FAKE

The point here is that this guy didn't create anything. He's only making a copy of a boring picture.

And I'm sceptical about if it's true or not. The three first steps (especially 3.5 hours) are strange. I made photorealistic airbrush illustrations for 15 years and I think the best (if you want to be efficient) is to start with a first layer of skin color for the WHOLE SURFACE and adding step by step every skin shades & contrast, and adding all the complex details at the end. Strange to see the cheeks, chin & neck still in white.

But anyway, about photorealism, everything is possible.
Look at Ron Mueck work... an hyperrealistic sculptor...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2005/12/29/GA2005122900888_index_frames.htm?startat=1

I've seen some hyper realistic paintings of street scenes at the Corcoran in DC, but I can't think of the painters name. But the ones I saw were real paintings done in oils...and the details were out of this world!

Now, these are pretty nifty:

The pool series is really cool.
http://www.lorraineshemesh.com/art/pools/CD4_01.html

And this one isn't really "realistic", but nice!
http://www.damianloeb.com/art/cantyoutakeajoke.html

Good link Claf

Fakiest thing ever...
I mean look at the zoom. It's clearly fake.

And just to give credibility to their fake, they fake a magazine. Classic fake technique. The next thing, they'll come up with a certificate of authenticity stamped by the Nasa.

I'll say fake three times in a row just to make sure everybody knows. Fake, fake, fake.
Oh and by the way, it's clearly fake.

@Dot yes that's me, but 2 years older now

I can see the thruth in both arguments, but nevertheless, I find it unbelievable that people can do this. No matter if it is useful or even stupid...I can't get near the edge of what they are doing.

@Claf the Ron Mueck thang is also beautiful, but here counts the same reasons. What's the use, get a camera and so on. But it is pretty good.

Edit-As for the avatar.... I dang near ignored your post. Laughing

And this is why????

What Alex said!

A FAKE? WHO CARES!
These are fake too and I'm in awe of them as well

not only that, now it seems its good for you too !!!

seriously though, I'm in awe

Sean makes a valid point.

In response... Claf, the article reads that he used the photo as a reference and used some artistic license, albeit, only a little... and I love the link you sent!

Alex... this is not fake! Read the article and look at each image. The article seems to explain the details. I am sold that it is authentic!

Wait.

What's the use? Get a camera?

Does no one see the skills involved painting a hyper realistic painting?

If they wanted to take a photo, they would have.

Instead, they wanted to take a piece of canvas and some paints and create something that closely resembles a photograph.

I've seen some of these. From a few feet away, you'd never know it wasn't a photo...that is, until you get up close...and see the teensy tiny brush strokes.

Unless of course, they're doing it in Photoshop...then it's kinda cheating.

it's all a part of the airbrush rage left over from the late 70's - early eighties... at a time when there weren't digital cameras... and now with the latest technology, what are these guys supposed to do... most of the friends I know that were big into airbrushing, do motorcycles, hockey helmets or are tattoo artists!

These guys need to get a Wacom with the airbrush stylus. Imagine the stuff they could do then.

no shit! (pardon the fecal reference)... they would be insane!

I know, I know... that's why I said he didn't create anything.