>this is how paintings are made in the year 2016
>>2418298
only in digital trash.
Doesn't look that great to me, but if it works for the guy then whatever. I don't care if people are using the tools available to them and I'm not competing for a job in this market.
the second step looks much better.
the last step, what little spark there was has been sucked out.
muh atmospheare
muh moodz
>>2418298
You're right OP, they never used references back in the day.
>>2418298
SOME paintings. Looks like shit anyway.
>>2418308
>painting over a photo
>calling it reference
irakli pls go
>>2418298
>it will look good
And yet all it did was get worse. Lol.
>>2418298
>'and bang, it looks like shit!'
yeah, no thanks shaddy.
>>2418298
but isn't this just a manip OP
The thing is photobashers can't make as beautiful paintings as traditional artists but traditional is much harder to git gud at. So it happens that less skilled artists using traditional techniques will achieve worse results than photobashers of equal skills.
It's simply a technique not cheating. Like the bob ross technique you could call 'cheating' because it lets less skilled artists create better looking painting than an equally skilled artist using a traditional technique. While these let people do things easier there is usually a drawback in the form of skill ceiling, where the technique will start limiting you at some point.
>"it will look good it will look good"
>end result is ass
wew
>>2418298
The final piece makes me want to puke.
>>2418298
Gud, the more people will fall for gimmicks like this and avoid actually learning something, the more will actual artiststand out.
>>2418308
are you just pretending to be a retard or what?
>>2418298
>check em
>>2418326
This
Still looks better than cringe Willbert.
https://www.artstation.com/artist/will
Plus his obsession with his looks (his profile fb photos are gold).
>>2418321
That's because made the mistake of saying
>"it will look good it will loog good
>>2418393
Here is a 50 minute "speed painting" of his
>>2418298
Why is she putting a leaf into the nostril of the amorphous loogie monster behind her? Why is she directing our attention to the random leaf sitting on the log?
>>2418412
I think she's a exotic dancer if you know what I mean
The dino is clearly tipping her for a lap dance
>>2418401
He tries to be Feng so hard.
>>2418305
you have a terrible eye for aesthetics. Regardless how shit that photobash is, the last step is very objectively better than the second one. Maybe you need to learn a bit about "muh mood" and "muh atmosphere" if you know this little about why artists unify their palettes and stick to a certain lighting key, instead of having lightsources and the value structure all over the place.
What the OP shows is nothing more than a digital adaptation of the old academic way of painting.
Of course, the old academic masters achieved great skill at this, so their paintings didn't look like shit.
>>2418393
why care for such an obscure artist with no originality in him
>>2418440
Are you an idiot? Do you even know how people paint traditionally? This process has nothing whatsoever to do with academic painting.
The method could be useful if it is used to create REFERENCE for your painting, not as an underlay. Much the way Gurney uses maquettes to figure out light and perspective. He still has to invent a shit ton of things for the final painting though.
>>2418449
Let's pretend I don't know. Why don't you explain it to me. That'll be amusing at least. Go on, 'help' a fellow anon out, hmm?
>>2418298
wtf all that work and it still looks garbage
>>2418521
lol burn
digital art =/= paintings
that being said you could make a thread with the same point by showing a "hyperrealist" painting done with a projector so its all shitty.
>>2418298
But op it looks pretty bad.
>>2418417
Oh so this is actually a critique on the male gaze and the female station in our patriarchal society. The reptilian, domineering, monstrous male visually rapes the repressed female as she looks away, numbly and unfocused into the distance, longing for release but remaining hopeless and broken. Deep stuff. 10/10. Modern masterwork.
>>2418350
This guy gets it.
>>2418393
This looked pretty good small. Then I zoomed in.
I can't stop laughing.
>>2418915
jesus christ those rocks, those statues, that 2 color layored tree-roots, that moss behind the girl. jesus fucking chirst
>>2418915
>>2418957
>>2418990
You just jealous he so good lookin.
>>2419149
>tfw he got hired to do in house gig.
>>2418401
It's so wrong... The background style doesn't match the midground style which doesn't match the foreground style. It sucks.
>>2418298
I get step 1
I even get step 2
But the point when you go "just overpaint bro" something has clearly gone wrong
How the fuck do you even finish like that
>>2418915
Newbie here. Is he laughed at because his art looks like he put textures from phantasy star online in photoshop? Do I have the "eye?"
>>2418915
This wouldn't look so shitty if they made it in grayscale and colorized it with any semblance of color theory. Instead they try the snowskadi effect without knowing shit about color and light, and well, this comes out.
>>2418915
a good thumbnail is a great starting point.
most half decent artists could convert that in a bretty good piece after over 9000 hours of rendering.
