Someone
This is a painting completed in February 2005. It was a Portrait Class project that I decided to finish in my spare time after the workshop. It probably took a total of around 65-75 hours to complete. The small images are step by step photographs taken during the painting process, and the large image is the final painting after detail and skin texture are added with an eraser and colored pencil. The main colors are blocked in at the beginning, but refinement is withheld until the very end. Look for a more complete step by step article in an upcoming magazine issue~Dru Blair

IMO there's no way that's a painting it's too accurate



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

fake digital painting was actually made into a mag cover

That's stupid. The only thing he created was the magazine cover.
Christ what a moronic piece of fakery. I love the stupid stages he goes through: That proves it's fake beyond a doubt. The fuckwit knows nothing about painting for a start. You don't build up 100% reality over a LINE drawing on a spot by spot basis! It'd end up looking like a fucking patchwork!

And only absolute art noobs ever go for the moth and eyes first (to make them "realistic" before everything else). Oh man, this is classic noobery... Reminds me of the times back in figure drawing class when the people that couldn't draw would always be attracted to the bodies "landmarks". A noob will go STRAIGHT for eyes, mouth, genitals, boobs first and try and make them look as real as they can, filling in the detail everywhere else later.

This reminds me of nothing more than one of those fake paintings you see them do in young children's TV shows like Sesame Street when they paint with blue paint and use a cheap Chromakey effect to make it look like realism is dripping of their brush.

Yep, it's not only fake, but a stupid and obvious piece of fakery at that. That method is basically "Photoshop for bored armature photographers who think they're crash hot".

Wait a minute...I'm confused...it jumps from 7 hours to 70 hours between the last two pictures. Telling me that the last bit of dress took a hundred times longer than the rest of the picture? XD

I can also see a dark outline around the dress in the "7 hours" picture on my monitor. Obviously a photoshop copy/paste job. -_-

They actually put it on a magazine cover? Gullible morons.

ozoneocean
That's stupid. The only thing he created was the magazine cover.
Christ what a moronic piece of fakery. I love the stupid stages he goes through: That proves it's fake beyond a doubt. The fuckwit knows nothing about painting for a start. You don't build up 100% reality over a LINE drawing on a spot by spot basis! It'd end up looking like a fucking patchwork!

And only absolute art noobs ever go for the moth and eyes first (to make them "realistic" before everything else). Oh man, this is classic noobery... Reminds me of the times back in figure drawing class when the people that couldn't draw would always be attracted to the bodies "landmarks". A noob will go STRAIGHT for eyes, mouth, genitals, boobs first and try and make them look as real as they can, filling in the detail everywhere else later.

This reminds me of nothing more than one of those fake paintings you see them do in young children's TV shows like Sesame Street when they paint with blue paint and use a cheap Chromakey effect to make it look like realism is dripping of their brush.

Yep, it's not only fake, but a stupid and obvious piece of fakery at that. That method is basically "Photoshop for bored armature photographers who think they're crash hot".

you're completely right about the patchwork. We're doing oil painting in my art class right now, and the people who finished the details in parts before completely blocking the painting are the pieces that came out the worst. But I dunno if this is real or not...

Fake

The human imperfections would likely escape most painters (the stray hairs, the pores, etc.) So, I would doubt even if I had only the "finished result" to look at. (Though, I am a fan of photorealism/superrealism style, so I wouldn't say impossible.)

But the "steps" are so obviously fake. Cut and paste parts of the photo. There are no in betweens shown at all. No layering. Not even a detailed sketch.

That's the thing: It's the steps.

The finished result is irrelevant. Achieving photorealism isn't hard. You can draw or paint that image and get it to look like that, but it's much easier if it's done very large; that way you can do the fine detail and when it's reduced to the size it is here you can't see the brush work.

There are two main ways of doing photorealism: one is a by copying a photo and the other is by imitating a photo by drawing from sketches and using imagination. The second way is much more impressive and creative, but both take time and a good level of mechanical painting skill.
This pic would be a copy of a photo if it were real. But the step by step approach he's used has proved that it's fake.

I'd just like to throw out there that while you reduce the display size of the image, the page still loads it as a full size. I had three enormous pictures trying to load on one page just now and it took my computer (which uses a steroid-educed cable connection) about 5 minutes to load it all. Maybe make them into links instead?

i could do better than that guy, mine only took 5 hours to do

I'm an art GENIUS@!

it's a painting of the "artist" in a photorealistic style

AMAZING! o_O
HA lol!
You're way better than him!

His pic was meant to be airbrushed? That's a bit detailed for an air rush piece... I don't get it...? You use airbrushes to get nice gradations and smooth tone, not superfine detail :/

subcultured
i could do better than that guy, mine only took 5 hours to do

I'm an art GENIUS@!

it's a painting of the "artist" in a photorealistic style

Haha, shows how easy it is to make that step-by-step thing. XD

hahaha I must buy those magazines, they're a blast
I painted this with tempera copying it from a "penthouse" magazine, I wanted to practice a little

NSWF
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n191/locoma/pileta.jpg

What a farce. Is that an actual magazine? If so, I hope the editor or whoever fell for it and approved that cover (and story) is now looking for a new job. lol!

Hahaha, after all this, what if it IS real? lol!

There's abosultely little to NO mistakes in that picture. :/ Artists can't draw that perfect... no matter how hard we try. :P Even if we had special microscophic glasses for each and every pore... there'd still be mistakes. Also, there's no resedue in the area surround the girl. There's got to be some point in the white that shows the texture difference in the paint and paper.

They can. ;)
It helps if you work big though.

