[Lunatique]

BooMStick-

I wouldn't want to spend an afternoon concentrating on photorealism either. It's just so boring. . ..

I only wanted to let you know that you have the ability to do it. But thank goodness you have no desire to. I like your stuff the way it is.

Timo-- Child prodigy, eh? Dude, your future is so bright looking it's not even funny. You get my vote for most outstanding youth of sijun.

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

[Pat]

Lunitique- you're selling, but I'm not buying. Most artists will never achive the level of technical skill required to be an excellent photorealist. Period. Sure, copying photos gives everyone a leg up --but that last half mile from realism to photorealism seperates the men from the boys.

You're assuming because this is sijun that we're all passionate about our work, we're here to improve and if we don't already posess the basic rendering skills, we will. But in my experience that isn't the case, even among degree-seeking art students. Most of them look at rendering skills like a chore, annoying classes to take before they got to the "good stuff". The sad fact is that rendering simply isn't stressed nor is it required to be a popular artist anymore. In fact, my professors spent a surprising amount of time counseling me on getting a "gimmick" or an "angle" for my work in lieu of developing any core skills. Part of me thinks this was cynicism, but a larger part of me acknowledges this as a reality of our artistic environment and they were preparing me for what lay ahead. In anyt event, gone are the halcyon days of Picasso, who COULD render like a magnificant bastard, but CHOSE not to. Instead, we live in an age when your work doesn't actually speak for itself. What you say about your work matters just as much, if not more. If you allow me a generalization, my generation of painters are more marketers than renderers.

As for your problems with Photorealism, proponents of the style have some excellent arguments to counter you with. First off, the over-reliance on photos is what Photorealism was about. Your objection that they relied on photos too heavily is absurd. In your painting style that might be a liability, but they lived for it. You're judging their work and values from the narrow view of your own philosophy. But in actuality, you wouldn't even have a basis for your taste if not for their work.

Here's a quote by you: "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..."

Not quite. Frankly, if they compose and take the photo I don't see the problem. However, it was the merit of the photograph the Photorealists were attempting to capture and use in their work. There's something very specific to how the lens sees the world. It has a unique depth of field, it has a focal range and field of view unlike our eye. Photorealism wasn't just an exercise in rendering. It was, amoung other things, an attempt to understand the visual world in a way unlike how we naturally perceive it. It called into question our unwavering trust of photographic images as impartial or mechanical, well before digital image manipulation rendered us all wary. These were important additions to our artistic vocabulary... and whether you realize it or not, your attitutes were shaped by their efforts. Instead, you sit back after reaping the fruits of their artist labor, proudly proclaiming how irrelevant they were. I can't understand how any of your opinions carry any weight in this manner if you can't understand the context of their work.

Here's another dangerous quote by you: "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."

I'd be careful of using that logic. Painters often sketch or do studies to work out the above issues. I'm sure you'd agree that even after all those decisions were made and on paper, there's more left to do in the actual painting than just the "rendering."

Here's another interesting quote: "In fact you NEED photo references so you will be aware of technical mistakes you might be making."

Uh, no. For someone who supposedly hates an over-reliance on photos, this seems a little dependant of you.

But here's the quote that takes the cake: "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)."

But didn't you just tell us that if you do that the only artistic achievement left to accomplish was the rendering? Now you refer to this new issue of "some artistic decisions along the way too" to "punch" up the work. Curious that you can't attribute the same decision making-process to the photorealists. Honestly, I think I get the gist of what you're trying to communicate, but it reads like: "Use photos to base your work off of. Steal their colors and technical merit to proof your own work. Just don't copy them so much that people can tell." So, in essence, you're as much a slave to the photo as the photorealist, albiet you try to disguise your work. How hypocritical this seems --as if the only thing we've learned from the Photorealists was to cover our tracks.

I'm not saying either (or any of these approaches) is right or wrong. What I'm pointing out is that your advice doesn't make a lot of sense after your arguments.

-Pat

[Lunatique]

Pat-- good points you made there.

Of course I understand the "mission statement" of the photorealists. But, I don't have to agree with it, right? I understand where the conceptual art crowd is coming from too, but do I agree with it? Nope.

