[eyewoo]

ceenda... for a client, for yourself, for whomever... if it works for you, if you're happy with it, if you're not hurting or abusing anyone, then go for it.

BooMSticK ... what aren't you getting??? Patronizing you... why do you feel that??? I'm not patronizing you nor would I ever patronize anyone... I'm a bit lost as to where you're coming from here. One of the political slogans that got Clinton elected Pres the first time around was - "It's the ecomomy, stupid." That phrase has since been used for everything since that should be, but isn't obvious. If you felt I was patronizing you, then I apologize. I certainly did not mean it that way.

...and BooMSticK... yes I am generally pretty happy with what I do and have absolutely no pangs of guilt about the process that I use. I am totally confidant that I can draw when and where I need to and whatever I need to. Tracing is cool... In fact it can even be quite artful... see below... traced from a photo that I took -- no filters used, just hand traced with the pencil tool in PShop. This is not the kind of tracing I use for a portrait... Then the line is a simple single line. Below is tracing just for the sake of tracing... why not... it looks cool...



[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[Novacaptain]

I understand fleabrain�s point of view, really.

I think photorealism is great. You say "anyone can copy a photo with basic rendering skills". That�s probably even true but not anyone can take a good photo with basic photographic skills

Learning to understand composition and using good light together with a taste for subject matter isn�t really something you get the hang of overnight.

It�s not just a process of "leaving things out" either...I think the transition from photo to painting is more complex than that.

[BooMSticK]

Ceenda - Well, I do agree with you. and to some extent I think it is what I'm doing myself. Hurrying jobs out the job to get time to do painting for my self... But, I am not proud of my work stuff usually, though the clients are happy. That was what I was trying to say...

Fleabrain - okay... I may need to calm down abit and maybe I was abit jumpy at first.

but.. 'its in the image, stupid', Yes... I thought of that as patronizing. Glad you didn't mean it that way and took the time to explain the full meaning...

And no... I did not base my point of view on your paintings. I'm sorry if it came off that way. Really!
,Boom

[AoD]

you're referring to, of course, using a grid or tracing, or another such easy method.

what about taking a photograph and copying it using only your eyes? what about switching the direction of the lighting, making decisions as to whether raise or lower the brow, close the eye a bit more, spread the lips out a bit, if something just looks off in the photo? wouldn't this involve the same skill set as drawing a person sitting in front of you?

actually, it's harder, using only your eyes. photographs, especially those printed off the computer, are distorted. they're a bit wider than real life, and using your eyes only distorts this more. you have to correct what you see, and this, i would assume, would be a decision made on the artist's part.

if only my scanner works...i'll try and scan what i'm talking about today.

[Sedone]

fleabrain, your method works for you, and that's cool. It makes your clients happy, great. It's a matter of personal philosophy. The sketch you did of the lion up there is neat, but to me, it's just a neat little trick. If you had said you drew it without tracing, then I'd have a lot more respect for the drawing. Why? Because tracing is easy. Rendering something you traced in a snazzy style is easy. Understanding your subject and drawing it on paper, however, is very hard.

Regardless of how you arrive at your final piece, I still admire your technique. At your level of experience maybe tracing is a good thing, but for younger artists I think it's a handicap.

[Sedone]

Okay, Pat, I'll concede. My point of view is admittedly biased towards the type of artwork I personally like. Oh well, I suck at these kinds of arguments anyway .

[eyewoo]

Pat... Good points, all... I like your work. I'd not seen it before. "Wild Zoo #2" had me on the floor with laughter. Cool!!!

Sedone... guess what! The lion drawing is a neat little trick in my book too... That's all... It's artful, cool, and a neat little trick. What I will give it is, it does take a bit of skill to do it that way... That's all...

By the way, Lunatique... thanks for getting this thread rolling... It's been fun

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[Duckman2]

Lunatique is almost right in saying that renderings skills aren't hard to come by, They can be learned easily after all it's just coloring inside the lines. but drawing skills as in proportions and setting your angles correctly without gridding or projection is very difficult and is what most people are lacking in. I not a big fan of photo art because most of the time it is traced or projected and it looks stiff, but thats just me, I happen to think that there is room in this world for all art, except for dead sharks stuck into a vat of blue jello, but thats another debate.

