>this is a painting
jeez, does art get any better than this?
post your work
>>2440243
loomis
>>2440239
Yeah, once you throw out that tight brushwork garbage.
Give me some loose brushwork and impasto. Fuck it, mix some other media into that bitch.
Fuck paint on a TV and play H3 under a portrait of the queen.
Photorealism is not as amazing as you think
All it is is copying shapes, colours and values from a photograph
The artist who made that photo wouldn't be able to make something of the same level of detail from imagination because he probably doesn't understand how all the elements of it work enough to recreate it from imagination
This painting here took more skill because the artist had to draw everything from imagination. He had to create it instead of just copying a photograph
What are the green bars the table is reflecting? Did the artist just copy part of a photograph without knowing how the fuck light works?
>>2440239
The entire reason why painting has steered away from realism is because at that highest level there comes the question of 'why are you painting'. That is why you see people like Picasso doing what is called 'deconstruction of the medium'. We have built our way up to photo-realism and the only way forwards is back at a turn we missed on the way to photo-realism. It is at that turn that we come to things that are specifically within the painting and imagery themselves. Those are abstraction, brush strokes, etc. The reason why people value a John Singer Sargent painting is because there are points where he challenges himself to paint in the least amount of strokes as possible, or he's adding more paint than necessary to create a realistic representation. That is based more off of experience and intuition than a set of strict rules to build a work to a level of photo realism. It's not crazy to get to this painting's point, given that you follow the rules perfectly, which is the hard part. That is always made easier with a photo to reference from. A photo cant tell you to make broad, sweeping brush strokes and high levels of texture. A photo can only show you how to hide the paint. If you're hiding the paint, then why paint at all.
>>2440269
>the only way forwards is back at a turn we missed on the way
This, and I would like to add that I've seen paintings that hold more "realness" than a photograph. That is the quality that draws me to painting.
>>2440267
It seems they correspond to the sky. The darker bars are the reflections of the buildings. I assume the green colour comes from the table material itself.
But you're right, it's almost certainly a copy of a photograph.
>>2440269
/thread
Finally someone on /ic/ with a sensible answer. Keep on keepin' on bruh.
>>2440239
The photo they copied it from is amazing! Anyone have a source of the original? Kudos to the photographer for their amazing work.
hey guys pls r8 my painting.
I copied it pixel by pixel, took my 600 hours. I'm really proud of it :^)
>>2440269
>We have built our way up to photo-realism
We had surpassed photo-realism long before photo-realism came along.
It's called realism, idiot.
What's with all these retards babbling on on this board who can't be bothered to research their art terms to the point where they would at least know what photorealism means and the difference between realism and photorealism?
Photorealism is just another way to stylize, to make art look like it's a photo taken by a camera, and with that comes the need to emulate things like lens flares, lens distortions, depth of field and chromatic aberration that have no basis in how things actually look like to the human eye.
Realism is abot making things look as real as possible, and when done right it looks more real than photos.
>>2440254
>This painting here took more skill because the artist had to draw everything from imagination.
I hate this meme, it's like people pretend that there's one universal type of artistic skill and that the precision required to do a hyper-realistic painting doesn't count.
The guy who did OP might lack the skill to do a painting like that from imagination, but on the flip side lots of people who draw well from imagination might lack the observational skills to do a proper hyper-realistic drawing. Your opinions on the value of either painting are irrelevant. It DOES take considerable skill to do a drawing like in the OP.
>>2440269
>A photo can only show you how to hide the pain
>>2440323
the difference between photo-realism and realism is a photo reference. Now if you're going to be so angry, take a step away from your computer and take a few deep breaths. Maybe drink a cup of water or something.
>>2440333
I will do absolutely no such thing.
>>2440269
"why paint at all" only applies to hyperrealism that look like the photo it's based on. If you made a hyperrealist painting of a subject that does not exist in real life that does not apply. Painterly brushwork is only a matter of taste.
>>2440326
skill as what though? not skill as an artist, artists are creative.
>>2440345
And I guess photography isn't art either.
Expression of technical skill is still skill, a painting of a photo is still a painting, even if it's not from imagination. I'm not shitting on drawing from imagination or trying to champion hyper-realism as an ultimate art-form, but they take different skillsets and you can have one and lack the other BOTH ways, it isn't an easily measured criteria for which is more 'skillful'.
This 'it has to be from imagination!' shit was hardly even a problem until the camera.