There's even a quadriplegic artists (very famous), who only has the most limited movement in a couple of fingers and mostly works with his moth. Well if I remember rightly he paints quite photorealistic images of people's faces that are HUGE! He paints one little square qt q time and builds it up that way...

I don't see why it couldn't be authentic cg work. There are some great cg artists out there.
This one is real:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=399499 [forums.cgsociety.org]
I've seen other good ones over the last couple of years, and I'm sure we'll see more and more as software improves and people dedicate themselves to learning how to use it.

that's 3d...the computer can calculate the most intricate detail...it's more mathematical than the human brain can process and duplicate.

our brains aren't made to emulate reality...even our memories are pliable.

Of course the finished product could be genuine! Digital? That's friken EASY! Jeez man, it's wouldn't take 70 hours...

It's the method that looks fake and the fact that he got the detail with an air-brush. but jeez man, digital? I don't think we'd bother making a thread about it then... I mean, with practice it's not that difficult with oils or acrylics (just time consuming, and you need practice to get to the right level), but with digital you have undo levels and easy distort abilities at your fingertips, not to mention all the layers and filters to get just the right effect...

Mystic Hand
I don't see why it couldn't be authentic cg work. There are some great cg artists out there.
This one is real:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=399499 [forums.cgsociety.org]
I've seen other good ones over the last couple of years, and I'm sure we'll see more and more as software improves and people dedicate themselves to learning how to use it.

Yeah, but the methods used to create those two are entirely different. In the example you linked to, the artist used 3D modeling to make the image. However, in the Dru-Blair article, the picture is claimed to be a painting. Not even CG - a regular painting.

EDIT: Wow, beaten twice. I suck.

subcultured
our brains aren't made to emulate reality...even our memories are pliable.

Not true, copying a photo just takes practice. And I've seen an artist that does photorealistic images WITHOUT photos of really amazing angles and reflections... Blown up huge paintings of the reflection on a curved stainless steel rail on a train.

it's a copy and not perfect...so it's still not the same image, even if you say it's photorealistic

I don't believe it. At all.

Ozone, photorealism is difficult to achieve at THAT calibur. Not to rule out traditional art or anything, but even the most highly flaunted CG renders with Photoshop editting reveal some element of a creation once one makes a minor zoom into them (mainly seen in hair, eyes, contours, and lack of imperfection). I could've believed it from the zoom-out, but when I saw the zoomed-in picture, I couldn't believe it, especially when it was claimed it only took 65-75 hours via traditional art.
Every imperfection is there, the lighting on all details is correct throughout, even the skin pores are perfectly dotted/faded and line the face with perfect geometry and seem to stretch at every necessary point of the face. Colors imperfectly fade (like in eyes) when they would, the texture of the skin looks ever-so-slightly slated to indicate make-up...heck, even the contour of her chin reveals the fuzz of hair. So many other subtleties to mention. It's not to say people aren't capable of this, but I find it way too hard to believe given the stated timeframe of creation and media used...combined with not knowing about this "piece" at all until I saw it in a drunkduck thread.

...I've seen photorealistic painting first hand. I know.
Besides, even at the size he's claiming, that's still way larger than what you see on your monitor: bigger is easier. Once it's shrunk down, imperfections disappear.

Photorealism isn't as hard as you think. Especially if you copy from a photo. As I have said, a quadriplegic man with almost no movement in any part of his body can archive it! Granted, they're massive images, but he can do it. And as I've also said: I've seen much more complex photorealism than a simple, mundane, stupid little portrait done freehand from sketches and memory!

Either you two have led sheltered lives in regards to the intricacies of the art world, or... Or I don't know what else!

Yes, the finished product is COMPLETELY achievable! Does it take any sort of genius? No, It takes lots of practice, patience, honed motor skills, and good observation. Trust me: everyone here could do it in suitable media if only they were willing to practice, practice, and practise!

It's difficult to achieve, but it is possible. It's just that this particular one is pretty obviously a fake, mostly thanks to the "steps" that he shows. I wish I could find this gallery that I used to have saved on deviantArt of a guy who did photorealistic drawings of people, with pencil. It was absolutely amazing stuff, and it was actually real. =P I'll keep looking and post a link if I can find it, but sadly, I can't remember his name. Argggh.

i wanna see some flawless photorealistic pictures

Well, I guess I'm more sheltered than I thought, but I can say there's a good share of photorealism I've seen. I guess I'd really have to see other pictures like this to be convinced otherwise.

Yeah, Ozone, can you link to some of those photorealistic images? I mean, I've been to my share of art museums but I've never seen anything that photorealistic done with traditional art.

Ha ha. I guess I say, get thee a digital camera and save yerself the time.

Why bother creating something in 70 + hours that looks completely like something you could photograph in a micro second?
Sorry, Im not getting it.
Trall lala la la

~B

That's a good point Barb, Photorealism is possible but pointless. It's basically the apex of imitation, therfore ultimately banal and not actually very creative. But an astounding skill nevertheless. :)

As for links... Jebus guys! NO! If my word isn't good enough for you I'm NOT going to spend a couple of hours looking on Google for sites that shos pics I've seen in galleries, TV, and books over the last 20 years or so. Don't believe me if you'd rather not, it's not that important and I really am too busy today. ;)
-Just a couple more forums to look at and then I've got stuff to do.

*laughs* Look at the difference between 1 hour and 3.5 hours!!! They're so different from each other! And how the hell are you supposed to get down the pours? Also, the tiny strands of hair? Not buying it.

It's so stupid: a little kid like me can tell it's fake. They should maybe make the steps more convincing next time...