[Daijoobu]

This is a very interesting topic and I would like to ask the people who doesn't like photorealism (mainly Lunatique) a couple of questions:

What if you use a photo for reference, but you don't copy it exactly? What I mean is, where's the point when it becomes "bad" realism? Will the painting (produced with the aid of a photo) become worse the more you work on it, ie the more real it gets? Or should you just not use references at all?
Does it take more skill to just use a photo a little than using it alot? If someone isn't able to copy the photo exactly, so that the likeness with the photo isn't perfect, will that mean that this person is a better artist? - Because his work won't be photorealistic...?

Do you think its ok to use a photo reference when doing portraits?

btw I do think that tracing and gridding and projecting is kind of "cheating"...at least in the sense that then the visual information gained from the photo isn't processed by your brain to the same extent as if your simply looking at the photo and then drawing what you see. Now, I hope that those among you that DO use tracing and such don't get offended. This is certainly not my intent, this is just my personal opinion and I don't pass judgment on other people, especially not since they're all so much better artists than me. =P

[dalickwid aka Magdalena R]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lunatique:
Anyways, I feel stupid to have to post these just to prove that younger people can render realistically. If 10 year old violinists or pianists can be child prodigies and amaze people, why can't 14 year olds do the same with art?

---

how would posting your "prodigious" work prove that younger people can render realistically? that would just prove that young PRODIGIES can render realistically. are you basing this whole argument on the basis that since you were a "prodigy" and could easily reproduce photos, that it's easy? well it's hard for me, so please pardon me while i continue to swoon at photorealistic artwork

[Darkliege]

One thing I've noticed is that after people started ragging on fleabrain's work and how it wasn't truely art because he traced. And infact they were somewhat right. What I have gathered is that flea mostly does his work for clients, not for himself. Art is meant to allow the artist to express himself. Fleabrain isn't bringing some social problem to light, nor imbedding some deep meaning into his work, thus not making it "art" but a commercial piece done for profit and in turn making tracing a legitimate technique in his case. As long as the client is happy, then what the artist feels about his work isn't all that important.

I did the same thing, except instead of tracing the object I used the masked tool and transfered that mask onto a new canvas and I too was ragged on. That piece wasn't for myself, it was just for school. Anything that is done for me, comes from me and solely me. I guess all I'm saying is that there is a time and place for everything and under some circumstances, tracing is legit.

But back on the original topic, photoreaslism is good. It is something I personally strive for in most of my work. It should be liked for totally different reasons than abstracted pieces though. They can't be put under one set of guidelines in critiqing them

[Lunatique]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dalickwid:
how would posting your "prodigious" work prove that younger people can render realistically? that would just prove that young PRODIGIES can render realistically. are you basing this whole argument on the basis that since you were a "prodigy" and could easily reproduce photos, that it's easy? well it's hard for me, so please pardon me while i continue to swoon at photorealistic artwork

---

I have in the past, gotten people who thought they couldn't do what I did, to turn out some pretty damn amazing results--IF they sat down with me for a little bit and follow my advice/suggestions carefully.

I always had dudes come up to me(when I was a teen) and ask, "How the f%ck do you do that? My so-and so(some adult relative or friend)is a professional artist, and even he can't do what you do!" I want to learn how to do that too!

Then, I would ask in a very serious tone, "Do you REALLY want to learn? If you do, then meet me at lunch in the art building, and I'll show you. But if you are not serious, and won't put in the time and effort, I'll never teach you again."

The ones that showed up and DID put in the time and effort after listening to me, made some damn fine improvements in thier artwork. Although none of them attained the kind of realism they wanted to, they also weren't exactly passionate/fanatical about what they were doing as I was. You have to realize, I LIVED AND BREATHED drawing and painting from age 13~early 20's. I took the minimum required classes, drew through all my classes(the ones I could get away with), lunch time, recess, after school, sacrificed sleep, and constantly had art on my mind almost 24/7--and I did this for YEARS. When other kids were haging out at the mall or playing video games, I locked myself alone to draw/paint constantly. You gotta put in the time to get the results.

