pay our running costs. And even the cost of a cup of coffee will do wonders for our energy levels.
4 minutes read turned into about 2 hours going over his ebook. I am intrigued by David’s painting with digital imaging workflow. Definitely grabbed my attention more than the average 17 second on each images.
I’m interested in reading the comments posted to date. My reply is as follows. – People stereo-type pictures. Photographers set rules about photography, painters set rules about paintings, but nobody investigates pictures in general. – Why do you have to stereo-type pictures and not just see them ‘as pictures’?
I’m interested in: How as humans we relate to pictures, respond to pictures and how the brain processes images, and how we can use that knowledge for creating better images. If we understand how people perceive and respond to pictures and codify some fundamental visual principles for pictures ‘in general’, we can use those principles to create better pictures of any subject, in any style, in any media. – We become better ‘picture-makers’.
They’re universal visual and artistic principles based on human nature and psychology. – If we understand how we ‘read’ pictures, it makes us better at ‘writing’ or creating pictures. – Many of the principles I found are based on understanding human nature and how our brain processes images of any type, be it art or day-to-day life. Many of these principles were used by old master painters, but photographers don’t use them because photographers don’t want to alter their images. They expect the camera to do all the work, but it can’t because a camera is only a mechanical tool. Not altering pictures is a rule photographers apply to pictures, but it’s only a self imposed rule.
Many of these principles are covered in my tutorial, what I call on my website an ‘ebook’. Knowledge that applies to anyone making images. The educational benefit of my pictures is found in reading my tutorial.
The ‘look’ of my pictures is missing the point, it’s the visual principles behind my pictures that’s important. – Style is only superficial, it’s just my personal style and love of old master painters. The style is different for every one of us, but the visual principles don’t change because we’re all people and we process pictures using the same processes.
May I suggest reading my ‘e-book’? That’s where the knowledge is and it’s knowledge that applies to everyone. – I will keep following the comments. I’m interested.
Best regards, David.
Just a quick reply, I’m on the road at the moment, so it’s not perfect.
In 1998 I went on a week’s landscape photography course in Tuscany. There were two tutors for nine of us aspiring landscape photographers. The recommended film was Velvia and our results were judged a couple of days later once the film had been developed. The real creative work was done before pressing the shutter, with filters being the only tools available to alter what nature was displaying through the viewfinder. Old habits die hard and I am really not interested in all this post-processing malarkey.
On my walls at home I have many paintings from old masters as canvas photographic prints. I have toured many art galleries here in Britain and on the continent and where copyright allowed, snapped away with acceptable results. On the main wall in my lounge I have five Rembrandt paintings with the famous “Night Watch” from the Rijksmuseum being the centrepiece. I am very happy with the images as they are now without wanting to “enhance them” to nullify the effects of ageing which could I am sure be done with post-processing.
Chris
On seeing his first daguerreotype around 1839/40, the French painter Paul Delaroche said ” from today painting is dead”. He was wrong, of course, and indeed he continued to teach painting to others, including the son of Louis Daguerre. Less than 20 years later, the Dublin photographer, James Robinson, was successfully sued for making a coloured stereo photographic copy of a famous painting by Henry Wallis called ‘The Death of Chatterton’. Since then, painting and photography have had a relationship which was sometimes tolerated (e.g. pictorialism) and sometimes controversial (e.g. The Cottingley Fairies and Arthur Conan Doyle). It has always been possible to alter the content of images with brushes and in the darkroom. However, the possibilities have increased immensely since the digital turn. Dunk is right in saying that this type of altered reality has found a home in camera club competitions, but I had thought that the fad had disappeared somewhat more recently, but that AI nonsense has given it a whole new lease of life.
David’s pictures above look ‘nice’ and they may be the sort of thing which might appeal to people who are not really interested in photography and consider painting to be a superior art, which is an awful lot of people in my experience. Indeed, many such people might think that David’s images were actually paintings. With the advent of ‘AI’ etc we probably need to define what is and what is not ‘photography’, which term was intended to describe drawing with light. I’m not sure that the term ‘altered photography’ would fit, but it would be preferable to ‘enhanced photography’ as the question of ‘enhancement’ is often debatable.
I don’t mind what people do with images, but my preference is for images that reflect the reality of what a photographer saw and which were created using light. I don’t think that it is time to reverse Delaroche’s statement and say “From today photography is dead”, but with the exponential rate growth of possibilities to alter images electronically we probably need to look at our definitions to avoid confusing our audiences and ourselves as photographers.
William
I have read a few of David’s articles over the years and been interested in his approach. I’m not sure of putting people in period costumes into the images works for me, but the purely architectural and landscape are meticulously executed.
Thanks for posting this. As others, I have certain misgivings, but I am fascinated by these reworkings of photos. I’m very glad I got to see these. I was interested enough to visit the artist’s website, where he shows some of the stages in making these — how shall we call them?
Very interesting and challenging!
Reminds me of some camera club competition / exhibition entries – for which some PAGB approved judges award commendations – thus encouraging other entrants to produce similar images, i.e., in the same or similar ‘style’. “Each to their own” but for me personally, they fail the ‘on my wall’ test. I’m all for creativity but years ago I recall similar styles of imaging (pre-digital) were termed “Noddy van Gogh” pictures. Superb technique but “leaves me cold”. When we’ve seen one, other similar interpretations all look ‘same old, same old’.
I am a street photographer. But i went on a landscape photography workshop for the experience/adventure. It was eye opening to me how much time and effort goes into massaging a landscape image in post. Often the end results are radically different from the starting point. In street photography the ‘ethos’ is much more about getting the image you want ‘in camera’. I don’t necessarily think either approach is better or correct but it is definitely different. I see continued divergence as the processing tools evolve. We are just going to have to live with it. Osborne’s photography based creations are beautiful and that’s good enough for me.