This is from a photorealistic painter. It is soooo real that it is almost scary.

http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm

woooah thats intense

do you know you look a bit like bruce willis? (if that's you in your sig that is)

you know it would only take a second to get your camera out and snap a picture.
Spending 65-70 hours to make a photo-realist image is way too much trouble.
Pay me 50 dollars an hour, then we will talk.

I can't believe this



I see how this is related to photoshop... but i though this were only in porn websites.

WOW! it's getting harder and harder to impress people with this over saturated world of incredible artworks!
That's awesome stuff! This link is great too! http://www.artrenewal.org/ :

This actually makes me sick to look at. I can't believe that this is real, I've seen other photorealist images that don't look anywhere near this realistic. If it is real, then the mob will be hiring these guys to create some false images of public figures. I'm not sure why this image makes me so angry. I absolutely hate it with a passion.

Glenn...you've got Marx's avatar !

I fail to see the actual point of it, as a digital camera can do that 70 hour work in 2 seconds

also just the whole layout and the oddly fake looking magazine mock up just makes me think this is not real. The actual stages of 'digital painting' just look like cloning in a digital image with a rather large feathered brush.

Maybe I am wrong, I'm sure this would be possible with enough time. but looking around the linked pages, and other works off the homepage, it makes me go hmmmmmmmmmm

This makes me confused. Even if it was real I agree with DBB and MB, it's a waste of time. Those 65-75 hours of total work could've paid a really nice DSLR...
And some of the other "inphotographable" (new word?) paintings he has would have been easier to do with some choppin

I'll accept this is real, after reading this:
"This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal."

What he really tries to say is:
"I tried to make a perfect copy of the reference photo, but couldn't, so I made some things different and said it was for aesthetic appeal"...

That's right! I stole it from him. He's going to have to earn it back in the H2H. This is a technique I'm going to use to let people know who I'm facing without them having to check through the bracket of 128 people.

And as far as that painting goes, it's a digital image created on the computer.... I would be impressed if it had been done with paint instead. Heck, I could go through a digital photo and zoom into a single pixel and use that as my reference to visually duplicate that pixel on my blank canvas and then move onto the next pixel. I don't consider that art until you changed the media, such as using real paint on a real canvas.

looks fake to me.

That is a great idea! I might even do that. heck, we should all do that

I didn't realise it was digital, I just thought we was a really great painter. I'm less impressed now

I skimmed over the article and was under the impression that it was an actual painting. As in oils. He talks about using an exacto to remove paint. Also discusses some airbrushing if memory serves. Unless those are PS terms too (well I know airbrushing is but exacto?)?

As for the avatar.... I dang near ignored your post.

I'm sorry. I think you are correct on the painting. I just couldn't believe the image wasn't digital. Okay, now I'm impressed.