I'd be very surprised if you put in hundreds of hours attempting to make something photo-realistic and still couldn't. (This is assuming you have a decent amount of talent, and passionate about improving your skills. I assume you have both since you are a sijun member).

You never know what you can do until you put yourself to the test. You have to BELIEVE. You'd be surprised how much difference passion and dedication can make, even for someone who doesn't think they are some kind of a prodigy.

For me, I never doubted I had what it takes. I just believed and forged ahead. It takes that kind of fanatical passion and (blind)confidence for personal artistic ascension.

Sadly, that passion was replaced by my passion for music, literature, and film as I got older. I still love painting though, and I still do it.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Pat]

I've been thinking about it and I don't agree with the assertion that "anyone can copy a photo with basic rendering skills". Semantically, the phrase is true. But the prerequsite is "basic rendering skills" --something most people lack the aptitude for.

Photorealism, matte painting, trompe l'oeil or anything designed to fool the eye requires a great deal of skill and understanding. I hardly think that the development of those technical skills is any less worthy an artistic pursuit than an evolved "painterly" approach. Even if the painting is an exact replicia of a photo, it's artistic snobbery to claim one mark-making technique is more valid than the other. The main strike against Photorealism is a subjective one: with the advent of the camera it's simply difficult to be relevent.

I suppose the superior attitude "painterly" painters develop is because they focus on the impact and emotive nature of their work. They frown on the overly technical aspects of photorealism and it's "cold and clinical" presentation of reality. I refer to these people as Render Bigots(tm). I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect this attitude is an outgrowth of modern traditional art training. Since they layman equates excellent rendering with good art, most artists unconsciously strive for realism from an early age. It is, afterall, the benchmark which most people judge our work. And why not... the rules are simple and anyone can play. You don't even have to be an artist to know when something looks wrong in a painting. As art students, we come to our teachers filled with pre-conceived notions about what good art is. It's their duty to break us these notions, show us the possibilities and ultimately let us make an informed decision about which styles and approaches we want to use.

Personally, I think it's better to look at the photorealists as courageous but doomed warriors fighting a losing battle. The rest of art world has already retreated in the face of technology, pragmatically chosing to focus on the more "relevant" work of "the human experience." But the photorealists are waging war on the very notion that men can be replaced by machines. There's something there that's important I think.

-----------

fleabrain - I love your work. You've got more talent in your little finger than I probably have in my whole body. But I've never once mistaken one of your paintings for a photo. I think your work is the stronger for it though. When I was taught about photorealism I learned about people like Ralph Goings who's work is "virtually" indistiguishable from a photo:



-Pat

[BooMSticK]

pat - excellent said. I couldnt agree more!

Alot of people think photorealism is easy. I don't. Its not a matter og just painting inside the lines. There's so much more to it than that. You have to be able to understand form, space, perspective at their maximum to be able to deliver photorealism. Also understanding of the effects needed to fool the eye. It's not an easy task and very few can do that.

Lunatique's charcoals are nice, but not photorealistic. Flea's paintings are also nice, but again, not photorealistic. The painting that Pat showed is what I would call photorealism. I'm sure it can be learned over time. If you have the passion and the talent. But photorealsim is not for everyone...

about tracing - No, I don't believe that copying photos with your eyes is tracing. Not in my view anyway. Tracing is when you either digitally or via a projection traces right on top of the photograph or whatever reference you got. Drew Struzan has been brought up when we discuss tracing, but it is easy for me to see that his drawing and painting ability's are very good and it enables him to develop his paintings further than them just being - traces!
,Boom

[edraket]

Ok, here's just some random remarks...

First of all. Lunatique I just wanted to say that I really appreciate how you have been whipping out cool threads and starting interesting discussions. That opposed to some people that just whine about their shitty work as a 3d guy.. : )

The reason I do art is so I can create something new. Something that does not exist. I could even say its an escape from the real world. Thus I am not very fond of using photo reference. They go against how I work. Yet it cannot be denied that by interpreting them and learning from that technique I could make the products of my imagination more realistic, more convincing and more powerfull.

I believe that the bigger part of the artworks that are made with photo references have a kind of stiffness, fakeness or lifelessness to them.

