Painting is one of the oldest form of art known to mankind simply due to the fact that it has existed even during the most prehistoric of times when cavemen would draw those etchings on the walls of caves. Of course it reached a deeper meaning eventually as painters added more meaning and substance to the pictures they paint as a means of expressing their emotions, at least that’s what they claim.
Photography is a rather new profession introduced to the society compared to painting. The day cameras were invented, the need for painters faded away because photographers were able to capture locations and events exactly as they appear to the naked eye. Painters also served as photographers once upon a time but that function was given to almost anyone who knew how to hold and click a camera. Painting simply became a means of interpreting events or deciphering how someone or something could have possible looked like.
Given this we can see the clear differentiation between what a painter is and what a photographer is. For me historians would more closely be associated with a painter because in the first place he doesn’t have the historical events in front of him. For a photographer the thing he/she wants to photograph should of course be there right in front of him/her because that’s how photography works. A painter on the other hand would have to picture it in his/her mind and then express it by means of painting which is precisely what a historian does. A historian does not travel back in time and records what happens but instead he researches and given his data slowly moves backward and writes down what most probably happened in the past.