If a guy set up an easel on a hillside and painted the mountain rage in front of him with precision and accuracy, that's art as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't need to paint in a dragon to flex those creative muscles. People can split hairs on the idea that that guy had to make a composition as opposed to photo-copy guy who already had it cropped (but even then do we know for sure whether OP was copied from a photograph?) but I still think that's nitpicking.
oh look its the
>hurr photo-realism thread isn't skill!
thread.
If its so easy lets see you do it. And yes, this is not one of your "but you don't need to be good to critique!" shits. You claim its easy, lets see you do better than the OP.
>inb4 excuses
>>2440362
photorealism is pointless.
because camera still does it better. Whatever time and effort you spend on it by the end f the day you still are overpainting a photo of reality and you still are losing to the camers. Why do that?
Photographers made realism obsolete, and this is great, we finally can focus on that which doesnt exist and make it prettier than it would look in real life.
>>2440362
No one is going to do it just to prove you wrong. It's like completing a 100,000 piece jigsaw. It just requires a LOT of time, patience and basic motor skills.
When I was younger I used to do these because they wowed everyone but they left me feeling unfilled and like a faker.. I wasn't making anything new.
I'd post my stuff but I don't want to get identified on here.
>>2440365
>>2440366
>excuses
Except every time you hear of artists its always photo-realism or its because they shit in a box.
Clearly Photo-realism is a very useful skill, if not just for the practice and skills you gain from it, it gets you more exposure than your generic "fantasy landscape with a space marine fucking a tentacle monster" drawing that looks like shit.
>>2440374
>Except every time you hear of artists its always photo-realism or its because they shit in a box.
Where? On Facebook?
>>2440358
Painting from life requires a broader skill set than copying a photo, as do photography. Copying photos requires the least amount of skill out of all disciplines.
>>2440374
>Except every time you hear of artists its always photo-realism or its because they shit in a box.
Your head is in the box.
And I 100% honestly don't remember not a single name of a photorealist.
Never seen a photorealist's work in a museum or heard of it being sold for lots of money.
I never heard of any photorealists being hired by a large corporation for creative work.
Why?
Simply because a photorealist is still worse than a camera.
Today the job of an Artist is to create something more beautiful than we can see in real life, and make it even more beatifully than it would be even if it existed.
And what does? It's just autistic overpaintin of an already existing photograph of already existing things.
They have a WOW! factor impressing normalfags and people who never heard about art by doing what camera does and that's it for them.
And finally what is result of your work?
What have you made?
Artist makes an impressive new image of something no one never seen before.
Photorealist creates an inferior copy of an already existing photo.
>>2440239
Why does this painting have photographic artefacts?
>>2440423
because it's a PHOTO REALISM.
It is as realistic as photo is.
Which is not, lol, if you were there looking at the glass you wouldn't see bokeh circles and your perception of everything would be very different.
>>2440397
I'd like to know where somebody sat down and measured skill and came to the conclusion that photo-realism requires 6.5 gigaloomis' while drawing from imagination takes a whopping 10.15 gigaloomis'.
Until you can actually do the damn thing (I doubt it) it isn't your place to say it takes less skill. As I've said before, the value of the end result isn't relevant to the skill required to produce it.
>>2440239
It's like fighting a camera.
>>2440269
I think Dali and the other surrealists had the right idea. If a camera can always do better than you, then paint something that a camera can never capture. Photo-realism is the goal of the study, surrealism the masterpiece.
>>2440474
It requires patience, planning and dedication. It requires very little artistic skill. The artist doesn't really have to think at all. He just has to fill out the grid with exactly what's in front of him.
>>2440482
Patience, planning, dedication and the actual ability of accurately putting pen (/paintbrush/whatever medium) to paper are all artistic skills as well. Find me a quality artist devoid of those skillsets.
>>2440482
>using a grid
Who does this?
>>2440474
do you know what is objectively the very hardest stuff in visual arts?
It's fucking pixel art.
Literally, pixel art is an artificial stuff that is alien to human comprehension and human imagination, your brain hadn't evolved to imagine and think about pixels, learning to do impressive pixel art is harder than getting into realism or hyper realism. Because you don't live in pixel world and don't see pixels, don't think in 8-bit, you will need to work with stuff that is alien and unnatureal to your brain.
And a photo realism is blatant copying without any thinking or learning, you just trace a photo until it looks like it. You don't need to know anything, not perspective, not behavior of light, no imagination stressed, you don't thinks at all, you simply reproduse what you see.
>>2440480
this
>>2440493
>pixel art
>don't think in pixels
>it's challenging to think in blocks
>tracing
>doesn't require perspective
>you don't think at all
Are you actually retarded?
