someone's calling out Irakli on level up.
my sides.
Beautiful.
Link?
>>2412632
It's a facebook group called "level up!". Join and search "gumroad".
>>2412591
> Martinez
You mean ricky martinez from draw or die?
Isn't that the guy who loves to make portraits?
>>2412639
yeah but Ricky actually paints his anon.
>>2412645
I know, lol. I reckon it's just him poking fun. It kinda makes him look a bit salty.
But I guess that's just my opinion and I might wrong in many respects.
And it's gone.
>>2412674
go figure. level up hacks hate photobashing jokes. good for Ricky for calling them out in public.
>>2412634
>just search for this fb group :)
nigga
>>2412682
Exclamation mark nigger
>>2412682
You are not gonna make it
does irakli even uses chromatic aberration? doesn't it seems more like kron's to do it?
>>2412899
you're missing the point anon. this is about painting over pictures.
>>2412757
He clearly doesn't have the spark
>>2412591
the critics on the subject matter has always been valid
the retarded /ic/ critics on "cheating" and photobashing are pure bullshit and would be laughed by any pro.
>>2413067
pure bullshit? i'll tell you what pure bullshit is. go ask one of these photobashing faggots to take out a pencil and paper, and fucking draw something for you from the top of their heads. THEY WON'T. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. yet these shameless hacks have the balls to flaunt their talentless photobashed garbage and claiming it to be art. get the fuck out of here with that shit. these people are a disgrace to art. you fucking idiot.
>>2413104
What he said.
>>2412639
Martinez portraits aren't at that detail level but then again, i give him credit because he actually paints them. and he paints them for study. did any of you guys get this hack's gumroad?
>>2413118
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQRFeOeuZP8
>>2413123
No, the Irakli hack video anon.
![doompaul_radiance[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/pdbovdp.gif "doompaul_radiance[1].gif")
>>2413123
nose is wrong and the eyes are too big no fix it what are you doing go back no dont start shading and polishing fix the nose no why why aaaaauauuauuauuughghghghg
>>2412682
Okay not the same anon but I added the exclamation point and it didn't help narrow down the results for me. Can we have a link?
>>2412591
there have been like 3 paintings making fun of him on that group.
There are also artists that copy his style and are totally serious about it as well.
>>2412651
what the fuck is wrong with being salty? are you faggots that afraid on people with an opinion?
nadar is a fucking joke.
>>2413228
Nothing's wrong with being salty, anon. It's just Ricky is doing it in a passive aggressive sense rather than saying it as it is.
He may pass it on as a joke and there's nothing wrong with that as I still find what Nadar's doing pretty fucking redundant and stupid.
>>2413165
anon i think that was a sketch for this guy. i've seen his serious stuff. still this Ricky guy is a faggot but he can actually pull off this portrait crap.
>>2413228
Also I forgot to add.
Nothing's wrong with being salty as long as it's not me who's feeling it. :^)
>>2413250
i feel guilty. i take it back, Ricky's actually alright. i know ic hates facebook artists but ricky's not a bad guy. he watches out for the little people.
>>2412591
fuck ricky.
tools not rools
>>2413640
Tools for fools
>>2412591
is that a dude
>>2413067
It's not photobashing, it's photo stealing.
>>2413104
>go ask one of these photobashing faggots to take out a pencil and paper, and fucking draw something for you from the top of their heads. THEY WON'T.
If some faggot came up to me and demanded that I drew something to prove something for him I would probably also tell him to get lost. That part is not about being able to draw or not.
>>2413671
Tears for Fears
>>2413104
This kind of argument reminded me of that mid to late 2000 drama between a digital artist and a traditional one whereas the same argument was used to diss digitalfags.
Good times.
>>2414049
No, it's not even remotely the same. This guy literlaly steals photographs, adds a filter and puts his name under it. This has nothing to do with digital art, this is a guy who STEALS copyrighted photos. He doesn't use them as "reference", he doesn't even do photobashes, he copy pastes a copyrighted photo into photoshop, maybe adds a few brushstrokes here and there, adds a filter on top and then calls it his own work.
>>2414101
You mean photobashing? It's just a method CAs use to speed up the process by adding small textures to make it more presentable.
As for photomanipulation, if nadar presented that shit as a photomanip, he wouldn't get as much flak as he's getting right now, I think.
