PDA

View Full Version : Photorealism with airbrush



Sande
05-23-2007, 09:27 AM
This has to be one of the most photorealistic works I've ever seen. Unbelievable.

Painting of Tica by Dru Blair (http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm)

jameswillmott
05-23-2007, 09:33 AM
!

cresshead
05-23-2007, 11:36 AM
fails to load...

CMT
05-23-2007, 12:00 PM
IF it's for real, I'm blown away by the detail and the techincal mastery.

But after reading his concept of what is art and his thoughts while creating this piece, I think he's a bit obsessed with making it look like a photo rather than a work of art. He states photography isn't art. Yet he's trying to replicate it and "subdue" his own individual style which he says unconciously creeps into his work sometimes. I just don't get that. I thought that was part of the best things about art is that your individuality comes through.

jasonwestmas
05-23-2007, 12:10 PM
IF it's for real, I'm blown away by the detail and the techincal mastery.

But after reading his concept of what is art and his thoughts while creating this piece, I think he's a bit obsessed with making it look like a photo rather than a work of art. He states photography isn't art. Yet he's trying to replicate it and "subdue" his own individual style which he says unconciously creeps into his work sometimes. I just don't get that. I thought that was part of the best things about art is that your individuality comes through.

Absolutely, individualism is the only reason to be creative, anything else is just replication. Technical mastery is overrated if you don't go beyond the photograph.

iconoclasty
05-23-2007, 12:26 PM
I strive for replication. I only experience individualism when I mess up.

Steamthrower
05-23-2007, 12:38 PM
Is it really for real though? It's be easy to take an actual photo and Photoshop the previous steps in.

If it is for real then he's got the greatest hand in existence.

Surrealist.
05-23-2007, 12:45 PM
I would like to hear someone who has actually done airbrush come on here and explain exactly why a painting of the size that they are displaying there on the isle, which is rather conspicuously looking like a convenient 18 by 24, and yes art boards do come in that size but for a photograph you could get that printed at Kinkos or Staples easy in that size, on a stand that is rather clean with airbrush tools that are completely clean, hands of the guys completely clean, no mess anywhere, and the skin tone, complete with makeup, peach fuzz on the face, creases under the arms, the fabric and the hair, is actually a photograph.

I don't buy the steps that are laid out.

For one, he talks about getting the colors just right, yet it shows him starting from the top and working down. To get such a perfect consistency of tone I would think you would lay a complete base top to bottom then work the whole thing up from that. Even for an oil painting this is pretty remarkable.

"It's not finished yet, one of the teeth is a little dark" give me a break. Such a great work of art would be detailing more interesting and useful particulars that that.

Overall I don't buy the tone of it. I don't by the poor attempt to lay out "steps" that appear more like taking it into Photoshop and using the erase tool and tracing it over with the brush tool and other effects to make it look like his applying "steps". This would also explain the sequence chosen. Top to bottom.

If they win any prize it is going to be, yet another way to fool people using a paint program like Photoshop. Very clever approach but I don't buy it.

jasonwestmas
05-23-2007, 01:36 PM
Yeah I don't really buy into this anymore than you do I'm sure. But, if you are copying a photo, it is possible to just paint from top to bottom. I'm doing that now actually though my style isn't trying to be "that" detailed. Other illustrators do that too. BUT you have to consider that there is no background so doing what he has done is easy so he doesn't have to really consider the composition of the colors. It's not really impressive really until you consider that he made the texture details with color pencil and probably a tiny electric eraser. It's a really old technique but I haven't seen it quite this detailed before.

mattclary
05-23-2007, 01:37 PM
I suggest y'all go look at his site and/or google him. He's a well known artist and very good at what he does.

And you are getting very close to "what is art". We have another thread for that right now... ;)

jasonwestmas
05-23-2007, 01:39 PM
Before I saw this thread I thought Mark Fredrickson has the highest level of detail that I've seen. He does the same color pencil with electric eraser technique when using airbrush.

http://www.theispot.com/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=portfolioSearchAction&artistID=I028&SearchParameter=artistID&newSearch=yes

Surrealist.
05-23-2007, 01:46 PM
I suggest y'all go look at his site and/or google him. He's a well known artist and very good at what he does.