>>2440500
That takes all the fun out of it. Why paint with a grid in the first place if you're just going to go over all those lines with your first layer on the canvas?
>>2440505
>imaginative
Can you google or trace that wich doesn't existed?
Real artist pulls the new hit that no one never seen before right out of his ass, just himself, the pen and his ass and he gives you something entirely new.
A photorealist just takes a photo of a trashbag (and most photo/hyper realism works actually are featuring soda cans, trashbags and piles of unwashed dishes) takes that photo, and does a grid copy of that photo.
Or uses an optical device than makes your left eye look on the photo while your right eye looks at the canvas.
>>2440513
If you show me your magnificent pixel art skills I will actually do a photorealist work just to show that it's easy.
>>2440505
Not sure why you're so butthurt about it. It's a very common practice to use grids for photorealism. Pretty much everyone does it because photorealism already has no value outside of "look how photorealistic it looks!". The end goal is all that matters for photorealist painters, how they achieve it doesn't matter, so naturally they use everything they can to make it easier on them. I
>People still not posting their art and just making excuses
yup, it must be so easy right? after all, you've never done it, but /ic/ said so.
>>2440522
I don't have a computer, so I'm just going to draw squares on paper and fill them in, that work to your fancy? I won't have that 'undo' button either I reckon.
>>2440513
>That takes all the fun out of it
Photorealism isn't about fun, it's a parlor trick to impress plebs.
>>2440482
While it's easier than drawing a real object in front of you, drawing from photos is still nearly as hard if you do it the same way. Stop using a grid if you do and measure it with your eyes as you would do everything else. For beginners copying photos or art pieces is an important practice and useful to do before "copying" real objects, because drawing real objects or people needs a more advanced setup that can distract you and can be uncomfortable for someone untrained (photo -> pencil on A4, still life/person -> charcoal on 18x24).
>>2440526
I've never gotten a bucket full of sand and counted each grain individually either. Would that be a very hard thing to do? Definitely. Is it a valuable skill that is worth pursuing or worth admiration however?
>>2440534
Because its still a skill and an impressive one.
>worth pursuing
The thing people misunderstand about the "photo realistic" art is that its not the end goal. being able to perfectly replicate an image then allows you to make altercations while making it look real.
Portraits of people are still done because you can do things when you creating it that a camera can't easily do. A good photo-realistic painter can paint a person as they are, then change the atmosphere or play with the emotions to make a more appealing piece of art. You can't do this without being able to do photo-realism.
>>2440533
Why would any photorealist ever stop using grids?
Any imaginateve artist just has to because me must learn drawing without relating onything , a photorealist isn't going to do imaginative works so the grid and optic projections are vely legitimate tools of trade for him.
He doesn't need the skills of construstion or imaginative work
>>2440522
Ok, here we go.
>>2440533
copying photos is not automatically photorealism. Artists should do photo studies, but if they try to do photorealism, they are missing the point of the study. You don't learn anything from copying a photo without making artistic decisions.
>>2440535
Or you know, just do actual realism.
>>2440541
I wouldn't really term what you posted realism. Maybe more expressionism/impressionism.
>>2440541
except that looks like shit.
>>2440551
Well, that confirms that you have terrible taste in art.
this is so easy. All it takes is a little patience.
>>2440560
If I was a grade school art teacher, I'd give you a C minus for it.
>>2440562
Well thank god I am. I've got till their recess is finished to get this done. I never promised a masterpiece. I feel like all this requires is a little forethought.
How in any way is this difficult?
>>2440540
>if they try to do photorealism, they are missing the point of the study
Can't say either way, because an artist decides what a study is about. If they analyze and copy photos and it isn't actually brainless bullshit, then they probably have very good reasons, because photorealism takes a lot of time. E.g. because it is a photo and thus more objective you can study easier about how light works; or how it differs from what we see. Because you stress your tools to the breaking point you can improve your tools and learn how to get better results.
But yeah, for what I talked about, it is besides the point. There proper construction and then stylisation on top matter.
The study you show seems to be more about picking the right colors and mixing the right values than construction, so it is something different again. It being a mess isn't style, it just didn't matter.
>>2440599
What are you even trying to do? Are you mentally challenged?
>>2440538
>>2440560
>>2440575
>>2440599
Goddamnit, anon.
>>2440599
It wasn't because it's a turd and you are an idiot. Go back to class so you can inspire the hate for useless adults in your pupils.
