What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
277 Comments
- Oculus, on 10/11/2007, -11/+284To everyone saying it's fake, this picture was on the cover of airbrush action magazine. You won't see brush strokes because it was done 99% with an airbrush. The skin texture was done using other techniques. Do you think it would make the cover of a magazine without SOMEONE going and actually verifying that the actual artwork existed? There are also pictures of people posing with the artist and the piece. You can see in progress shots and the people posing with it at http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm He also holds training workshops in photorealism. It's real.
- mrsippy, on 10/11/2007, -124/+310I call BS.
I can tell from the pixels and having seen quite a few photos in my time. - oooshola, on 10/11/2007, -6/+101Ok guys, enough:
1) STOP TALKING ABOUT BRUSH STROKES. You can't see them because there aren't any. It's called airbrushing--nothing touches the canvas except for the paint itself.
2) I'm not sure how many of you skeptics are artists (I am), but you don't get to the front cover of a respected magazine by taking a photograph. This painting is real, although airbrushed.
3) Even if you are an artist, you should take up airbrushing before you comment. When using it, you feel like you're virtually "cheating," in terms of the ease of making fine skin textures, which is just 1 reason why you always see Tshirt artists use that tool (instead of traditional brushes). Airbrushing is the KING of all speed+accuracy tools in the painting world. So yes, with much practice, you can pretty much "sprinkle" perfect pores/sweat glands with it. So although this painting is real, I will definitely concede that he extensively used probably the one and only tool that could get him there.
4) He is not the only photorealistic artist out there. Just look at wikipedia's entry on photorealism--the term "photorealist" wasn't born just because one guy knew how to do it, nor because it's a myth. It's not. This guy is just that darn good.
5) Side note: it's photorealism, not hyperrealism. There's a difference--hyperrealism tends to deal with, say, the kind of realism that would make me bump into a wall in which somebody painted a hallway. Hyperrealism takes into account more spatial/3d aspects and is more related to trompe l'oeil.
6) Yes...his site is extreeeemely slow. probably because it's on digg's front page, and he probably doesn't quite have a dedicated server. But you guys can deny it all you want. One day you're going to see an artist's work like this up close and believe it. - iherbivore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+92All that time to load the slow page, and SHE HAD CLOTHES ON! jeesh.
- Scrollfx, on 10/11/2007, -12/+73He used the x-acto knife to cut the original picture and glued it onto his canvass.
- mrsippy, on 10/11/2007, -28/+85i'd like to see a comparison shot - the painting next to the original photograph. then i'll believe it.
surely if this was genuine they would've presented it next to the original. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -27/+82What is the point? If you can't tell it from a photo - why not take a photo and save an assload of time.
Hyper realism is for masochists. - ckdisco, on 05/19/2009, -10/+65If you click on the image in the article, you will see the larger version. The detail is just ridiculous!
- fober, on 10/11/2007, -5/+55More info here (including the works in progress):
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm - 1longtime, on 10/11/2007, -5/+40Hyper-realism is not new. I've seen paintings in person that are indistinguishable from photos.
It's not new, but it's still amazing. ...and I wouldn't readily dismiss this as a fake without more info. - *jooloop*, on 10/11/2007, -7/+40@ kelkitty
"Meh. I guess. Even if it WAS real-- if I commissioned someone to paint me and he gave me something that looked like that (except me of course) I'd be pissed off! If I want an exact replica I will just get a photo taken. Getting your portrait painted is about uniqueness and style. Seeing yourself renditioned in a completely new way."
This painting was NOT commissioned as a self portrait. If you had RTFA, you would have realized that the artist did this out of his mear curiosity. I say props to him. - jedicor, on 10/11/2007, -5/+37My god. You're right. Someone who has great talent in one are who is not able to apply it in a totally unrelated area, and therefor must be a complete sham. Inconceivable!
God forbid an airbrush artist not be able to design a website. What's the world coming to? - arcangelgabriel, on 10/11/2007, -8/+40No one here can do it, there for it can't be done.
I love the logic that pervades here. - zanzibarfly, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2930 years to develop some incredible airbrush skills...
30 seconds for someone else to write "fake".
