What is Digg?Sponsored by truTV
On a Short Leash view!
trutv.com - Stopping a Repo Team is hard to do when you can't leave your yard.
235 Comments
- maximilen, on 08/07/2009, -24/+264Brilliant. But now I'm going to get ***** buried for saying this, but it's actually harder to paint something using less detail and still keep it captivating than to paint every minute detail with a tiny brush. Regardless, I couldn't do it and this is pretty ***** cool and must have taken a hell of a long time and awesome attention to detail to pull off. Bravo!
- ennuisquared, on 08/07/2009, -10/+170That is amazing. More milk girl and underwater scene please.
- holychicken, on 08/07/2009, -2/+129I bet it depends on your talent. . . however, hyperrealistic/photorealistic painting like this is extremely difficult.
- KingGorilla, on 08/08/2009, -4/+86I can tell by the pixels and by having seen quite a few photos in my day
- kkush, on 08/07/2009, -4/+80just amazing
- NightC, on 08/08/2009, -18/+77I really cannot believe this. So you are telling me someone could paint something that looks so real it could pass as a photograph? So they could paint a picture of me committing a crime and no one could tell the difference? Did you SEE the last one? That is obviously a photograph. Some of them look like someone used the photoshop painting feature or something.
- apraxia, on 08/08/2009, -0/+50Most of these paintings would be impossible to create without the invention photography.
- benroy, on 08/08/2009, -1/+50How about a girl swimming in milk? Yeah, no...right? No.
- SeanRockCity, on 08/08/2009, -7/+53How can we be for sure that these are not photos?
- tweaq, on 08/08/2009, -0/+46That's actually airbrush. If YOU would have read the link you clicked on, you would have seen that. They said it's 99% airbrush with the rest composing of exacto, eraser and colored pencil.
- x0mb13, on 08/08/2009, -2/+45http://i43.tinypic.com/mhqe0g.jpg
Here is one that i made, took 220 hours and was made up of more than 480 layers. At the end of it all though it is bittersweet because most people who don`t use photoshop don`t even understand what i did, they just think its a picture. - Pepin, on 08/08/2009, -8/+44I don't know about it being easier, but after the invention of photography, this kind of painting became kind of pointless.
Edit: I suppose some of these are hard/impossible to set up in real life, so "pointless" was a bit of a generalization. - FTWmovin2canada, on 08/07/2009, -0/+35http://alyssamonks.com/port.asp
- MonkeyCrumpet79, on 08/08/2009, -0/+35Yes
- bossm4n, on 08/08/2009, -3/+35Bert Monroy, instant digg. The guy pioneered so much about digital artwork and painting with Photoshop. He was always one of my favorite segments on Screensavers.
- icecoldtrashcan, on 08/08/2009, -0/+32Since when did art need a point?
- themonkmob, on 08/08/2009, -0/+30aaaaaaahahaha. its funny because he said he researched.
BUT HE DIDNT. - mrdude4290, on 08/08/2009, -1/+28Maybe
- elwey, on 08/08/2009, -6/+33Why don't they just take a picture, it's the same but faster
- mm63, on 08/08/2009, -6/+32photoshoped you can tell from ... wait a minute, WTH?!
- NightC, on 08/08/2009, -1/+27My mistake, the 9th one not the last one.
- mrdude4290, on 08/08/2009, -1/+27I don't know
- mrdude4290, on 08/08/2009, -1/+27No
- bonk2k, on 08/08/2009, -2/+26I can tell from the brushstrokes and having seen quite a few paintings in my day.
- vampirepiggy, on 08/08/2009, -1/+25Could you repeat the question?
- immatellyouwhat, on 08/08/2009, -1/+25They are all very good, but somehow you can see it's a painting until you get to the female portrait one. Total *****, no matter how hard I look I cannot see a single trace of what's supposed to look like paint or strokes, very very well done.
- woofers07, on 08/08/2009, -0/+24The first artist's website provides detailed views of her paintings, I wouldn't have believed it without them.
http://alyssamonks.com/work.asp?filter=key&key ...
plus there's boobs on there. - MetalliTooL, on 08/08/2009, -8/+30I call ***** on #9. Is that really a painting?
- pimpofpixels, on 08/08/2009, -3/+24There are impressive, but I'm a little less impressed with realistic paintings which are drawn directly from photographic reference. In my opinion, it kind of defeats the purpose of, well, painting.
Dugg none the less. - oneordinarylife, on 08/08/2009, -0/+17@NightC
Maybe it's not done because hyperrealism such as that seen in these paintings takes days and days of painstaking work to do and is totally not worth Hollywood's money. As it is, CGI is one of the most costly parts, if not THE most costly part (in cases like Transformers 2) of every film. Imagine if each CGI frame took nine or ten times longer. That's nine to ten times more money spent on every film.
