Not Photoshopped, but then not photos...!

Stunning! The natural talent that many artists are gifted with, beggars belief really. Fabulous stuff.
 
Meh. Most of them are copied from photographs.
 
Stunning stuff, true artists.
 
So let me get this right. Artist copies from a photograph, and creates something that looks like a photograph? What's the point?

Don't get me wrong... the skill involved here is staggering!... I admire it greatly... but why are they just using this skill to copy photographs?

This is what I'm always banging on about... people only see "skill" in art. If you can appreciate the skill.. then its art.. if you can't, then it's crap.


Admirable skills, but why not just take a photograph? LOL


Apply these skills to something original, then we'll talk, otherwise.. meh.
 
S' what I thought.

David's supplied my answer for me.:D

It's like a three year old playing Hendrix solos note for note on Youtube. Technically superb. But so what?
 
This style of art is called 'Photorealism' and has been around for many many years. Earlier works in this genre tended to be subtley obvious that the medium was paint rather than film.

Why take it to this extreme degree of realism? - Simply because they can.

You don't have to like it but enjoy it if you do.

:)
 
It's like a three year old playing Hendrix solos note for note on Youtube. Technically superb. But so what?

JimisNotDead.jpg
 
Aren't many portraits or many paintings in general copied from photographs? I know when certain royals sit for a portrait, photographs are taken so the artist can continue whilst the subject is not there. There are also theories that many early masterpieces were sketched out using a camera obscura projecting a scene on a canvas. I see these as a continuation of that process.

I think they can leave the viewer a bit cold simply because they are so realistic, but I find them impressive none the less.
 
I know when certain royals sit for a portrait, photographs are taken so the artist can continue whilst the subject is not there.
Surely the "artist" is the subject if the subject is the Queen. If you see my point.

Anyway. Those pictures are made with a lot of technical skill. And probably some creative input if they deviate from the original photograph. Lets hope the painter took the pictures too. Which also contain some creative effort. Technical and other illustrators also copy photographs, some quite realistically, to make their pictures.

Anyway nice results. But it must drive them mental doing it. I like realism. But the downside here is some of these pictures take on the weaknesses of photography. Where a painting does not have this limitation. What springs to mind was one flash photograph that causing a shine on the face. Can they move the position of the light? Hmmm.

Now I wonder if the pictures were retouched on the PC before they copied them to paint?
 
Last edited:
Aren't many portraits or many paintings in general copied from photographs?

yes.. but then the artist interprets them... adds their own style, technique... they're not faithful reproductions meant to look like photographs. The photograph is merely a guide. Here however, the intention is to recreate the photograph, which seems a bit pointless. The point seems to be showing off a skill, not creating art. Can't that skill be put to better creative use than merely copying a photograph?

I'm impressed by the craft skills... but not the art.
 
Perhaps the saddest thing, in relation to photography, is that there are lots of people who would happily pay to hang a perfectly (or even badly) copied drawing or painting of a photograph on their wall but not the original photograph.
 
Yes. But remember, lots of people pay lots of money for really crap paintings because they are told they are something special.
Oops, danger. Beware incoming insults for not respecting certain things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
It's an incredible skill, you may not think it 'worthy' as it's copying a photo but many people would prefer to have a painting/pencil drawing than a photo because of the uniqueness of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Surely the "artist" is the subject if the subject is the Queen. If you see my point.
Yes, kinda like the face is so familiar, it's only how the individual artist interprets it that changes.
Anyway nice results. But it must drive them mental doing it. I like realism. But the downside here is some of these pictures take on the weaknesses of photography. Where a painting does not have this limitation. What springs to mind was one flash photograph that causing a shine on the face. Can they move the position of the light? Hmmm.

Now I wonder if the pictures were retouched on the PC before they copied them to paint?
That's a good point. If "errors" are corrected in photoshop nowadays, you would have thought they would have corrected them in the painting! I guess it just adds to the realism...

yes.. but then the artist interprets them... adds their own style, technique... they're not faithful reproductions meant to look like photographs. The photograph is merely a guide. Here however, the intention is to recreate the photograph, which seems a bit pointless. The point seems to be showing off a skill, not creating art. Can't that skill be put to better creative use than merely copying a photograph?

I'm impressed by the craft skills... but not the art.
I see what you mean. I remember in a college art class doing a pencil illustration of Gary Oldman. It was based on a photograph, which I divided up into a grid of maybe a hundred or so squares. I then replicated that grid on my paper and simply copied exactly what was in each square, building up the picture bit by bit. The end result was really good (even if I do say so myself) probably one of my best portraits in as far as spacial awareness was concerned. It was an interesting exercise in not looking at an image in it's entirety, or specific components, rather just looking at shapes, patterns, light and shade in isolation and replicating them. I would say the technique is good, but doesn't require much skill and certainly no real artistry. I do wonder if these images are created using similar techniques, or indeed many portraits and paintings begin this way.
As you suggest, it's a good base to start from, but something that needs to be taken further to allow the artistry to peep through.