>>2414101
>he doesn't even do photobashes
Right but using the term photobash for something he is not doing in the original argument makes everything really fucking confusing.
You wouldn't call ISIS "Buddhist monks" and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Shitty portraits aren't good art?
Holy Fuck anons, maybe you should stop liking that shit on artstation.
>>2413165
post your work
>>2413974
How can I be sure
>>2414105
This stuff isn't concepts for anything, and it's not a photomanip either. This dude puts a photo in photoshop, liquifies things around a bit, puts brushstrokes over things and then says it's his own original art work. Not a concept or a photomanip or spitpaint or photobash or any of that, but his own original masterful portrait skills.
>>2413915
I'll rephrase it for him. Ask them if they have a sketchbook. They probably won't have one on them, if at all.
>>2414228
>>2414228
Give it time, there's hawk eyes all around him now. He'll slip up. He had an old video out that someone shared on here a few weeks ago. It was obvious he was erasing a smudged photo. The very next day that video was removed from YouTube. This guy is without a doubt, a hack. Everything about his work is fishy. He'll slip up, and he's going to dig himself in a hole. The things people do for fame.
This fucking guy is gaming the Artstation Game pretty hard, 2k Likes on a new image isn't even something that a lot of _really_ good pros get.
He's botting it or is sucking Wotjek's dick.
Can't prove shit though cause Artstation does not reveal followers; just a number.
>>2414228
>noone has been able to prove this bullshit
Excuse me?
Do some google reverse image searches, m8
It wouldn't even matter if he took his own photos. But now he's copying someone else's vision. It's like taking a photo of someone else's painting and not adding anything to it and then selling it as your own genius. But supposedly photos themself are rarely considered to be art.
>>2414971
thats the wholleeeee issue with this. All of his defenders claim people hate realism and they are just jealous.
Even if you spell it out to them, that copying someone elses work is a shitty thing to do. A few studies are fine, but your entire gallery? Thats fucking shitty right there. It shows absolutely no respect to the original artist at all. These people see photographs as nothing but tools for them to create their "art".
I am friends with a very well known female chinese photographer that is huge on DA and other sites. She would often tell me how much she hated people just repainting her work. It's the shittiest thing you can do to a photographer.
>>2414981
Yeah, forget the fact that what these people are doing has nothing to do with art, but not even mentioning the photographer at all is disrespectful as fuck.
Someone should start taking Irakli's paintings, adding yet another filter on top and calling it their own work. I know that would fuck over the photographer twice, but would also show the absurdity of the whole situation. I mean, what could his fanboys say? You stole Irakli's work and you didn't really paint it yourself?
>>2414971
Well that's the thing, if he took his own photos no one would care. At the very least they wouldn't have as much ammo to attack him with since everything would be his but that'd be too much work.
More than that though what gets me about these sorts of guys is the dishonesty, the fact they are intentionally hiding their process to make it seem more impressive than it really is and thus sell themselves or a product. Regular companies get in legal trouble for deceptive business practices all the time.
What I'd like to know is what sort of freelance (if any) these guys get and what sort of work do they produce for a client? Or are they all just patreon supported people painting over photos for pleb shekels?
>>2412591
OH CMON I SAW THIS ON LEVEL UP AND NOBODY IS MENTIONING NOT ING ABOUT THIS BEING A COPY OF IRAKLI?
PLAGIO DI PLAGIO
>>2415181
Oh god, chromatic abberration truly is the lens flare of our time. We cringe at it now, imagine how much we will cringe at it in ten years.
>>2415181
Eyes too freaky to be cute... might as well be an alien.
>>2415181
>new cute study
>study
>>2415181
Why is her face so low
>>2415230
To not to be too high.
>>2415181
>take photo of cute girl
>make her a 10 year old anime
>put extra sparkles in her eyes
>add chromatic aberration to a photo that has none
>>2415265
reblog if you think the girl on the right is just as pretty as the girl on the left
>>2415208
I hate to say it, but this is probably the best way to study. You don't need to slavishly copy a picture to learn something from it, you just need to be able to apply the knowledge.
>>2414228
Are you actually retarded, or are you Irakli.
>inb4 both
>>2415196
Uncanny Valley. Looks like they just drew them on over top of the photo.
>>2415265
this is fucking appalling
she looks like an abomination on the left side
how do people find this attractive??