>>2418298
>>2419634
although i think eytan zana is a total badass, and this process seems quite good and he usually achieves amazing results with it,
i can't help but wonder... isn't it ultimately STILL faster to just paint? The result will be a little more 'impressionist' and probably a little less fotoreal but the tradeoff is a higher degree of control and faster workflow. the only exception of course is if you wanted to rotate the camera.
ultimately though, i won't ever get deep into 3d simply because i don't enjoy it.
>>2419488
Anons, explain this witchcraft to me please, what did this artist do to paint this, is it even photoshop?
>>2419737
And final result:
>>2419634
Kek, the original looks so much better than this hobbit-tier cheap CGI trash result he got.
>>2419737
Loose shapes gradually being refined. Which part exactly is confusing to you? I think it looks awful but each to his own...
>>2419737
It looks almost entirely accidental.
>>2419776
It's just a technique. You throw a bunch of semi-random shapes on to the canvas and then you interpret a figure or whatever from there.
>>2418326
what is this "Bob Ross" technique?
>>2419634
original is much better, wtf is his problem?
>>2419909
He, like lots of realists, get obsessed with making boring shit "look real" rather than making something that looks cool.
>>2419634
He turned a monster with a decent silhouette into a generic hulk blob....fail. Even the foreground characters and composition became more boring.
There wasn't even a need to use 3d for this. He's drawing a very generic bulky figure in a simple pose with simple implied perspective......why even bother? Shouldn't someone of his skill level be able to do this shit from scratch with no "tools" like 3d? With out it taking days to come up with something.
Seems like a colossal waste of time and potentially limiting crutch. The original was way more creative IMO.
Tools not rules
>>2418915
Better than 87,36471383194% of /ic/
>>2419926
>>2419909
>>2419774
Typical /ic/ shitters.
Have you guys even seen the final images in full scale? The second verison he made is 3 times better than his original painting. It has WAY better compoisition, better values, more detail, better design, everything is better. suck a dick. i am done coming to this shithole filled with whiney amateurs.
>>2420152
>i am done coming to this shithole filled with whiney amateurs.
Ha.
You will never make it.
>>2418298
ITS NOT HOW THEY USED TO DO IT SO IT MUST BE BAD
>>2420183
IT WILL LOOK GOOD, IT WILL LOOG GOOD
>>2419928
Great attitude, everything goes, including over reliance on techniques that can become a crutch and hinder creativity. Don't question or analyze anything because that's what plebs do.
>>2419929
Great, you're not competing against IC for work so thats pretty irrelevant.
>>2420152
You think that way because you have a poor design sense. You're an amateur with a low skill level that's impressed with frivolous technical ability and totally ignore the fact what he painted is boring, unoriginal and....boring.
He could have made that monster so much cooler, the characters so much more interesting. The final versions composition sucks. The foreground elements don't overlap the giant and there are no elements leading from the foreground back into the distance to give the giant scale. He could have added some tree tops or other branches....better birds even. The branch they're climbing on is like a vertical line that cuts the painting into thirds and you just end up with 2 different paintings. One of a swamp thing looking motherfucker on the left and some dudes climbing on the right.....*yawn*
Being larger and in higher def doesn't make it any better. If anything it just highlights is terrible use of edges because everything is a fucken lasso tool copy and pasta from photos. Great....it looks realistic...it has some textures. So what? The subject matter is forgettable and generic. Any new renderfag that comes along will take this dudes jobs in a heartbeat.
>>2418298
The finished result is so bad that it physically hurts looking at it.
>this is how drawings are made in the year 1525
not to mention the use of camera obscura. i also think i heard about some mirror technique that let painters recreate colors almost perfectly from natural images (anyone know what that's called?).
congrats OP, you've discovered that people who do this to feed themselves can't afford to not be efficient about their craft.
>>2419929
I don't think you understand how percentages work
>>2420266I think he's using a coma as a decimal place
>>2420265
nvm, found it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_HUWs9c8c
Maybe the rise of photobash will get online digital art out of it's academic fantasy paintings wankery.
>>2418298
so what and who cares. it looks exactly like how it was made, like a cgi model that was painted over. video game shit basically.
>>2420265
>craft
craft implies craftsmanship
there's not much craftsmanship to the poor photo bash in the op
>>2420188
Eytan works at Naughty dog and you're jerking off in you're mums basement
>STATUS: TOLD.
>>2420265
>>2420271
The Hockney Falco thesis is a meme that has been disproven countless times.
>>2419809
The wet canvas technique
>>2418300
>set up printer
>make stencils
>profit
>>2420347
Did anybody imply that it was a well made photobash? there are degrees of ability in photobashing just like in any other craft.
>>2420354
whatever you say buddy