After saying all that, I did wander around the National Portrait Gallery earlier this year, and I feel some of those artists could have benefited from learning such techniques ;)

It's an incredible skill, you may not think it 'worthy' as it's copying a photo but many people would prefer to have a painting/pencil drawing than a photo because of the uniqueness of it.
That's a valid point. I often wonder why people get canvases of photographs printed to look like paintings. I guess this is the more authentic method...
 
Last edited:
I often wonder why people get canvases of photographs printed to look like paintings. I guess this is the more authentic method...

....I grow Sunflowers in my garden (low maintenance and they attract bees etc and are quite amusing) and inevitably a few end up in a vase in my kitchen. So, I took a quick photo snap on my pocket camera (not DSLR) and then later realised I could have some fun with it. So, mes cheries, voila!....

SunflowersVanGogh.jpg


^ Created courtesy of Photoshop from my original unframed snap.
The frame on wall is from the Van Gogh gallery in Amsterdam.

:)
 
Last edited:
People with skills like this are excellent for the restoration/repair of major artworks and for forgery!
 
Trouble is, there are idiots who will 'interpret' this rubbish and give it status. They dont realise they are actually being defrauded. Its like the emperors new clothes.
 
It's an incredible skill, you may not think it 'worthy' as it's copying a photo but many people would prefer to have a painting/pencil drawing than a photo because of the uniqueness of it.


But it's not unique... it's a copy of a photograph.

No one is denying the skills though Gramps.


Staff Edit:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But it's not unique... it's a copy of a photograph.

No one is denying the skills though Gramps.

If the yardstick is 'unique', David, surely 99% of all photographs are also disqualified?
Actually I doubt these are presented as being unique, rather I suspect as an alternative art-form and there is no disputing that there is a call for this work in even a much less skilled form.
 
If the yardstick is 'unique', David, surely 99% of all photographs are also disqualified?

LOL.. indeed.


Although I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about content. For instance, a documentary image may be in a similar style as someone else's, and it may be for argument's sake, an image of a person, so it would be easy to say therefore it's not unique, but what matters is the subject matter. If it's a documentary on something unique, then it's unique.

Besides, as you say, there's nothing left in the world that's not been photographed, but you could also level the same accusation at painting: There's probably nothing that hasn't already been painted, or drawn... so surely your statement would be equally as true for all art forms? Why does anyone bother then? Why do you bother?

The fact is, subject matters. No one needs to see another shot of Durdle Door, but a landscape shot in a similar style of a place anyone rarely sees WOULD be unique would it not?

Actually I doubt these are presented as being unique, rather I suspect as an alternative art-form and there is no disputing that there is a call for this work in even a much less skilled form.

No.. they're not., which begs the question why you mentioned the 'uniqueness' of them. They're unique in style.. to an extent.... meaning it's rarely seen and a rare skill being brought to bare, but that's only of limited appeal. Once these artists have had some recognition, they'll fade away as artists unless they DO create something unique. People get bored easily, and will move on to the next Facebook post that will "Blow your mind when you read this".

People have incredibly short attention spans these days.
 
Last edited:
LOL.. indeed.


Although I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about content. For instance, a documentary image may be in a similar style as someone else's, and it may be for argument's sake, an image of a person, so it would be easy to say therefore it's not unique, but what matters is the subject matter. If it's a documentary on something unique, then it's unique.

Besides, as you say, there's nothing left in the world that's not been photographed, but you could also level the same accusation at painting: There's probably nothing that hasn't already been painted, or drawn... so surely your statement would be equally as true for all art forms? Why does anyone bother then? Why do you bother?

The fact is, subject matters. No one needs to see another shot of Durdle Door, but a landscape shot in a similar style of a place anyone rarely sees WOULD be unique would it not?



No.. they're not., which begs the question why you mentioned the 'uniqueness' of them. They're unique in style.. to an extent.... meaning it's rarely seen and a rare skill being brought to bare, but that's only of limited appeal. Once these artists have had some recognition, they'll fade away as artists unless they DO create something unique. People get bored easily, and will move on to the next Facebook post that will "Blow your mind when you read this".

People have incredibly short attention spans these days.

Well I bother because I enjoy photography as a hobby and with it the fresh air, bit of exercise and the interaction with my joy of birds/wildlife etc. I will be unlikely to ever photograph anything unique ... maybe unusual is the nearest I will ever get...


Kingfisher shaking off the droplets
by photogramps, on Flickr

Being unique doesn't bother me, I'm not anxious to get anything unique, though I would like to photograph certain birds that I have yet to see.

As for the paintings I see them as you say, 'unique in style', people have been requesting paintings from photos for years ... departed cat/dog/relative/kid at the seaside sketch artist, so I doubt the call for the skill will disappear but then I doubt it's having a major commercial impact now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Back
Top