>>2414228
>>2415363
>>2415365
>>2415025
It has to be patreon, right? He keep saying he won't do work for hire, and obviously he can't in case he couldn't find a photo that exactly fits what the client asked for.
>>2415018
That's kind of genius.
>>2413974
cheers you queers
>>2415365
what's that supposed to show?
>>2415441
It's a screenshot from his timelapse video. Up until this point it was him using big soft brushes on a blank canvas, but he then zooms in and switches up the layers and you can see that he has the photo underneath a low opacity soft brushed layer. He then just paints over the photo.
>>2415365
funny thing is, you can see a highlight at the right of the nose which isn't present in the photo. if anything, this proves that irakli is just autistically copying (instead of overpainting, as opinionated retards claim)
>>2415459
What? The highlight is still there dude it's just that the right image has some soft brushing over it on medium opacity layer so you can't see it as easily.
>>2415465
can't you read? or see? highlight is clearly in 2.psd and NOT in Ref.psd
he probably overstated, and is going to tone it down later, as you do (if you have ever painted digitally)
>>2415478
Paintover it and show me what magical highlight you're talking about faggot.
>>2415480
do it yourself, retard
>>2415483
I see no highlight in the "painting" that isn't on the ref, cunt. If you can't point it out then maybe you've realized you're talking rubbish.
>>2415459
here, in case somebody is unable to find where the right side of the nose is.
>>2415493
We already know the picture's been liquefied and blurred, that just looks like the highlight that is in the photo stretched out.
>>2415493
You actually can't see that the same highlight is in the ref?
>>2415459
It is a photo paintover. I really don't know what else to tell you here. Anyone who has ever done a digital painting in their life and doesn't have brain damage can instantly notice this. You simply cannot paint like this digitally where your painting looks exactly 100% like a photo including all sorts of micro detail artifacting. The brush engine of photoshop or any other painting software does not work like that.
When artists paint photorealistically digitally, they paint in huge resolutions and use texture brushes etc which will later look photo realistic when downscaled, but they can never actually copy a photo pixel by pixel down to the tiniest micro details and JPG artifacting.
Look at Algenpfleger's photorealistic studies for example. Lots of noobs think he paints over photos too, but when you zoom into the painting it looks completely different to one of Irakli's paintings and it's very easily noticable that it's actually painted with digital brushes in photoshop. You can see that all the detail is done with the texture brushes he used, you can see the lasso tool edges, the blending etc and not a single leftover JPG artifact or impossible clusters of microdetails like in Irakli's "work".
>>2415516
>artifacting
you can't see that in a youtube video, or in the low res pictures here
please prove your bullshit meme claims with something but buzzwords.
>>2415518
>this one is not one of the liquified ones
Are you just blind, then? This one is most definitely liquefied, the upper right quadrant of her face was pulled to the right, exactly the way the highlight is stretched. The fact that so much of this picture and all his others are such an exact match in areas like hair and textures of clothes yet the faces are stretched an distorted is only just proof positive that he's painting over the photos. If he was capable of such precision copying and wanted to show that off, he'd make everything as exact as those parts are. His changing things in the slightest of ways is a blatant attempt to replicate the error margin of someone who actually painted everything by hand but all it does is make it more obvious he didn't.
>>2415530
let me teach you some photoshop: open a reference picture, create a new empty document of the same size, window>arrange>tile all vertically, zoom in a detail you want to copy in the reference, window>arrange>match all, paint exactly what you see
that's how you paint an exact copy using the window as a grid. if you liquify first, it won't work and you're an idiot.
>>2415570
You're either a troll or you're that dumbass with the pastel drawings who thinks you're going to go anywhere in life by copying photos and nothing more. There are plenty people who can copy photos to a T either digitally or on a canvas. There are reasons why nobody is accusing those people of cheating and why this guy is getting it and it's because it's painfully obvious he's not fully painting these. I have nothing more to say to you.
>>2415579
>painfully obvious
and yet, none of the retards at /ic/ has been able to prove it.
>I have nothing more to say
i'll take your lack of arguments as an admission of your defeating. good night, ladies and gentlemen.
Irakli you fuck, you clearly just paint over these photos. We're not retarded, we know how photoshop works quite well, and that's why you can't just brush it off like we're you're uneducated fans on facebook.
If you want to just steal work from photographers and "remix" them, e.g. paint over the photos, then good for you, you're even lower than photobashers, but at least be fucking honest about it.