And you are getting very close to "what is art". We have another thread for that right now... ;)

Impressive. I've been wrong before. :)

Sande
05-23-2007, 01:48 PM
I did a couple of background checks before I posted and I do believe it's airbrushed. The amount of detail and realism makes it hard to believe, but with highly talented artist, good reference and over 70 hours - why not... :)

mattclary
05-23-2007, 01:51 PM
It's actually pretty funny when you think about it. If you read entertainemnt magazines, most movie stars are airbrushed (well, Photoshopped) to the point they DON'T look real (literally look plastic), and here this guy puts in the blemishes and all.

theo
05-23-2007, 01:54 PM
I actually airbrushed quite a bit when I was in my mid-twenties. I am now in my low thirties and am thankful I don't have to do this for part of my living anymore.

I can see this being very possible, though only by a few airbrush aficionados.

A high-end airbrush is just simply remarkable. The amount of detail one can achieve combined with the flexibility of air-ink adjustments with a slight flick of a finger can definitely assist in creating photorealistic works. Plus, the work is a mixed media which aids in detailed skin production.

What this fellow has that most don't is an almost genius-level ability to understand human skin and tone, which is why he is teaching portrait classes, obviously.

More than likely, what you see here is perfectly plausible. I am MORE amazed by the fact it only took him 70 hours!! What a genius!

CMT
05-23-2007, 02:45 PM
I looked at some of his other work. It looks really good. I especially like his eagle, tank and space shuttle scenes. I like those better than the portrait. There's definately more artistic aspects in those pieces, even though he tried to "subdue" that it.

But, I've never really understood the need to go to that level of detail, except maybe when doing a 3d model for a movie. There's nothing wrong with that, I guess. Maybe it's just my inclination toward trying to balance economy of effort with capturing the essense which makes me think that.

I guess sometimes the motivation for creating a detailed piece like that is just the fact that you can and it's within your abilities to create it.

oDDity
05-23-2007, 03:01 PM
It is obviously excellent, [email protected] not questioning his ability, but he couldn't to it with traditional painting, that's for sure, only in the digital world with high res photo reference, tracing and colour and tone cloning from said photos.
Also, when it gets this indistinguishable from to a photo, surely you'd be better just having the photo.

Stooch
05-23-2007, 03:01 PM
heh according to him photography isnt art:


Art: (my definition)

Art is the selective re-creation or conversion of reality by the human mind into concrete imagery according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Real or imagined concepts are filtered and altered through the human mind to the artist's hand to create an image or sound that did not exist before. The reason photography does not qualify
as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality.

interesting...

oDDity
05-23-2007, 03:08 PM
It is a real painting after all. In that case, it is amazing (but still could be done without the high res digital reference of course)

Stooch
05-23-2007, 03:14 PM
hey im impressed. when i took oil painting classes we had photo reference too, it was challenging enough to mix the pigment, wait for oil to dry and use various elastomers to get the surface prepped. all said and done he did an amazing job, humbling in fact. imagine this guy with a wacom tablet. heh.

he used an airbrush right? still confused if this is a painting or airbrush class.

hrgiger
05-23-2007, 03:31 PM
Artsey-Schmartsey. I get so tired of people dismissing work because it's photo-realistic or copied even from a photo. Who cares. This work is not about art per say, but about total mad skills. And he surely has them.

I've always been a fan of Richard Estes too and his photorealism.

oDDity
05-23-2007, 03:34 PM
I think it's wrong to get too carried away be the fact that it is ultra photoreal though, I mean, if that's it's only property worth talking about, then it doens't add up to much.
Realist artists like Bouguereau who also did skin painting, produced better works, even though they were not this ultra realistic, and he didn't have airbrushes and high res photo reference.
Still, he is a highly skilled and dedicated craftsman, which I like much more than modern 'art', but I think that literally copying every pixel of a photo is going too far the other way.

jameswillmott
05-23-2007, 04:12 PM
Still, he is a highly skilled and dedicated craftsman, which I like much more than modern 'art', but I think that literally copying every pixel of a photo is going too far the other way.