I said photo references are necessary because we simply can't count on our memories to be 100% accurate. References can remind us of what something is supposed to look like. From there, you make your own decisions on what you've learned from looking at references and apply to your own work.

About basing your lighting, pose, colors on photo references:

That was basically describing what Boris does with his paintings(except the color part--his colors are...colorful). He does the sketch, then get models to pose, light the scene, take photos, then he goes to town using those photos as reference to create his fantasy images. Does he follow the photos 100%? Nope. Would his work look the same without them? Nope.

So, for that style, photo references are very necessary.

Classic illustrators do the same thing(Norman Rockwell, Gil elvgren..etc), and I don't see a problem with it. In fact, their work wouldn't have the same charm without photo references, but you would hardly say they copied photos. They utilize photo references to create images that are realistic, but still retaining the painterly aesthetics.

I never said don't use photos at all. I said use them prudently. All I'm advocating is to not copy photos slavishly.

I can't attribute the same decision making process to photorealists because they copy a photo inch for inch, but guys like Rockwell do far more than just copy photos inch for inch.

I don't see why you say it's hypocricy. It would only be hypocracy if I had said using photos are bad, period. All I'm saying is I like the more painterly look(regardless of tight or loose brush work), and I like idealized reality versus paintings that look like big photographs.

You can give the exact same photograph to different artists, but what these artists do with that photo could be very different. Some will choose to copy it 100%, some will do a likeness of it, but not exactly the same, and some will just use it as a reference point to come up with original works that have from a lot, to just a little similarity to the photo.

So, I like stuff that doesn't look like big photos. I hope that's ok. Some people might hate the kind of work I do, and that's ok too.

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

[eyewoo]

This is such a great thread... It's like a battle between the monsters firing bolts of blood vs. dawn's light brushing the side of an egg shell.

Love it!!!

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

[BooMSticK]

well... im just glad Pat is backing me up on my saying that most artists will never reach abilities to render images which will be or can be mistaken as photos. phew. Glad I'm not alone...

I believe, Pierre (a member here on sijun) posted paintings (done in traditional medium, acylics I think, which could be taken as photos. Some called him a photorapist back then, not believing his work was the real deal. Since then he has indeed proven that he has knowledge to back up his work.

A couple of fine artists who have done very nice examples of photorealism are Richard Mclean and Richard Estes...
,Boom

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

[henrik]

I don't want to add anything in particular to this discussion, but in my personal opinion I believe photo realistic painting (either traditional or CG) is not something anyone can achieve. Photo copies may be boring and uncreative, whatever you want to call it, but it's still impressive and does deserve to be recognized as a "skill" or "knowledge".

For me photo copyists doesn't seem to be very "inspired" or "creative", but the are indeed skillful. In the same way one would learn any other skill. Why learn juggling? Or sports? Ok, maybe these are bad parallells, but my point is; Photocopying may be boring, but it's still to be recognized as a skill. After all, ones opinions are personal. If they like it, I'm glad they enjoy it. I'm me, I like it that way.

[eyewoo]

henrik... you have some very cool stuff on your website...

Click here for henrik's site...

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

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

[henrik]

Fleabrain>

Err...thanks, but the link you put up there is not to my site.
I was wondering, what is your personal opinion about my images? I'm not aiming for "photo-realism", but realism with elements of sci-fi. Does this interest you, or is it a mere "photo-copy" work? I'd like to know. Btw, there is no tracing, no grids, no photo copying no anything in these images but pure painting. All Photoshop.

[eyewoo]

henrik...

big OOOOPS... sorry

I've corrected the link... and here it is again --- blushing embarrasingly... being a website designer and all...

Oh well... I'm trying to get out'a website design and into portrait painting... so goes the world...

"Realism with elements of sci-fi (SF)"... at one time totally had my focus. I thought then that the cutting edge of art was SF and fantasy... buuut... now I really look forward to my issue of "Southwest Art" magazine... not for the cowboy and indian art, but for the wonderful landscapes and realist art that lies between all that cowboy/indian stuff. I am really into working out how light brushes across an egg shell, how it just puckers the smile muscles at lip corners, how the wrinkles are mapped on a brow and - yeah - how to paint a mouth full of teeth without looking like a toothpaste commercial... so that's really what I'm into just now.., and for the forseeable future... I use all the tools at my disposal to hit those goals...