![t9blZOU[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/fa16rJg.png "t9blZOU[1].png")
>>2415523
>technical terms in argument against me
>buzzwords and meeeemes
Nice strawman, now get off /ic/ if you don't even make art
>>2415459
no, you're WRONG. that highlight is EXACTLY there, only it's been blurred. this picture proves there's a blurred picture underneath.
>>2415365
this proves everything. how did i not see this before. there's no way you can be that accurate at the sketch phase. these highlights popping up wouldn't be there in sketch because they're not very important to the overall placement. when doing portraits you're looking at major facial features first, once you've indicated those in your painting, you can move on to the minor details, such as these highlights. this is clear evidence. good job anon.
>>2415459
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXgFEskf2o
Watch the video slowed down at about 28 seconds in. You can see the photo under the painting and he just draws over it.
>>2415795
I tried it and I couldn't see it. Not that guy though, I'm on the disbelievers side I just want to know what to look for. Should I look at the layers or somewhere on the canvas or what?
>>2415882
Ignore the layers at the side
>>2415795
why does he start with an already painted canvas thats blurred out? Shouldn't it be important to like... show him getting the right proportions and colors first from a blank canvas?
>>2415885
I still don't see it but I like how he used a supposedly random texture brush for the pores yet they somehow amazingly ended up matching exactly.
>>2415893
why would you make sketches and constuction work for simply copying a photo? i'd just fill the canvas with some base color and begin copying just like at the begining of that video.
now, if you're doing a study, then you can do the construction and stop there, if you want.
>>2415922
facepalm. you're an idiot. you'd approach both the same way. this guy is definitely cheating. no construction lines, nothing. even if he was "copying using a grid" it doesn't explain the perfect placement of the initial underpainting. which is pretty much a blurred photo.
>>2413123
see, this is how someone actually doing a study looks like. from construction lines to value and color placement, then they refine as they move along.
>>2416046
>>2416049
This. The supposed "process" he's showing is obvious as fuck. NOBODY paints that way. Indicating tiny highlights before the features are even set in place? Blending and accenting the colors in the blocking phase? It's total bullshit. Even fucking Chuck Close does an initial sketch before he paints even using a grid, and as perfect as his copies are there are still enough differences to tell he didn't just airbrush over another image, although that's obvious enough since he does it on canvas. Besides that he does washes of color to build it up, he doesn't start out with the exact perfect color blended and gradients right away - listen to him in the last minute of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e-p5M0vhZI Irakli's "process" just can't be taken seriously.
>>2413123
>that shit music
Holy fuck
>>2416046
>>2416049
>>2416071
nonsense. there's more than 1 way to do things. you could even argue that every artist has his very own method. wasting time doing linework when you have a grid? how new you must be for considering that.
don't get me wrong: irakli is tacky as fuck, and as unoriginal as you can be, but there's no reason to believe that he's doing something different than he admits to do.
>>2416076
horrible, indeed
>>2416089
irakli get the fuck out of here. and stop painting over pictures, you fucking hack. i'm hoping to see more people calling you out on your garbage.
>>2416089
irakli spends 6 days per painting.
>5 days and 23 hours on ic
>and 1 hour to liquify an image from google and call it his.
if i was a cheater and a hack, you bet i'd be checking the internet to see if anyone's found out yet. i'm almost certain he's reading this right now. hello hack.
>>2416375
nose is definitely an improvement t.b.h
>>2418161
link to this artikle if anyone cares:
http://www.momenta.online/2015/12/irakli-nadar-about-painting-the-perfect-portrait/
>>2415189
No shit, a couple years back I make a thread about this stupid trend and /ic/ was defensive as fuck about it.
Now it's even worse as it's being used in conjunction with out of control blur and noise filters to completely amp up and hide what are actually mediocre and or shit paintings.
>>2415523
They will not be shown because people might actually use these techniques for evil
>>2418349
no one cares, Irakli.
>>2418390
CA is a great little filter. I use it a lotttt in my paintings.
The problem is faggots don't know how to use it. They just throw it on everything and call it a day. Whenever I use an effect like this I use to how it appears in life. Shit like bright highlights are overexposed areas such as windows or sky.
If you use it right no one will even tell it's there at all. It just adds a nice little bit of transition for those high areas of contrast.