I believe that nature in it self cannot be copied by such a systematic method. Because nature in itself is not only systematic but also chaotic.

As to fleabrains work. Not many people I have seen here have such a recognisable style as fleabrain. He has a very distinguished look. Which, I think, is cool.
But his paintings do have that same kind of stiffness to them. I have to say I like his "non photo ref" work a lot better.

As to Vermeer.. I doubt he used photo reference. For obvious reasons. But I'm probably just picking up on a confusing sentence structure here.

Has any of you ever seen a Rembrandt up close? From a distance his work looks very realistic. If you step up close though his brush strokes are very visible. And seemingly put there in a total chaos. Then you step back and you see the reality of the painting again. You can honestly step back and forth for an hour and it will continue to amaze you. I just thought about that when Fleabrain was talking about his visible brush strokes.
Furthermore I don't find Rembrandt that exiting. Although much more exiting than Vermeer.

Ok..well I guess these were my random remarks.
Sorry If I insulted anyone. If that is the case I immediately roll on my back and bare my belly.

*says bye*

[eyewoo]

edraket... As you point out, Vermeer obviously didn't trace from photograhs. However it is thought by some authorities that he did use optical devices to project images on a canvas for tracing. There appears to be some evidence that is so. Certainly there is clar evidence that Thomas Eakins used tracing from projected photographs.

I'm under a deadline this morning, but I'm, gonna write more later...

[Freddio]

you can still be a great artist if you you use photographic references!

however if you think you are a great artist soley due to the technical merit of your artwork then you are deeply flawed.

I feel that all that needs to be said on the matter.

[ceenda]

Yup, it's thought that Vermeer used Camera Obscura, a projected image in order to trace outlines. There's a famous book about it and there was a TV documentary too. It doesn't mean the composition and colour choices by these artists aren't both brilliant and learned. It's the decisions of setting up the scene, working out what works well, modifying the scene etc. that goes into a good picture. Whether you work from still life, a photo, or draw from your imagination, the process is similar. This is what seperates photo-realistic artists from photo-realistic frauds (e.g. Threnody).

[Lunatique]

Pat- You are right about "basic rendering skills" being something that most people lack the patience and skill for. But, when I make a remark like that, I'm thinking, "This is sijun, where people passionate about art converge and learn/hangout/improve." So, in a way, I expect the members of sijun to know their basic rendering skills--and if they are not professional artist, to eventually learn it, as it would be vital to their success to produce any kind of worthwhile representitive art. And from my understanding, most of the sijun aspiring art kids are not aiming to be Jackson Pollock. And if my comment excludes those who will never be able to learn their "basic rendering skills," then I think they would realize in time that maybe art is not going to be a viable career choice for them. But then again, there are some really kickass artists out there who had never, and probably never will produce artwork that requires extensive rendering. But, I believe if you put a gun to one of those talented artists and make him/her do a photo-realistic piece, they can absolutely pull it off.

I believe all the sijun guys/girls here that are producing work that's beyond novice level an take a photograph and copy it one patch of color at a time, and pull off a legitimate photorealistic piece--one that's virtually indistinguishable from a photo.

BUT, that is VERY different than the skills it requires to produce realism styled work WITHOUT slavishly copying photos(example: Andy Wyeth is a damn fine realism artist, but he's nothing like the human photocopy machines I speak of). My problem with photorealism in the first place is the excessive practice of depending too much on photos--pictures you take one look at and can instantly identify that it's drawn/painted from a photographic source(regardless if it's rendered well enough to fool someone into thinking it's a photo), and lacks any other aesthetic appeal other than the fact "it looks real." This also has nothing to do with the photography that it is based on. Good photography or bad, the painting/drawing is still just copying photographs. If the merit of a painting needs to borrow from the original photograph's artistic strengths in the first place, then the painting itself is nothing more than an exercise in rendering, since all the artistic decisions were already made during the photographing stage(composition, lighting, colors, subject matter..etc). If that's the case, the only thing left for the painting to achieve artistically is just rendering.


Daijoobu- I think it's fine to use photo-reference. In this day and age, it's not as easy as it used to be to have models sit for you, so photo-reference would be the only way to check your mistakes. Good or bad art is subjective, as my own bias towards more painterly art is.

