[Threnody]

Well, I've been here since these forums started up, but haven't posted anything. So here are two pics, both are based on magazine covers, the first is of Lacy Chabert, and the second of Natalie Portman. Please give any comments or suggestions.

[Muzman]

*Shudder* Lacey Chabert; the whole reason I didn't see Lost In Space.

cool pics, pretty dramatically different though. Ms Portman looks like she's been pixelled in low colour and the other looks like all airbrush.
how come?

[Threnody]

They're both airbrushed, I just used slightly different approaches. The chabert pick was done in the traditional painting style, just as if I was using a paintbrush. And the Natalie pic was done by first doing solid shading, then using soft brushes with in-between colors to blend.

Oh yeah, and I don't really like Chabert either...

[Mongoose]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that those are real.

To me, they are photos that have been blurred and tampered with to create the illusion that they were painted freehand. The only problem is, they don't look painted. They still look like photos.

If I am completely wrong than I apologize -- you are very talented. But I don't think I am. In fact, I know I'm not. But that is irrelevant.



That is not airbrushing.

[This message has been edited by Mongoose (edited February 08, 2000).]

[chrisk82]

oh baby, Natalie Portman!!

I'm sorry as well however, the close looks like something non airbrushed.

But it's a very cool effect. How did you do it?

[Threnody]

*OUCH OUCH OUCH*

Needless to say, I feel shocked and crushed right now.

You know what if feels like to hear that your work isn't believed? *sigh* This won't prove a me innocent, and this won't be believed, but since chrisk asked: it's not completely airbrushed, just major portions, like cheaks, forehead, etc. I went in and detailed closely with small paintbrushs for more complex areas, like eyes (As you've most likely seen, the Chabert pic was never finished, I got fed up with different parts, like the left eye which is obviously not touched up as it's only two colors.)

I'm not sure what to do, I can't think of any way to prove myself innocent, I'd hand over the PSD, but it wouldn't show anything because I was dumb enough to only paint on one layer, except Chaberts hair which I merged with the bottom layer.

I guess I'll just go off and try to create somethings that couldn't possibly be photos like aliens or something, I can't think of any other way to show I'm not lying.

[This message has been edited by Threnody (edited February 08, 2000).]

[Mongoose]

Well, it just adds to the suspiciousness of it all by saying that you flattened all your layers. I mean.. heh.

Did you save any progress steps?

[Mongoose]

You could paint something and save it in steps so we can see how you work.. that would also relieve any speculation I'm sure.

If you can paint pictures that are THAT realistic, it shouldn't be a big deal to paint something relatively small and save it in steps, right?

[Threnody]

I flatten layers often, my comp has been crashing frequently, and I've had crashes in the middle of PS work frequently, it's kind of an extra procaution. And again I was dumb enough not to save progress steps and overwrote old steps... unless you count these pictures: http://www.ixpres.com/dfswartz/beta1.jpg http://www.ixpres.com/dfswartz/beta2.jpg

The first is just an image where I hadn't done much to the left side of the face or nose. I jpeged it to show some friends, never deleted it, and just uploaded it for you. The second is one I still have on my server from before I'd fixed a few problems that the guys on #Digitalart pointed out, like the puffy eye.

I doubt these will help me much, but whatever.

[This message has been edited by Threnody (edited February 08, 2000).]

[happyham]

Mongoose, it seems the only one doing the "speculation" is you. What is your problem? If he faked those pictures, then let it be and let him have wasted his own time. No need for you to condescend to his level.

[Stolln]

First of all, Mongoose, I would just like to say how shocked I am for your comment. I mean, not everyone JUST uses airbrushing for their images. All that aside, I would like to say that these are authentic images.

The guys over in #digitalart (myself included) were shown these and Thren needed comments/suggestions on the pics. If you look closely at the 2nd pic, you can see that it is mainly composed of solid color patches, blended together using the airbrush. The first pic, I was told the hair was done with a particle brush (in painter, i suppose) and the rest was airbrushed/painted/pixeled.

Now, I've seen alot of criticism around here, and I'm not going to start a war...but I mean...if you just start assuming everyone is a llama who steals pics, then, well, I'm sorry for you.