Welcome to Digg. - tutivlahos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27Previous work: http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/images/vanessacrop.jpg
- morbo47, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28Like someone already mentioned, this was on the cover of an airbrush magazine a few months ago, with several works in progress shots, as well as comparisons. It's not BS, it's real. If you're looking for brush strokes, you're obviously a moron who doesn't know what an airbrush is or does.
To the people who say they're painters and it's not possible, I call BS on you. You're either lying, or a really crappy painter. - animecrazy9, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2370 hours for the finished product. not 7. 70. lrn2read idiot.
- Mpulse, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22If you look at the time lapsed photos, you will see it took him 7 hours to get the thing roughly painted, and an additional 63 hours to get that level of detail.
Sure seven hours would be BS. But I believe he could do it in seventy. - DAMAN321, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19RTFA....air brushed!!!! Stupid tardos...
- Foamator, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Looks like it was edited with Adobe® Pho... ah, forget it.
- 7952, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Worlds slowest printer.
- arcangelgabriel, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21"yes, but it would be even more impressive if it didn't use a photograph. Playing human copying machine seem completely pointless."
God forbid that we should EVER do anything to the absolute best of our ability because no one can appreciate the years of practice it takes to achieve this level of expertise. Everyone! back in the cess pool! - internetcoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18Nothing like Rembrandt, this is Photo/Hyper Realism.
- Sp0rAdiC, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm
I think that would've been a better link, actually show the work. I didn't think it was real but this changed my mind. - seattle98104, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Ever hear the tale about the Native Americans not being able to see the pilgrims' ships landing, because their minds could not comprehend what they were in fact real?
This thread gives fodder to that new age hippy crap. Every one of you OMG-it's-fakers, need to check in into hotel Darwin. - lcarsdeveloper, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17You can tell that Digg is no longer a community of intellectuals, because last time this stuff was submitted everyone had an open mind and accepted it as the truth, which it was:
http://digg.com/design/Awesome_3D_Digital_Face_Could_U_Tell_if_U_Did_nt_Know
(Different picture, but the one in this article was posted in the comments further down).
What a disappointing night for Digg articles. First we get 911 ***** conspiracy theories, and then we get idiots who think they are qualified to state if a photorealistic airbrushed painting is real or not. Do some research before you go off and start proclaiming that the Earth is flat. - martinraul, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Dru Blair, this guy has some of the best paintings in aviation art...
- gllopc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Someone's going to have one hell of a bandwidth bill when this day is over.
- Locke21, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15That's ridiculous, in no way is this like Rembrandt.
- fuegosecret, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20"Is So Good It Looks Like A Photo"
Because we all know that the difference between 'good' art and 'bad' art is realism. Picasso, for instance, is a 'bad' artist. - lcarsdeveloper, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Welcome to Digg 2.0. The story above this one was about how there's proof that 9/11 was an inside job. I feel like I'm surrounded by 14 year olds in tinfoil hats. The Earth is flat! I can't see the land curving, therefore it's definitely 100% flat.
- TheKricket, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10the airbrush action mag cover:
http://www.airbrushaction.com/item.php?sku=BIDEC06&url= - GravyTrain6, on 10/11/2007, -15/+24So, let me get this straight. We are looking at a digital image of an artist's painting of a photograph of a model? That's four levels of art at work, I find that interesting, but on the technology side instead of art.
Also, I'm not buying it. The detail is too fine to be done with the items mentioned in the article. - DonutGuy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Tikka Masala is a British dish. Invented here, made here, eaten here.
- jubilee123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Whoever said photography doesn't qualify as art is obviously talking about something they know nothing about. It's an entire process in it's own- true, taking a picture and taking it to wal-mart for a print might be questionable as "art," but making a true print is time consuming, frustrating and difficult. You're working with a negative, not just printing it, and like a painting, it can be manipulated with different techniques. Read up before you speak.
- morbo47, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I agree, but it wasn't meant to have artistic value. Like the article says, it was just an artistic exercise, to see how close he could get.
- CompTechNSX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9REAL! Dru posted to the cgtalk forums a few years ago after being accused of fraud:
source: http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-250158-p-1.html
Yes, all the images on that page are photographs taken of the original painting, and yes, the amount of detail was insane.