To me, I would take a sargent painting over a Bouguereau painting simply because I love his loose brush work. But, I still love bouguereau for his impeccable rendering skills. This, with the fact his artwork still look like paintings, not photographs. In fact, photorealism only started after the advent of photography. Prior to photography, paintings can look as realistic as possible, but they never look like photographs. The reason why a lot of contemporary art in the 20th century has that obvious "I painted this from a photo" look is because artworks like that are usually done without the necessary artistic decisions that's required of an artist when he/she paints without any photographs.

It all depends on how you use the photos. Norman Rockwell uses photos all the time, but as realistic as some of his work is, they always look like paintings to me. Why is that? It's because he's made artistic decisions along the way to make sure they are not just lifeless photocopies.

In fact you NEED photo references so you will be aware of technical mistakes you might be making. You can also base your lighting, pose, colors on photo references(base on, not identical). But, if your end result makes it damn obvious the majority of your painting has its source in photos, then it's more of an eye sore than a pleasure to look at(for me).

Another example of a realistic style guy that I don't have a problem with is Steve Hanks. His watercolors are all realistic images of pensive women(my favorite subject ), but they don't scream "photocopies" to me. He's made some artistic decisions along the way too, to make sure his works are more than mere photocopies.

As far as tracing or gridding goes, would you have any less respect for guys like Sargent, Schmid, Bouguereau, Wyeth...etc if I told you they all traced/gridded the initial drawing onto the canvas(of course, they don't, as far as I know)?

I, for one, wouldn't have any less respect for them. Why? Because the amount of talent it takes to go from a mere line drawing to the kind of incredible work these guys do, they have MORE than demonstrated that drawing the subject is absolutely within their ability. So, if you are a kickass painter, and wants to trace to save time, all the more power to ya. BUT, if you BLINDLY trace, without altering the drawing when your aesthetic sense detects a necessity for you to do so, then there's a problem.

Example: If pin-up masters like Gil Elvgren, Bill Medcalf, Fritz Willis were to just trace their initial drawings, their work would NOT have the punch that they do. It's because they purposely altered the curves of their female subjects that their work wows us(of course, these guys were amazing painters too).

Basically, use reference, but prudently. Don't become a slave to it.

Once again, this is all just my opinion. You absolutely do not have to agree with me. As long as we love what we do and have fun here sharing our passion with each other, it's all that matters.

BooMSticK- I have to disagree. You don't need to understand form, space, perspective at their maximum to produce copies of photographs. As I said before, billboard painters just paint by number, and you've seen how real those things are when you travel down the freeway.

Please, make an experiement and try it out. Pick a photo, and then try to reproduce it in photoshop. Zoom in close and copy every patch of color. You don't even need to sample the colors from the original photo. Just eyeball it so it's close enough. Do that for 30 minutes to an hour, then zoom back out. You should see a small corner of a pretty decent photorealistic painting. (I'm recommending this assuming you've acquired your "basic rendering skills." If not, now is not the time to try out something like that. BUT, doing this experiement will help you acquire those skills.

The pieces fleabrain and I posted are not photorealistic because that's not what we are aiming for. But I have no doubt if both of us were to sit down and try to do it, we should be able to pull it off. It'll just be time consuming(and time is precious), but there's no reason why we won't be able to do it.

edraket-- Me "whipping out cool threads and starting interesting discussions" is really just me having lots of time on my hands(and a mind that won't sit still). All I do everyday is paint, learn 3D, write, compose, hang with the GF, play some games, and post here.

[Merekat]

Wow. Such a thorough debate, I'm not sure my 2c could add anything not touched upon already, but I'll give a shot at explaining my own personal view.

I love people who can paint photorealistically. I strive for it myself without hesitation. And I consider those who can render at such an exhalted level to be masters of their trade but also teachers of mine. (btw, that Ralph Goings picture has me obsessed. I MUST know more about him! does he have a site?)

The reason why I adore photorealistic work so much is because I dearly wish to apply it to my own work. This stems from some ancient yearning in my childhood: when the world didn't look like I wanted it to, I created my own worlds in my head. From this beginning came the need to create a means to bring my viewers in kicking and screaming as it were, into my scenes.