Don't take that offensively, its just that you didn't have all the facts.

------------------
From flesh to steel to blood to blade I fight to exist.

[B]

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"*OUCH OUCH OUCH*

Needless to say, I feel shocked and crushed right now."
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^


why?
wouldn't most people consider it a compliment if someone else thought there art was just an edited photograph?,. i mean wouldn't that say you're a great artist?

just my comment on the quote,...
sorry, none for the image

B

[Threnody]

Of course I find it complimentary B. However, if this spread and a large number of people were suspicious, then possible employers may not trust me... meaning less jobs. And that's a very, very, bad thing.

[Mongoose]

happyham,

It seems like I am the only one doing the speculation? Is that not okay? Do I have to conform to everyone else's opinions? Do I have to be a mindless drone that replies with a typical: "that's great!" every single time? No, I don't think that I do.

Stolln,

Nowhere did I state that everyone uses just the airbrush for their pics. Nor did I say that everyone is a "llama" that steals pics. This is *ONE* instance. Stop making sweeping generalizations to serve your arguement.

The fact of the matter is that I don't believe it to be authentic. And that's MY opinion, whether it be right or wrong is not for any of you to decide. It's what I think, and as far as I know this forum is not run with a totalitarian mindset. If that were the case, I guess we could call Dhabih Hitler then, eh? :P

Take it easy people. Just because I state my opinion and by chance it does not coinside with yours does not make me wrong.

[Threnody]

Argh, what do you need for proof? Stolln saw several stages of my Chabert pic before completion, and he has zero reason to lie for me, but you don't trust him?

If I can't change your mind then fine. Just leave it at this please, I don't need you spreading rumors that could hurt me getting jobs in this field.

Anyway, in a few months (I've got alot of school work right now, big Bio labs and some reports, I'm also preparing for a trip to New Zealand, and as I said these things don't happen overnight) I try work on some artwork purely from my imagination, and not from photos. Maybe I can convice you then. Until then, keep your opinions if you wish, just please be considerate and don't spread them around.

[This message has been edited by Threnody (edited February 08, 2000).]

[Mongoose]

Haha, dude, i wasn't planning on ruining your name.

Like I said, it's just my opinion, I have no desire to change anyone elses. Unforunately, a few people here feel the need to try and change mine. Sad, really.

And like I said in my *first* post, if I am wrong, then you are an extremely talented artist.

[Threnody]

Thanks Mong. Hopefully I can make you change your mind with future artworks .

Anyway, in a little glad you're suspicious. Now that I see the way I did those images will cause skepticism I'm concidering doing a more pastel looking style, and at the vary least I'm not going to base more artworks on photos. That way I don't have to worry about possible employers thinking the way you do.

Anyway, anyone think it's at all possible to return to the original purpose of this thread (Comments and suggestions)?

[Funfetus]

First of all, don't change your style to please anyone else.

Doing images straight out of your imagination, however, or at least using your own photos, is probably a good idea.

Now, as for criticisms and comments:

The Chabert one, i don't like so much. The coloring is a bit too yellow, and it's blurry. Natalie Portman, however, is excellent. Quite photographic in quality...I'm not saying I doubt you, but I can see why suspicions would be raised with such a substantial difference in quality between these two images.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com

[Oscar Alexander]

Natalie is sooooo cute! If any of you guys happen to meet her, be sure to give her this address: [email protected], okay? Thanks!

Ow, and nice pics btw! Shading on Nat's face is really cool

[4s]

i thought they were not 'real' even before i scolled down to see Mongoose's post. if they are real then forgive me. but they look like pictures that have been painted over them.

[orOme]

Ok, I See no reason that these pictures arent
100% drawn, since photorealism is fairly
simple(when you have reference), but I think what most ppl find disturbing is the difference of detail in each image.

Why didnt you draw same amount of detail in all areas of each pic? Some parts look painted while other completely realistic. To me that doesnt make much sense,and that's what i reacted to. Not the fact that it might be just a retouch of photograph, but that the drawings were too little detailed at some parts.(so thats the critisizm )

Also, since you seem to have a good understanding of photorealism, why not try doin your own stuff. I dont mean drawing completely without referece(though that is sometimes beneficial), but something different than just a portrait(they are very boring to look at, in my opinion.) sort ot try out your own lighting/texturing etc.