I apologize for the sequential gaps on the site, but I wanted to reserve most of the images for the soon-to-be-published step-by-step article. However, I can post a few more intermediate steps on my site without taking too much away from the upcoming article.
Since my site primarily functions as a mechanism for promoting and selling my aviation prints, I don't usually display much in the way of figurative work. Here is my previous portrait painting effort:
http://www.drublair.com/workshops/images/vanessacrop.jpg
No, The Tica painting wasn't an April Fool's joke, but the following might qualify (You'll have to look closely):
http://www.airbrush.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=69572&mpage=1&key=𐿄
I think it is important to develop artistic competency in order to more effectively connect with one's audience. The visual world, to be commanded, must be understood.
The practice of Photorealism provides an effective mechanism for gaining understanding of the visual experience, because holding artistic ability to the standard of reality forces growth in one's powers of observation. This knowledge and understanding in turn, can add to the artist's effectiveness when working in other visual mediums, including the digital realm.
With sufficient understanding of the visual world, an artist can eliminate the need for photo reference, and often gains the power to conjure convincing illusions of reality purely from his or her imagination.
Although both the Tica and Vanessa paintings began as class demonstrations, their ultimate purpose evolved twofold: to evaluate my visual and observational competency, and to promote growth for myself in those areas.
Dru Blair - lcarsdeveloper, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11I read the article, I looked up examples of other people's photorealistic airbrushed work to try to validate this. It's a fact, he created this work, it was painstaking, and he has a lot of talent. He even explains how he does it in the article. I was skeptical when I saw it a year ago on Digg, but I had the foresight to find out more information for myself and do some research before blindly saying "I couldn't do it, therefore it's impossible".
Your comment completely missed the point of mine. I completely encourage people to question authenticity and make an effort to research it. What I don't like is how this man's hard work is being dismissed as a hoax by people who haven't even taken the time to do anything beyond taking a quick glance at it on their screens.
I'm digging you down, like everyone with half a brain should. - LogicBomB, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Well, if it's real, he must be flattered as all hell to hear so many people yell "fake!".
Quite frankly, Rockwell is as realistic as I'll ever care to own. - jubilee123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7so could you do it?
- darkstar949, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9You aren't going to be able to see anything in regards to lighting differences from an airbrushed painting anyway - the layer of paint isn't thick enough.
- OsiVert, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8@Tyberius
Has anyone seen the picture he based this off of? I would be interested to see what he has changed. - morbo47, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7It's not that much different than the old masters using models, sculptures, and sketches. And since the invention of the camera, a lot of well known and successful painters have used photo references.
- paladin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I love the people who are cynical to the point of being naive.
- Satanael, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13If you RTFA, you'll know it's done by airbrush, not a freaking horse hair brush and paint palette. Airbrushers can accomplish some crazy *****.
- josegutz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The hell with everyone and all this crap! I just want to meet the model...Who is she? Reminds me of Yasmin Ghauri...
- Tyberius, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@kelkitty
From his site:
"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." - jibbityjab, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I can't say for sure if this is a pic of the actual painting or not but I've met Dru personally on multiple occasions (he was good friends with the owner of the graphic design firm where I used to work) and I've seen some of his photo realistic stuff up close (even while he was working on it) and they look as good, if not better, than this one. So, to the diggers who think this isn't real only because of how realistic it looks; you're wrong.
He's mostly known for his aircraft art:
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/comersus_listCategoriesAndProducts.asp?idCategory=55
...but he made his big money doing Star Trek art and coming up with the Budweiser Frogs.
PS... he has a badass Ferrari! - wbeavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"According the artist, 99% of the painting was done using airbrush"
Playboy calls those "Centerfolds" - ideadude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Chuck Close used to paint hyper-realistic paintings like that until a spinal injury cost him the use of his hands and arms. He's since regained some motor function and paints with a brush strapped to his hands.
His new stuff is VERY COOL, mosaics of tiny diamond-shaped abstract paintings that add up to form a portrait. IMO, the new more abstract paintings are way better than the old stuff.
Wikipedia has some good stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Close -
Show 51 - 100 of 277 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