Isn't that what you were trying to achieve with The Milkmaid? Or did I misread your intent on that piece?

Andyjaggy
05-23-2007, 04:24 PM
I think it's wrong to get too carried away be the fact that it is ultra photoreal though, I mean, if that's it's only property worth talking about, then it doens't add up to much.
Realist artists like Bouguereau who also did skin painting, produced better works, even though they were not this ultra realistic, and he didn't have airbrushes and high res photo reference.
Still, he is a highly skilled and dedicated craftsman, which I like much more than modern 'art', but I think that literally copying every pixel of a photo is going too far the other way.

Agree with you 100%

He obviously has ridiculous talent and skill but to what point? If you are reproducing something that looks just like a photo why not jus take a photo? It doesn't matter to me that his picture is a "conversion of reality by the human mind into concrete imagry" Sounds like a load of B.S. to me.

theo
05-23-2007, 04:25 PM
hey im impressed. when i took oil painting classes we had photo reference too, it was challenging enough to mix the pigment, wait for oil to dry and use various elastomers to get the surface prepped. all said and done he did an amazing job, humbling in fact. imagine this guy with a wacom tablet. heh.

he used an airbrush right? still confused if this is a painting or airbrush class.

HUGE difference between an airbrush and oils.

bluerider
05-23-2007, 04:32 PM
Absolutely, individualism is the only reason to be creative, anything else is just replication. Technical mastery is overrated if you don't go beyond the photograph.

The piece took him 70 hours. A digital photo could have had a result in a split second. Great craftsmanship though, I've not seen airbrush done with such photographic likeness.

jasonwestmas
05-23-2007, 04:33 PM
The piece took him 70 hours. A digital photo could have had a result in a split second. Great craftsmanship though, I've not seen airbrush done with such photographic likeness.

Me neither.

parm
05-23-2007, 04:34 PM
It's a still-life. Of a photograph.

bluerider
05-23-2007, 04:35 PM
Isn't that what you were trying to achieve with The Milkmaid? Or did I misread your intent on that piece?

No, oddity was replicating a painting not a photo. Personally I prefer the stylization from the painting than I do a photo.

oDDity
05-23-2007, 04:38 PM
I think the early impressionists struck a perfect balance between realism and abstraction.
It's since got out of hand. Sticking a few squares of colour on a canvas and calling it art is going to far one way, and simply copying photos, too far the other way.

jasonwestmas
05-23-2007, 04:39 PM
Photos of just a bust are boring, me like paintings with brushes. :D

Stooch
05-23-2007, 04:42 PM
regardless. he implemented a set of skills that impress me. whatever the result was, he has a he|| of an eye and he|| of a hand.

bluerider
05-23-2007, 04:50 PM
I think the early impressionists struck a perfect balance between realism and abstraction.
It's since got out of hand. Sticking a few squares of colour on a canvas and calling it art is going to far one way, and simply copying photos, too far the other way.

I guess the two approaches can be interpreted as visual extremists. Your probably a Vismod, a visual moderist.

oDDity
05-23-2007, 04:51 PM
No, oddity was replicating a painting not a photo. Personally I prefer the stylization from the painting than I do a photo.
Yes, I'm trying to learn from other master artists by copying their works, and only when copying their work do you see every last detail of it, and hopefully understand it, why they did it that way, and why it is good.
Not to mention that I was attempting to convert an individual's unique painting style to 3d.
I suppose, in that same sense, there is at least something to be learned from copying photos in every detail. It's certainly good practical training.
Certainly we 3d guys can learn a lot about our craft by trying to reproduce photos in 3d.