I strive for photorealism not to copy a picture of reality but to make reality out of my imagination. Take my most recent painting, for example:



This is perhaps the newest example of my goals, alongside the second newest, Flikk the Egg Thief.



In this work I had to use a lot of reference ( I don't have much personal experience with dungeon crypts or amazon jungles, you see) to try to pull the scene off. I wanted to create an image that not only communicated my characters but myself to the viewer. My goal was to make the viewer a part of the environment by fooling the eye as much as I was capable.

I will continue to strive for photorealism, tho, not to reproduce anything of this world (more often than not) but to make the worlds in my mind all that more believable. I yearn to know any technique that can make my inner universe that much more concrete. So I do not see the trouble or why it should even be a question why artists would like to replicate reality. Sure, if that's all they do, then perhaps there is some argument to the depth of art... but really. Even as that Ralph Goings clipping shows... even as realistic as it is, who among us would have had the eye to set up the scene just so? Who would have chosen precisely those elements in that view and placement? In setting up a photo-realistic work, there is still art to the process, just like setting up a photo for that final click makes all the difference in the photographer.

I know that my mere opinion may not sway the debate of such an old topic of the ages, but I would like to say that no matter what.. putting paint or pixel to canvas is art. There was a need to express that particular image. Some need to share that insight. Just because it might not be anything more on the surface that we see everyday does not mean it might not gain new light upon closer inspection.

My vote is for photo-realism. I hope I can achieve it to show you all the worlds in my soul. But just because photo-realism is very much like this new-fangled invention called the camera may produce does not make it any less valid an art form. After all, wouldn't the Renaissance have LOVED to get a hold of a camera for their still lifes? Did not many of them try with all their might to replicate reality in objects? And in people, even though stylization did make its mark.

Don't discredit the realist. Sometimes they're the only way to measure the dreamer. ;}

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Merekat ]

[Briareos]

Well I didn't read the whole thread, but here is my take on it, short and simple I think.

Photorealism in iteself is not bad. However the whole reason I got into Art was because of the creativity!

Now, creating a photoreal image using a photo, does nothing for me, I'd rather just view the photo. I dont see the artist in the piece, I dont see creativity, i dont see expression, i dont see emotion or mood. its bland, no fun.

On the other hand creating photoreal from plainaire is something entirly different, however I doubt that the are many people that can achieve this. But still, both of these so far are more concerned with craftsmanship and drafting type skills.

A drawing or painting with photoreal elements, however, is great! Eye candy! Most Scifi and Fantasy illustration fall under this catagory.

[Lunatique]

Merekat- I think you are confusing photorealism with realism.

If you were to produce your paintings of the dungeon and jungle in the photorealistic style, it would not look like a painting, but a photograph. For example, if you were to freeze frame a fantasy movie(pick any- Willow, LOTR, Conan, Beastmaster..etc), and that's EXACTLY what your painting would look like--a still frame from a movie, or one single photograph. It'll basically look like if you built the set, and then had people with costums and makeup posing in your photograph. That's what photorealism is.

If that's what you want, then nevermind what I just said.

Now, if that's NOT what you meant, then give examples of fantasy painters that you think CAN do what you are trying to achieve.

Remember, realism does not = PHOTOrealism. That "photo" part is there in front of the realism for a reason. It means literally, "looks like a photograph."

Photographs have their own idiosyncracies that's different from reality(the way our flesh eyes see reality). The camera lense it not like our eyes, and that's why photographs look like photographs, not reality.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[BooMSticK]

well, Lunatique, I think essentially we agree. The only part where we seem to disagree is in your statement that even mediocre artists can produce photoreal images if they really wanted to.

I sure can't and until proven otherwise I will still believe that 99.99% of this forum are also unable to.

Until now the only photoreal painting in this thead is the image Pat linked.

I'm sorry if I seem stubborn... didn't mean to!
,Boom

[Lunatique]

BoomStick- Dude I would love to sit down with you for an afternoon in person, and show you that YOU can do it. Believe in yourself.

But, I live far from you, so. . ..

Oh man, I just looked at your website, and FUCK YEAH you can do it. Dammit, you don't even realize you SO can do it. You've got ALL the prerequisit skills it takes to do it.