That does not mean that I am not blown away by really good SF and fantasy art... You ask what I think of your work. It is top notch... really like it... world class...

[Lunatique]

henrik- I love your stuff. It's definitely not photo-copies. Sci-fi and fantasy by default are usually not photo-copies because it's kinda hard to get a photo of a dragon or galactic battle scene to copy. . ..

[Lunatique]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fleabrain:
This is such a great thread... It's like a battle between the monsters firing bolts of blood vs. dawn's light brushing the side of an egg shell.

Love it!!!

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

---

fleabrain- actually, I'm not a big fan of monsters firing bolts of blood. They are scary.

My heroes are 19th century guys like Sargent, Waterhouse, classic illustrators like Gil Elvgren, Haddon Sundblom, and contemporary fine art guys like Richard Schmid.

[eyewoo]

good job Bg... the close up is cool...

It looks like you've primarily used the hard-edged pencil tool and lasso tool, like I do... I rarely see digital paintings like that...

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

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

[Lunatique]

fleabrain- you are not the only one that has a problem with the way I express myself. I'm actually pretty harmless--a big softy in general. I'm just a bit headstrong about certain things.

I understand what you mean about getting the last 2%. Sure, it is an accomplishment to do it 100% photorealistic, but WHY? At least for me, if I were to spend the amount of time and energy, I would rather end up with an original painting that expresses my personal creativity and imagination than a painting that is mistaken for a big photograph.

Of course, it's just my opinion. We don't have to agree on this at all. Just because we don't agree on this point doesn't mean we can't agree on anything else. I mean, we all love to draw/paint and we all have an unhealthy obsession with the digital medium, right?

Timo-- that means you were 16 when you did that, right? Good job!

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

[Bg]

Fleabrain: Yep, that's the technique.

Lunatique, actually it was closer to 14

[edraket]

Ok.. so I've been reading all this and thinking a bit...

What I wanted to point out is that it is important to have a personal style to be able to succeed as an artist. For the sole reason that your art needs to be recognisable for potential customers. Or so that people can commission you for an artwork and will know what to expect.

I think if you are a true photorealist you strive to make something that looks like a photo. And thus, in a way, you strive to eliminate your own look. Which I think is not very smart.
Of course there is other ways to still distinguish your work form others. Subject matter for instance. Or compostion..
But this is still a problem you face if you go for realism.
A lot of 3d artists more or less have this same problem. Their software determines such a big part of the looks that it never really becomes their own style.


Using photo reference or real life reference on the other hand is something that is done by many people. It makes life a lot easier. For most people at least. But sometimes it can take away spontaneity.
Especially once you reach a certain point though, and become a god like artist like..say..Whelan using photo reference has the potential to take a little off the quality of your work.
But it all depens on how you work with it.

This all of course...Is just my own personal opinion.

[c]

Threads like this kind of make me laugh.

As artists we like to think of ourselves as open-minded and creative right? Unlike the artless general populace or whatever.

But on boards like this one, it seems like the artists are THE most narrow-minded when it comes to art. Everyone has their own self-righteous view of what is and isn't art, of what is worthy and what is crap. I thought snobbery was the trait of the art critic, not the artist.

What does lunatique's SUPER DUPER AMAZING DRAWING SKILLS AT THE PRECOCIOUS AGE OF 14 have to do with anything? Why are we all posting pics and trying to justify ourselves with them? Why are we putting down, diminishing, insulting, taking for granted all the different art forms under the sun?

Every artist should have a profound RESPECT for art and the artist, no matter the trappings. I'm not seeing that here.

[BooMSticK]

henrik - I totally agree with you!

c - posts like yours make me laugh. While the other artists in this thread tries to discuss and excange views, you just jump in and accuse us of snobbery. Where did you read that? And if you think these boards are so filled with snobbery, then why on earth did you post more than 130 times here???
,Boom

[Lunatique]

C- At no time did anyone in this thread say that one style is wrong or right. The only things discussed here are PREFERENCES. We are entitled to that, aren't we?

And the last time I looked, we were having a civilized discussion. Any offenses that were made to other forum members, apologies were immediately offered. I only wish our debates/discussions at sijun would always be this civilized. God knows how often they have escalated into flame wars in the past.