>>2440612
Well go on then, preach about how pixels are such a difficult concept.
>>2440617
no way, that would be even dumber; I just hate you, that is all
>>2440617
Didn't you just prove that it is fairly difficult? I mean, your image looks like total shit. This is like him trying to prove that photorealism is really easy by posting some ridiculously badly drawn animu portrait and then saying "how is this in any way difficult?"
>>2440599
Do you have brown trees where you live? Around here they all have gray bark and I don't understand why people draw highly saturated brown trees.
>>2440629
You must live in a weird place
>>2440617
your work is hardly amazing, you know.
This is some very symbol child drawing, how much you failed only shows how hard it is.
Ok now i'm back, i'll finish my meal and will fing a picture of a coin or a bottlecap on the internet and copy it exactly.
>>2440655
I was wrong, there's more to it than what I put in.
>>2440718
here's a better example for you consider complexity of the work.
Keep in mind that sime there are only 256 colors you must manually dither and "noise them" to make it softer and smoother.
BTW photorealistic work is almost done.
Here i am with my magnificent pinnacle of art.
You're welcome to bathe in light of my glory but before you ask i'm going to ansver frequently asked questions
>jeez, does art get any better than this?
No
>Are you a wizaed
Yes
>How can you be so good
I'm an incredibly talented prodigy so if you're not this good by the age of 3 you might just as well kill yourself
>what did you study
No study, no secrets, it's just my talent
>>2440617
pixel art is a difficult subject, though.
>>2440750
This is the shittiest thread.
Don't most pixel artists start from a normal sketch anyways?
>>2440750
>>2440796
now now, why be this mad when you're beholding the pinnacle of human achievent.
Just relax and feel the joy of enlightenment gazing upon this photorealistic drawing.
>>2440314
Wow, anon, good job 10/8 :^)
>>2440254
he will be able to make it better than you, you pleb
photorelism is the other ingredient for the dish of good artwork, you guys just come of as sower cunts when you dismiss it.
>>2440239
spotted the no skill.
>>2440816
As an expert on photorealistic artwork you must be able to provide us with a phohotrealistic imaginative work of something that doesn't exist.
Can you?
go on find a photorealist's work that isn't a blatant grid copy from a photo.
>>2440599
>pixel sizes varying
nope, rethink the entire cannon. it doesn't conform to your grid at ALL - in pixel art, you can't just have it randomly switch to 1/8th pixels for the fuse and 1/2 pixels for the front of it. as well as that, there's some superflous detail on the shading of the cannon that you won't get with pixel art.
>>2440870
Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pixel art done just like regular art and then run through a simple photoshop filter? Maybe back in the days of oldschool 32 bit games it wasn't, but nowadays, I don't think anyone actually draws pixel art pixel by pixel.
>>2440874
And where did the detail go?Go on, try and downscale a picture using only 256 colors and see if it has any details or looks like anything at all.
If you simply draw something and downscale with nearest neighbour it's gonna look like shit.
You either have do fix it by hand or do everything by hand to begin with, like placing andividual pixels of specific color to create dithering and make it look les flat.
>>2440723
Look here, does this look like a downscaled icture to you? If it does you're dumb.
>>2440874
Stop being dense.
>>2440879
The kind of pixel art I remember is from oldschool or retro video games, which looked pixelated like the image I posted, but I don't think it looks bad at all. The pixelated low detail look is exactly what makes pixel art so charming. If it's perfectly smooth it kinda defeats the point. Why not just use a regularly painted image at that point?
>>2440879
That doesn't look as downscaled because it has 5 times as many pixels >>2440874 looks like the scaled it down to 300x200ish pixel density. Pic related has about the same pixel density as your example
>reverse image search
>one russian site
who even made this op? I don't buy for one sec it's a traditional painting. maybe a digital work with hundreds of hours of autistic rendering put into it.
maybe.
>>2440903
It says it's by Jason de Graaf
And it also says it's acrylic on a panel
>>2440254
this has photobash. It's still good, but don't praise it to be something that it isn't.
>>2440911
Any idea how he did that perfect bokeh?
>>2440917
Airbrush and circle mask?
i'm a digital guy, i don't know much about traditional.
good photography > photo realistic paintings
>>2440896
hard to compare these images considering Ruanjia is a million times a better artist. I can't really judge a piece of art based on fucking pixels, I'm conditioned to judge it based on colors, composition, drawing, design, values etc.
>>2440916
He paised it as far superior to a copy of a photograph. That's exactly what it is. So where did he praise it as something it isn't?
