Sijun Forums :: View topic

eyewoo · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2002 7:34 pm

This is a portrait of Mark Hoffman, my friend and accountant, done with a Wacom and Photoshop. I'm really trying to ramp up my portrait painting since my main job of website design is kind'a soft right now...

Detail 1

Detail 2

Detail 3

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Williams ]

GPoodle · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2002 8:12 pm

Awesome! I thought it was a photo!

The only part that really sticks out is the solid blue on the pants, other than that it kicks serious ass.

Radiater · Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2002 10:03 pm

Well rendered as always Fleabrain. I'm sure he'll order a print for his office.

The Magic Pen · member Member # Joined: 05 Dec 2001 Posts: 321

Very soon I believe we will not know the diffrence from the photo reference and your painting.

Hiiii yaaaaa web design!! Aaaieeee your killing me , you should be doing something meaningful with your talent!! Like making video game graphics

Akukage · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:37 am

good damn thats good, I had to doubble look at the detail caps before I was convinced it wasn't a photo. ooh odd, I have a set of book cases just like that...

Sumaleth · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 4:35 am

Another great pic, Flea. But if you're wanting to make money from portraits I tend to wonder if you should be trying to make them "artistic" rather than "photorealistic". This looks almost exactly like a photo, so what is the benefit in doing it this way? The benefit of painting portraits is that they aren't quite real.

Row.

Daijoobu · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 7:44 am

Wow

This is just amazing

xXxPZxXx · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 8:00 am

ok since we all know it is amazing, I will point out my favorite part as being the bookshelf WITH the glass over it. I think that is a hard thing to render and make look nice. It is also something that could have easily been left out. GJGJJGAaasdf

-PZ-

[666]Flat · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 8:40 am

I guess you didn't use photo references?

(J/K)

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: [666]Flat ]

eyewoo · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:26 pm

Thanks for the comments...

(J/K) ... Yes I did use a photo reference... actually a compilation of several photos. Here it is...

jasonN · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 4:39 pm

I agree with Sumaleth, but I still love the pic

I really love all your work. At first glance i really thought it was a photo. hehe

eyewoo · Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:17 pm

Jason and Sumaleth... not really sure how to respond to your feeling about the relationship between a painting (digital or otherwise) and a photograph. My sense is that I have never seen a photorealistic painting that I would confuse with a photograph... they are just different. I would also say - perhaps in some attempt at a feeble defense - that I do not try to slavishly represent a photo that I am using as a reference, whether it be for a landscape, still life, or a portrait. I use the photo reference as a structural starting point for a picture and as a reference for how to deal with and often enhance lighting...

Malachi Maloney · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 5:38 am

Ahhhhhh........OUTSTANDING!

This piece is AWESOME fleabrain.
Don't let folks get you down about what is and isn't right about painting a photo realistic portrait. If someone can't see that this IS art, than they're obviously blind.

Keep up the great work.

Malachi

Tarandon · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:50 am

Why does everyone rip apart people who paintover pictures, and then exhault Fleabrains mastery on the subject?

Don't get me wrong Flea, your stuff is great (some helpful tuts too) I'm just a bit confused.

eyewoo · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 7:26 am

Tarandon,

I suspect because I DO NOT, paint over photographs... There is no photographic material in this digital painting. I use a tracing technique to set up an initial composition... from that point on I eyeball a reference photo and paint digitally with a Wacom tablet and pen... NOT, paint over it...

Please check out my tutorial on my website. It explains how I work.

Whew!!! Guess this sort a thing is always gonna dog me, right... oh well

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

Tarandon · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 7:59 am

In that case a paintover is only sampling colors from the original photo, and not tracing anatomy and composition. Is that how you see it.

The way I see it, you dupicate an image by tracing it. I hope you can excuse me if I'm too uneducated in artistic method to realise this is not a paintover. I was under the impression that art was creating something extraordinary and original from nothing, expressing feeling and atmosphere with color. Since tracing is an artistic technique I feel I was out of my field just then accusing you of copying a photo, I hope you can accept my most sincere appologies.

Your's Truely,

Tarandon

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Tarandon ]

daviddesign · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 8:01 am

I thought I saw a photo I thought wrong
*feels so little*

Andromeda · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:52 am

iTs Lovely man ! ...
DHL me your fingers soon K ? ... i like to keep the fingers of all those good artists.
=]

Spectra · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 11:49 am

Amasing!! I tought it was a photo, just the belt and the pants could be reworked a little.

Without the details, I would not have belived this was a painting

Guillaume Le Tual

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Spectra ]

Awetopsy · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 1:04 pm

Holy crap!! I thought it was a photo too.. when I first looked at it I thought to myself.. "hehe he posted the photoref but forgot to post the painting.. then I remembered it was fleabrains work I was looking at and then looked a little closer and then my jaw hit the floor.

Xyster21 · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 1:11 pm

Nice lil portrait there

Your tutorial gave me some new things to try out for myself for something I'm working on (post in about 3 days).
B]GJ[/B] btw

Briareos · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 3:42 pm

very detailed rendering.
Im not sure of why you made it like that, I guess there is some sort of artistic satisifaction you get.... personally all my joy comes from creating things.. no duplicating them.

el scoono · member Member # Joined: 17 Jan 2002 Posts: 155

when a photograph is taken it's already a work of art in terms of composition, lighting, concept etc... this shows amazing technical ability and patience, but i'm not sure anything has been added that wasn't already present in the original photo.

using "photo reference" means using a photograph (or photographs) as a starting point towards creating something entirely different and original. anyway, just my opinion.

FluffydUCK · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 5:20 pm

oh dear.....wouldnt it have been easier to just take another photo?

but seriously, that is amazing.

eyewoo · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 7:22 pm

Briareos, el scoono, FluffydUCK... don't know what to say to you guys. I'm having fun... I'm my own boss... and I love what I do... guess that's all I have to say...

kantide · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 9:43 pm

I say keep at it. You're not out to please them, and if you experience joy from working with photos, then that's all that matters.

[edit]typos

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: kantide ]

V Shane · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 11:37 pm

Very nice! The one thing I always found in redeemable in photorealistic painting is the very thing Flebrain pointed out.."eyeing it" to me, working with photorealisitc tones is a type of color sense calibration to the creative side. So when you do your "originals" from concept art, and out of the imagination, they have a sense of reality in lighting and in color no matter what your topic, much like Mullins work.

Great job, my fav....the shirt...excellent flow. Personaly I would have picked more dramatic lighting ala Caravagio.

Shane