And regarding the posting of artwork to hlep make a point in discussions, I suggest you read those posts again. They were posted strickly to demonstrate/illustrate points being made, and those points were vital to the discussion of the topic. I never would've posted those drawings from my youth if people didn't specifically ask to see the kind of renderings I was doing at that age.

You don't have to participate, or even read any of this, let alone reply.

I do agree artists need to be open minded, but no matter what, we will always have our own preferences, and for some of us, very strong ones.

Did you ever read the discussions we used to have on modern art? And you think this is severe??

[Digital Genesis]

Not to dog anyone in here, but I still have not seen anything that to me looks photorealistic, maybe with the exception of ballistic's pic with the powerpoles, but even that one doesn't cut it all the way.

Maybe I'm picky, but shouldn't "photorealistic" LOOK like a photo? None of the stuff in this thread does. Sorry.

That, btw, is not to say that it doesn't look good, because it all does

[balistic]

Thanks Digital Genesis . . . one thing that hasn't been said yet, but that I have found very true, is that photorealism absolutely depends on context . . . everybody here knows I'm a digital artist, and I know where all the splines are in "Alkali", so we can tell its not a photo based on context . . . but what I've found, is that you can take a synthetic image that's not particularly real-looking on its own, and if you put it on a wall between two actual photographs, or present it as a photograph, not many people will question it as long as it looks like something that someone might take a picture of.

Conversely, I've seen images that I was sure were CG that later turned out to be genuine photos.

Context is a major player when you're trying to guide someone's perception of a piece.

It always cracks me up when someone says "I've never seen any computer graphics in movies that fooled me!" . . . and how would you know if an effect /did/ fool you, wise guy?

People only see bad special effects . . . the good ones are just part of the movie that goes unnoticed. The same is true for photorealism outside of movies . . . put it in the right context, and people will only see the image, and not the technique.

And that, to me, is one of the most important acheivements an artist can make.

Content, atmosphere, and mood, are all things that should be defined before style is even considered. Style is the filter that goes between the idea and the viewer to determine how the idea is translated to an audience . . . I place exactly zero value on devoloping a strong personal style. Far too often it becomes a crutch . . . it might make you popular with the masses, but it makes you a less versatile artist, and limits the range of your expression.

Anyhow, I'm rambling . . . back to work . . . lighting a cartoon-styled TV series no less

[Lunatique]

I like what you just wrote, Balistic, and I totally agree. Let's all go back to our paintings and flood the WIP and Finished Gallery with tons of good stuff.

[ken]

i don't think i've seen ANY paintings on here that i'd term photorealistic. in my mind, that word suggests a level of realism equal to photography. maybe i just have an eye for it.

particularly, while craig mullin's work is spectacularly realistic, what i love best is how he distorts the reality. the colours are always that little bit more vibrant, the lighting more atmospheric.

on the original topic, i'd say copying photographs is more of a technical skill than creating from scratch. i use it for learning, i believe one should learn from as many areas as possible to attain higher skill. but i wouldn't be as proud showing a copied photo as i would when showing an original piece.

damn lunatique, i always seem to be reading your posts these days.

-Ken

[c]

thanks boomstick, i'll be here all week.

the 'this thread makes me laugh' quip was my mistake, i can edit it out if it's inappropriate.

to clarify, my frustration isn't from this thread alone, but rather from this general impression i get from cruising sijun and a few other art forums. I just feel that an artist is more than just an observer or a critic. where the observer can dismiss this and that without hurting his um, observerness (hehe) the artist has to try and see what he can learn from EVERYTHING. the benefits may not be obvious, or monumental, but they are at least important.

[Lunatique]

Pat- I don't know what else to say except the following:

1)I really DO believe that many of the sijun artists are capable of producing photorealism work if they REALLY tried. Of course, it won't be 100% like the photorealists who do it for an entire career span, but it'll be pretty damn close. And as I mentioned before, once getting that 98% in, most artists who only have curiosity, but not passion for photorealism, won't see the point to go that extra 2%, as they'd rather be painting something else. And if they actually have the time and energy to go the last 2%, then they HAVE become photorealists. And if that makes them happy, then fine.