>>2440558
fucking anime bullshit
>>2440558
Did the artist die right before adding the eyelashes?
>>2440950
nice well thought out critique friend
>>2440326
>Your opinions on the value of either painting are irrelevant. It DOES take considerable skill to do a drawing like in the OP.
Yeah, but it's a fact that almost nobody is interested in owning a photorealistic painting, they'd just frame a fucking photo
Skill has nothing to do with it, it's just pointless to mimic reality to that insane level, you are never going to be even remotely close to that when doing a painting people want, so it's a skillset you'll never use beyond getting some people to "wow" for 3 seconds and forget it exists, and the guy probably spent thousands of hours doing careful rendering.
I could understand if this guy existed before cameras were invented, he'd probably be regarded as the best painter to ever live, but not today
>>2440480
say hello to photo manipulation
>>2440750
nice stock photo
http://www.canstockphoto.com/coin-macro-20-euro-cent-0963035.html
>>2441212
It's PHOTO realism, friend.
I honestly overpainted it just like the others do.
So yes, i'm a photo realist too.
And i hope you dont think i actually purchased i highres picture to win an internet argument.
>>2441226
so you obviously don't care about art, do you have any hobbies that involve creating? are you a student? what do you get out of shitposting?
>>2441231
What do you get out of arguing with a shitposter?
>>2440961
>Yeah, but it's a fact that almost nobody is interested in owning a photorealistic painting, they'd just frame a fucking photo
It's adorable that you think that this shit doesn't impress normies.
And skill has everything to do with it when the argument is how much fucking skill one or the other takes, anon, read the discussion.
Either way, whether one wants to frame it or not is irrelevant to the skill required to produce it, as I've said. I'm not trying to argue with anyone about whether it's a worthwhile pursuit, I'm just sick of retards pretending it's easy.
>>2441236
I'm not arguing I just want to understand it. is it just getting off on the attention and anonymous interaction? reeks newfag and underage and australia.
>>2441231
I'm studying Scott Robertson to get better with Anime girls because i love my waifu.
But since i have a habbit of keeping my word i did spend a little time overpainting aa shitty coin just to show how dumb photorealism is.
>>2441241
I still don't get why you think this is funny or a good use of time?
>>2441245
gotta do something in between studies because i don't let myself play any videogames anymore.
Artist can't afford such a waste of time.
Also I wanted to know if i can do a photorealistic work or not.
>>2441248
alright u got me. I got annoyed and responded. nice job mane.
>>2440323
you'll never make it
>>2440947
> the artist had to draw everything from imagination
>>2440326
I think there is more skill in being able to use your imagination to make something look photo realistic or thereabouts, however I also think it takes a lot of skill to do a painting like the one in question. People on /ic/ and 4chan in general are either far left or far right, it's uncommon to accept both sides.
>>2440402
>photo real is still worse than a camera
This is a very reductive opinion. THere is value in photo realistic paintings, Honestly I'd rather have a painting of a photo than a photo for the same reason I'd prefer something to be made by hand than by a machine.
>>2441617
>I'd prefer something to be made by hand than by a machine.
why?
>>2441617
> for the same reason I'd prefer something to be made by hand than by a machine
because you're irrational?
>>2441617
>I like using pencil made from my chink slaves rather than machines.
>>2440967
collage is pretty great t2bh
>>2440801
The pixel artist I know and I've seen how they work off do start with a sketch, but in pixel art and they don't draw lines but blobs of color. Pixel art is related to painting, I've always thought of the clusters of pixels as the strokes of a paint brush.
>>2441617
>I'd prefer something to be made by hand than by a machine.
How about something made by machine and recicled by a person later.
Made by person is if you sit there on your ass and paint what you see as close to what you see as you can.
but if you take a photo which is much different from huaman perception, and then you simply manually reproduce said thoto it is just stupid.
Realisnm is supposed to represent reality how a person would see it, phoitorealisn is what camera sees
Everyone arguing in this thread is an immature amateur. You're wasting your time when you should be practicing.
Ha.
You will never make it.
>>2440335
Time for bed young man
>>2440239
Yes, art gets much, much better than that. I have no idea why photorealism is so respected in the art world other than that it is time consuming. You're copying an interpretation (the photographer's/camera's) of reality. And the more 'realistic' it becomes the more obviously fake it looks. Here's a painting from life by Daniel James Keys. Much less detailed, but also much more realistic.
>>2443531
source?
>>2443610
Included in the post.
>>2443622
Sorry, too much cum crust in my eyes