Man, I wish I had you here so I can show you just how CLOSE you are with what you already have learned.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Merekat]

Lunatique, actually, no, I don't think I am confusing them, but I do like to combine elements of them. ;} See, I aim for realism, this is true. But one of the key things that gets me closer to that level of art is the ability to render photorealistic images. I would LOVE to be able to completely create a world straight from my head and have it confused with some new Hollywood film scene no one has seen yet. But my skills are not up to that...just yet. ;} My goal is not to make the world I am presenting believable but so unmistakably real that it would be questioned whether or not it was a set or the stuff that dreams are made of. And I don't see the harm in creating something out of the imagination that is so real, so PHOTOreal that they think it is a photo and the only question is just where in the world did I find that alien centaur to snap that pose? ;}

Boomstick: oh, I hope you don't think I posted my work thinking that I was trying to say my stuff is photorealistic. It's realistic for sure, but that photorealism stuff is still a work in progress. ;} SOMEDAY, tho. ;} Someday...

[eyewoo]

Yeah, BoomStick... from looking at your work on your site, you could do it... if you wanted to - photorealism, that is. But what is missing is the PASSION to do it. My believe is not as total as Lunatique's, but I'm pretty sure most people with basic motor control intact could do it. For that matter, I think most people could be artists if they wanted to... but they would need a passion for creating art. Bill Gates has a passion for technology and empire. If his passion were creating art, that same energy and focus would probably make him a great artist... or craftsman, or politician, or contractor, or chef, or whatever. You need two things - energy and passion and its the nature of your passion that determines how your energy is spent.

[Lunatique]

Ok, BoomStick, to show you that it is absolutely possible for you to do it, I've gone and done a test myself just to show you. It took me about an hour.

Here's the original photo(which I took).


And here's the cropped section I'm aiming to paint.


And here's after one hour of painting in photoshop.


Just brushes and blend. No tracing or gridding. I just eyeballed it all. I did, however, sample the colors just to speed things up. But, I'm sure you can tell by my work that I could match the colors no problem even if I didn't sample.

And the blownup version at 200%


It is by no means dead on, but remember, it took me only one hour to get it this far.

If you still don't believe me, try it yourself for a couple of hours. You'd be very surprised what you can do if you just BELIEVE.



[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[eyewoo]

Yeah... Lunatique... but you are also pointing out another point that I like to make. This is a bit of an overstatement, but I think it illustrates what I'm getting at. It's relatively easy to get something 98% to perfection... and it'll even look good, but it's that final 2% that makes or breaks it. You're either good or your not and it really is that 2% that determines it. This, of course, applies particularly to photo realist artwork. Anyone that can consistantly get the final 2% or even 1% has the passion and deserves the accolades.

BTW, this statement is in not aimed at your work or anyone's work. It is just a point to be made...

I don't disagree with anything you say. But there are two things that troubel me:

1) I have a bit of a problem with the way you say it sometimes - - and

2) I just don't think your applying your thinking to encompass a wide enough scope. For example, saying anyone can do it proves nothing. Why is that important? It's really not. What is important is that anyone can do it up to 98%, and it is that remaining 2% makes it an issue worth chewing on. My opinion, of course...

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[Bg]

Interesting thread!

Boomstick: I'm 99,99% sure that you could copy a photo if given the time.. I did this 2 years ago and it was definitely the last time I blindly copied a photo, there's no real challenge in it... it just takes damn long :

[Edit] Here's a
close up [Edit]



[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bg ]

[BooMSticK]

timo - yes, it is a damn nice achivement you did back then. I remember it! I can understand why you don't want to do this again, heh!

lunatique - yes, why even bother for the last 2%? I'm right with you on that point you make. I would also rather make use of that time to do something original...

And it's a fine offer you gave me and I would like to sit down and talk with you. But photo-realistic painting advise, no thanks - I will pass on that one. Not because I don't want to learn ( I believe I can learn alot from everyone in this forum, I don't have to high thoughts about my art...) but it just covers an area that I dont find particulary interesting... or atleast interesting enough to explore further... Realism, yes, but photorealism no thanks.

,Boom