If I appear to be delusional, then maybe I am. We all have our own quirky traits and ways of thinking, and clearly you don't agree with me on this particular subject, but I wish you wouldn't say that I'm trying to deceive or please the public. I'm not that kind of person, and it hurts a bit to be accused of that. I was under the impression we get along pretty ok, but somehow I detect a little bit of hostility from you. Maybe I shouldn't be so sensitive and confuse aggresive debate with personal attack?

2)I will never see the use of photo reference the same between photorealists and other artists. Photorealists are set out to make artwork that looks indistinguishable from photographs, and that final goal will always be 100% dependent on photographs. Other artists use photo references to a much lesser degree, and there will always be elements of the finished painting that requires more imagination and creativity than the paintings of photorealists.

Another thing I should make clear--and this may be causing some confusion. When I say photorealists, I'm talking about artists that do 100% copies of photographs. These artists use one or more photographs to paint from, but they don't stray away from any of the details represented in the photos. And more often than not, the finished paintings look exactly like one of the photos. Whatever "artistic decisions" made are pretty much, WHICH one of these photos have the most detail for me to paint from, and HOW can I make this painting look exactly like that photograph. The rest, is the mechanical act of eye/hand coordination that's involved for rendering an exact copy.

To me, making an exact copy of a photo is a far cry from how other artists use photographs.

It is absolutely not hypocricy for me to differenciate between making an exact copy of a photo and using photos as references. This is not a case of black and white, but of degrees. I draw the line at making exact copies of photographs. If my way of thinking makes me a hypocrite in your eyes, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Pat]

Lunatique,

Whether you "agree" with what the photorealists were doing is of no consequence. At no point was that *ever* an issue in my reponse. Frankly, you can like or dislike whatever the hell you strikes your fancy. At issue was your conflicted view on photo reference and your absolutely ludicrous claim that anyone, with a little patience, can be a photorealist. Yeah. And a million monkeys with typewriters can write War and Peace.... with a little time. No matter how much you want that to be the truth, it's not going to change the fact that most artists will never be able to do it. Frankly, your claims to the contrary seem like self-aggrandizement. "Look how effortlessly *I* can do it. Surely any nob can do the same." Sorry, but no amount of wishful thinking is going to change the fact that most artists will never have the required skill to pull it off. Vision is our primary sense. We spend a lifetime honing our observational skills. Even the layman can perceive an improperly executed image, because regardless of your training we're all innately and experientially sensitive to the visual rules of reality. But you still arrogantly claim anyone with a little time (and perhaps your expert tutelage?) can fool this kind of experience? You're either deceiving us, or yourself.

Secondly, your views on photo-reference are conflicted. Again, while you can believe whatever the hell you want to, what you've previously stated clashes with itself. Fankly, you should know better, so I feel comfortable calling that hypocrisy. Let's examine your claims:

1) You've become an advocate of using photos to help "remind" yourself what your subject looks like. That's a crutch in and of itself. Sure it's an accepted practice. But ironically, you also claim that borrowing from the strength of the photo to create the "merit" of your painting renders the work merely "an exercise in rendering."

If you make the decision to refer to a photo while painting, I'm presuming it's for the purpose of augmenting your work. It's supplementing information that you, as an artist, were unable or unwilling to create yourself. What's the difference between using them prudently or slavishly if you NEED them to function? You're still a slave to the photo in either case.

2) You try to make the case that painters like Rockwell or Boris, who use photos for their work, are successful because they still retain a "painterly aesthetic". You acknowledge these artists interject style and brush work and personal aesthetic, which superceeds the photographic reference. I think it's quite obvious that something made by the human hand is incapable of NOT having these traits. Yet, you're unwilling to conceed those very traits to the photorealists. You refer to their work as "slavish". Given your reliance on photos is equally as "slavish" as outlined above, you're subscribing to a hypocritical point of view. I fail to see what the difference is if you paint from a perfectly realized image in your head or one on paper. The hand of the artist will always be visible.

Lastly, I wish you'd refer to my arguments instead of paraphrasing. You're doing a poor job of it. If you carefully reread my post, at no time did I indict your personal tastes. You've managed to construct a very likeable Ad Hominem defense which plays well to the crowd, but doesn't acknowledge any of my points.