With films already costing millions of dollars, even for low-budget indie films, are you really saying that Hollywood should be spending even more? Yeah, I didn't think so.
As a tangent to that, what kind of movies are you watching where the CGI looks like "a shiny crayon drawing"? - Danby123, on 08/08/2009, -1/+18You're not the boss of me now!
- NoticeDesign, on 08/08/2009, -1/+17Well, if you click the link, some of them show steps of the work in progress.
- mooshcala, on 08/08/2009, -0/+16One reason is the invention of the photograph. With modern technology artists can use photos as references to lay out their painting compositions with perfect perspective, foreshortening, etc.
- immatellyouwhat, on 08/08/2009, -1/+16Actually the female portrait is done with airbrush, not a digital one, click on the link and then click on the painting in the guys site, he shows you by the hour of progress while he airbrushes.
- CaviMike, on 08/08/2009, -2/+16Kinda ruins the point of being a painting IMO.
- Myztry, on 08/08/2009, -2/+15Brilliant photo copy. Very admirable talent. Problem is it results in something trivially obtainable - a copy of a photo.
Personally I admire things like caricatures. They are more than the picture. It amazes me how they can make a drawing look totally exaggerated and unrealistic yet somehow still look like the subject. - MetalliTooL, on 08/08/2009, -1/+14 I should've clicked on the link earlier.
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp
amazing - asnaturalasgas, on 08/08/2009, -2/+14cum turns you on?
- IneffablePolk, on 08/08/2009, -1/+13Not true at all. Comic books from 60 years ago looked like that because they were cheap. The printing process they used allowed for very few colors, that's why you rarely saw any shading. They also couldn't get much detail in there. That's why everyone was always so excited. Periods were too small to be printed reliably, so they made frequent use of the larger, safer exclamation point.
The upside to this is that, adjusted for inflation, the first Superman comic would have cost around $1.50 compared to the $3.99 of the latest. - hymneforthedead, on 08/08/2009, -1/+13Buried for hating the pussy.
- themonkmob, on 08/08/2009, -3/+15The thing is that for some reason people equate artistic merit with effort. And that's not right.
The artist that did "Female Portrait" said this on his site :
"As a style, Photorealism has a few detractors, who often dismiss it as pointless, or non-art. They fail to realize that many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision. The act of merely copying a photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills. Most of my aviation paintings would be impossible to photograph, such as Timing is Everything for example. This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal. "
Personally, photorealism isn't really art at all, art is about solving complex problems with imagination and creativity. By simply knowing what your goal is in a certain piece (the photo) it detracts from creativity. The solution to your problem lies in the photo - wheres the creativity?
Photorealism is great for study; color, proportion - all that *****. But photorealism should lead you into a creative path. Otherwise...you're just hotel art. - Commandinateur, on 08/08/2009, -20/+31If you did any research at all (like clicking the link directly underneath) you would've seen that the second last one is made in photoshop.
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp
Maybe not a traditional painting, but its still no less amazing. Also, NOT a photograph. - CLShortFuse, on 08/08/2009, -3/+13Most of these are redrawing of photos taken by cameras but they usually modify some things here and there to make a better image.
- itchy92, on 08/08/2009, -0/+9The issue with CGI is not really the level of detail; it's the motion. There are thousands of still 3D renders that literally leave me stunned at their realism, where I actually inspect the image for minutes at a time and fail to find any flaws.
But, once you put that scene into motion, and try to capture all the minute nuances of real-world movement, as well as the virtually-infinite complexity of photon interaction, even the slightest discrepencies start confusing your brain, which has been trained your whole life precisely to pick up those nuances (even if you don't consciously register them), and the brain responds by saying, "oh that? Pffffft, that's clearly fake. I'm behaving normally, so there must be something wrong outside." In a sense, it's similar to the Uncanny Valley, wherein the more subtle the discrepencies, the stronger the brain will reject them.
So even if someone were to "hand-draw" the effects in a movie frame-by-frame, chances are that, unless they were omniscient and could calculate the trajectory of every atom and photon, it still wouldn't fool your brain. - Iexist08, on 08/07/2009, -5/+14really awesome love it
- DasAmigo, on 08/08/2009, -1/+10lol take a spelling 'call' while you're at it.
- detales, on 08/08/2009, -1/+10NSFW
http://alyssamonks.com/artistimages/news2.jpg - inactive, on 08/08/2009, -0/+8That's what my lawyer is going to say ... it's a painting your honor.
- sreda67, on 08/08/2009, -11/+19man that milk girl picture gave me an erection, not sure why though. might be the overly BLATANT ***** obvious cumshot undertones
- lane4, on 08/08/2009, -0/+8dude, TMI
-
Show 51 - 100 of 250 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