Would be nice to see anyhow.

btw, nice pics

[ilmi]

Natalie's hands are soo.. perfect! how long did u spent on ur work dude? i like it so much.. is there any shortcuts to achieve that kind of results? help me with some tips dude.. gimme ur URL..

[Frost]

Hey,

I also thought that they were actual photos repainted over with photoshop, but, I also know it is possible to do such images using a photo source, and in which case I would tend to beleive it is authentic. I know it would piss me off if people tought my pics were paint-overs (althouh there's no real chance of that happening any time soon=).

Keep up the good work Threnody... next time, try to show steps. =)

(greetings orOme!=)

cheers.
frost.

[Threnody]

Funfetus: I'd agree with the yellow part, I was trying to get a browish skin tone (That's how she looked pn the cover) and it came out like that. Also the method I used on Chabert (Airbrushing then touching up) I will probably never use again, like I said I got fed up with touch-up sequence.

orOme: You talking about both pics or just the Chabert one? If just the Chabert one it's because I didn't finish the touch up sequence. If I goofed on the Nat pic, please point it out, because I don't see it.

imli: The hands shape was just done by sliding the magazine under my Wacom and doing the basic outlining, so I can't take much credit for them. I shaded them though. And the face is mine, with the exception of the eyes and part of the ears, which I again used the magazine.

Also, I'm saving all the steps for my next artwork, and I'll explain them. They won't look as good without the photo reference (Like orOme pointed out it's alot easier with the refrence.) but it should still look nice

[orOme]

I wont say you goofed up on the nat pic, but there are a few areas such as parts of the nose etc that look very painted. my guess is that you used basically just larger brushes in these areas? The fingers and areas that require smaller brushes look completely realistic, but larger areas on the face look abit less realistic. somewhat too sharp shading on some areas. Stuff that might be fixed with use of smaller brushes.

But i'm bein rather picky here. It looks great all in all. There's really not much sense spending hours of perfecting tiny details all the time.

[Binke]

Very nice pictures Threnody..
the shading on Nat's forehead, looks a bit odd? Maybe more blending of the colors?
Uhm..I'v seen far more realistic pictures in my days (mostly pixelised..did I hear black lotus? ..so I can't really see why some people think he just retouched a photo.

[soda]

Hmm..

I thought of joining this thread also...

Those pictures looks DEFINATELY like photos...

I don't care wether they're painted or not. If you guys are talking about paintovers or using photo as a "reference", tell me WHERE's the DIFFERENCE?!?

I found both styles like the same...
And I think I know what I'm talking about so don't argue.

So what do we learn about this?
Do not use photos, to ANYTHING (except if you're matte painter ) and do everything by yourself.
Still I think that learning to draw by copying already made pictures or learning how to colour photorealistic pictures etc. is very affective.
It's probably the best way to learn...unless you read some funky books about human anatomy etc..

But remember, art is not about how professional or llama you are, it's generally about fun! About doing something you like! About expressing yourself with images!

Never forget that friends.
Then the world would be better place to live for all of us.

//soda

[chrisk82]

I'm sorry Threnody. I really mean no disrespect. I actually like the pictures very very much. I'm always curious as to how things are made. Whether airbrushed blurred or whatever, you still accomplished a look that few can achieve.

Some of you may of already mentioned this somewhere along these lines, but I got tired of reading this long thread with my headache right now



------------------
Chris Konchalski

[IO_Error]

Turns out Mongoose was right.. at least about the first pic.
Here is the proof:
http://members.xoom.com/Malminator/copy.html


sorry thren.

[Mongoose]

Thanks IO,

Hrmm.. I expect some apology emails! (kidding).

Does this prove to all of you that my "suspicions" were justified? I hope so.

The pic fits EXACTLY. Even if he TRACED the pic, it wouldn't fit that well. The picture speaks for itself, I don't need to do any more explaining.