>>2421093
Please, enlighten us, post your work
>>2421093
>I use it how it appears in life
Bait confirmed.
>>2418161
some interesting shit about his technique, but i don't hope obstuse retards will change their opinion anyway
>there is no ‘best technique, it’s what works for you.
>I start off by photo-manipulating my reference
>First I paint with a large soft brush with light value
>working atop the photo-manipulated reference you can’t achieve that painterly look
>you learn a lot through copying
>>2415795
it's like he's using an eraser to reveal the photo underneath and not actually painting.
>>2422830
is like you've never used photoshop
>>2415265
barbiefication makes me vomit
>>2422830
He's probably using a Mask layer. I do all my erasing with masks.
>>2421182
it's jace wallace, he knows his shit.
>>2415795
>no construction
>painting almost by pixel brush
>using grid
yeah, he's not learning anything
>>2424761
Someone who thinks that chromatic abberation occurs in real life clearly doesn't understand whole lot
>>2418349
>>2421245
>achieve that painterly look
![RGB_illumination[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/blRggJx.jpg "RGB_illumination[1].jpg")
>>2424898
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
>we have trichromatic vision
>white light is made up of red, green, and blue
it's why we often see rainbow effect on a sunny day, esp on a broken or scratches glass window. not exactly the same, but technically it is a "chroma aberration"
i think that's what he meant
>>2424898
you're an idiot. Next time you wake up and look out at a bright window(open, closed, doesn't matter) you can clearly see fringe lighting.
It's not just any light. It's full on "OMG MY EYES ARE BURNING" type of light.
Or you can just fucking google it yourself and see hundreds of sights relating to the lenses of the eye.
>>2425519
i've noticed it watching with the corner of the eye a very contrasting border, like your shadow on pavement on a sunny day. otherwise, it seems like your brain automatically photoshop it.
>>2424898
It can occur in certain glass objects.
>>2425556
is google all that hard to use? or do you just want to remain an idiot the rest of your life?
>>2425561
I meant chromatic aberration in terms of the slight splitting of light around the image formed by any refractive surface.
If you're referring to the camera effect then obviously it can't occur in real life, but the actual physics behind it is noticeable in certain types of glass or perspex.
>>2425240
>>2425519
>>2425556
Let's be perfectly clear here: chromatic aberration as it is used in digital painting and CG has one purpose - to make it look photographic- NOT naturalistic.
But please, do show me a naturalistic painting from life that features kr0n style chromatic aberration. I'd love to se it.
>>2425580
>kr0n style chromatic aberration
You are that fucking retarded aren't you?
I never once said the CA you see in his paintings or ndaras is natural at fucking all. If you don't even have basic reading comprehension there is no purpose in talking to you.
>>2425581
So you agree with me, good. What was the argument you were making again?
>>2425583
jesus man do you not know hot to read? at all?
CA is naturally occurring in the human eye. You will see CA in very bright light especially bright light next to dark surfaces.
The way Kron uses it is not at all accurate but it does exist.
No one ever said kron had it accurate so I don't know why you think we did.
>>2425586
The point still stands - chromatic aberration in digital painting is used to make it look photographic, not naturalistic.It most certainly does not appear in our eyes anywhere close to the way that it does in photography.
i love how level up took this post down. photobashers get so offended when they get called out. good for ricky.
>>2413915
Way to completely avoid what he was obviously fucking getting at.
The social implications aren't the point, you fucking moron. Their ability to draw is the point. You're splitting hairs on an irrelevant part of his argument.
I'm not even someone who tends to bitch about paintovers/photobashers but this pedantic shit is useless.
>>2426553
theyre just excuses for photobashers anon.
People that blatantly copy other artists don't care about create art or the morals behind it. They just want the likes and attention.
Like this guy. This is no better than just copying a photo.
pic related is the copy.
>>2426890
this is the original.
>>2426920
threads about photo copying bastards, not just nadar.
Kron, guweiz, trinh, and there is some other girl that makes work that looks exactly like nadars. Its disgusting.
>>2426891
a gif for this is circulating on facebook. lolz
>>2426920
The original is about the expression of a moment. You sink into it and you can almost hear the sound she makes in that instant. The ripoff is just porn, solid rendering or no.
>>2426920
>but thread is about irakli, not that guy
As if we don't have enough fucking threads about Irakli.