-Pat

[Pat]

Actually, we get along just fine Lunatique. Don't let my aggressive tendencies and contrary attitude get to you. I'm focused entirely on the issue --not you. Well, to be honest, some of your thinking frustrates me --but you're entitled to your own opinion. In fact, I wouldn't have that any other way. It's just that I've had my fill of elitist artists spewing ignorant nonsense bashing this style and that. I can't understand why artists feel the need to advocate their ideology to the point of propaganda and political posturing. I have a strong distaste for any school of thought which promotes an "Us vs. Them" attitude. These are complicated and heartfelt issues --and I honestly feel there's a lot more meat to them than those who summarily dismiss them give credit. Posting a thread titled "Why we don't like "photo-realistic" art" is like punching the candy-red button on my forehead. Nothing gets me fired up like the casual dismissal of an entire art movement and the belittlement of many an artist's goals and aspirations. You were right when you said you detected a hint of hatred. But my hatred is not a hatred of you, it's a hatred of the lack of critical thinking which allows this condition to be so prevalent.

-Pat

[Lunatique]

Pat- Okay, I understand. You're right about me being careless and posting this thread without giving it enough thought. I should be more open minded and not so much of an ass. Next time when I feel the urge to spew, I'll think twice and try to see things from the other side of the fence. I mean, if I was a photorealist, and someone posted what I wrote, I'd be pretty upset too.

In your case, you're not a photorealist, but someone that dislikes any kind of extreme view. You're right in defending their movement, and I apologize to everyone that I might have offended. What's done is done, and I can only make it up to you guys by being extra sensitive about these sort of things in the future.

I especially apoligize to fleabrain, since he was probably more hurt by this thread than anyone else(as he paints in the style I was bashing). Sorry, man.

[Pat]

A lot of good things came out of this thread for me, so don't shy away from the difficult topics. I've had to rethink a lot of where I stand on these issues. I think it's going to have an lasting effect on my work.

You've been on a roll with these interesting threads and there are far too many complaisant members on Sijun. A little conflict is good for us. I've spent more time in this thread in the past three days than I've spent painting. But it's been worth it. Better we're all honest and learn something than to sit around patting each other on the back mouthing polite platitudes and never making any progress. I, for one, still have too far to go to waste time with that.

-Pat

[Dalek Guiness]

I think we should make the difference between the "style" of the brush stroke (there is the pastel look, the watercolour look the photorealist look - all of which can be achieved by digital means) and the expression of the image.
Style of brush : well, water colour look is no better than phtorealistic look - it's the result that counts, the emotion you get from the picture, all are tools.
Expression: some "real" photos are very expressive (check out any magnum photographer's book) and tell a lot.
But many "photorealistic" painted images are often flat dead.
The only advantage we have over photographers is we can recreate reality, show what we feel or see in a subject at the brush stroke level. Photographers play a game of wits with light, weather, the lens they have. We are totally free in both subject and style.
I think photorealism is ok ONLY if it is expressive and if it "adds" something to the painting (if I wanna make a great sky I choose water colour as it adds possibilities).
The problem is many people do photorealism as if it were a goal in itself. It's not. It's a great technical exercise among many others.
Looking like reality is only interesting if it fits either the subject (a medical pic) or if it "tells" more than another media. (a political painting on say Pol-Pot horrors can be stronger - perhaps- if done realisticaly).
So I say in all humility (and all humidity as Im in the middle of a watercolour) that photorealism is just one style among other, not an end in itself.
"Photographic" is not a rude word... but what would we say if a photographer did a pic that looks like watercolour ? we'd say "great, new, and surprising!". Now what if he did **only** pics that looks like water colour ? we'd say this is perhaps a trick, a routine to hide he has no creative ideas.
I love good photography... and good paintings. But good crossovers are rare
:-D oh, who am I to say what's right anyway ?

[eyewoo]

quote

Quote:

I especially apoligize to fleabrain, since he was probably more hurt by this thread than anyone else(as he paints in the style I was bashing). Sorry, man.

No apology needed... and I wasn't hurt, I was fired up by your first sentence... remember way back then...

quote

Quote:

It's funny when I see people post comments like, "Wow, that looks like a photo! Incredible!"

...I get that all the time, and I'm not even a photo realist painter anyway. I use photos as reference ...

...and what's that you say about the 98% and the 2%... I thought I said that...

...oh well... (this thread's gotta be about over, right?)