Sande
05-23-2007, 04:52 PM
Artsey-Schmartsey. I get so tired of people dismissing work because it's photo-realistic or copied even from a photo. Who cares. This work is not about art per say, but about total mad skills. And he surely has them.
I agree 100%. Funny how we don't see more of these "Blah, why didn't he just take a photo"-arguments in "LW - Gallery - Finished"-section...

Maybe photorealism is only allowed for 3D-artists. ;)

Stooch
05-23-2007, 04:55 PM
bottom line. this guy has a one of a kind painting that looks amazing. something like that i would pay money for, if i wanted that hanging over my mantle. by the way, that model is extremely hot. holy crap. mmmm mmmmm mmmmmmmmmmm good god. :)

hrgiger
05-23-2007, 04:59 PM
Sticking a few squares of color on a canvas is one thing and I agree, it's ridiculous to call it a great achievement, however, on the other end, making a photo real picture is not the opposite evil. Anybody can stick a few colors on a canvas and call it art but few of us could achieve such photorealism in a painting or otherwise. There shouldn't even be an argument here about it's value as art, it's simply a demonstration of a skill. A pretty good one too.

oDDity
05-23-2007, 05:01 PM
Everything always comes back to a 'what is art anyways' debate.
Is it the conceptual idea that only exists as thought, or is it the resulting physical manifestation.
Point being, if it#'s the former, then it takes more thought to come up with the innovative squares idea than to simply copy reality as is.

bluerider
05-23-2007, 05:27 PM
bottom line. this guy has a one of a kind painting that looks amazing. something like that i would pay money for, if i wanted that hanging over my mantle. by the way, that model is extremely hot. holy crap. mmmm mmmmm mmmmmmmmmmm good god. :)

I loved it till he painted out her white beard.

Stooch
05-23-2007, 09:02 PM
id give her a white mustache to complement it :)

Matt
05-23-2007, 09:07 PM
Hmmmmmmmm, have to say, I'm skeptical! No one is THAT good, are they? If it is a painting, then this must be the hand of God himself! (No, not Diego Maradona!)

voriax
05-23-2007, 11:33 PM
I agree 100%. Funny how we don't see more of these "Blah, why didn't he just take a photo"-arguments in "LW - Gallery - Finished"-section...

Maybe photorealism is only allowed for 3D-artists. ;)

Well with a photoreal 3d scene, the subject is often non-existent. If the 3d image was identically replicating a photo, then unless it was for some other purpose such as learning the lighting or modelling, I would indeed say "what's the point?"
Even at work I'm asked to replicate objects to a photoreal level, and I just say "why don't we just take a photo? it's quicker."

Spending 70 hours identically replicating a photograph, and what do you have left? A big expensive picture that looks remarkably like a blown up version of the photo that was originally taken in mere seconds.
He even goes on to say that he replicated the abberations caused by the digital camera! When it goes that far, how could anyone NOT ask "why not just use the photo"?

It's one thing to have the skills to do that sort of thing, but at least apply them in an artistic manner. Make something up, instead of photocopying something else.
A few years ago I was in an illustration class, and we were to illustrate a person or a vehicle using Corel Painter. I was all set to digitally airbrush the entire picture (and I did), but the lecturer told us "just get a photo and use the clone tool to get a painterly effect" (the clone tool just takes the photo's image and alters it slightly). I was incredulous. There was no talent involved in that, and yet it gave a great airbrushed or painted effect. I was saddened at how many people used that method, too.
To me, this airbrushed art is the same thing. All you've done is somehow replicate exactly what is already there, then how does that further you as an artist? Doing it all manually taught me a heck of a lot not just about the process of putting the strokes in the right place, but about how to make something look real without directly copying another source.

His other art proves he has technical talent in airbrushing, but this piece doesn't amaze me. Comparing this to his other works, you can see a real difference in picture quality. His other pictures have no more reality to them than most professional art you'd see on CGsociety. They'll look great and close to real, but you can easily tell that they are not real.

So again, if this level of detail and realism cannot be achieved without infinitesimally copying a photograph, then what is the point?

For some reason, the old saying from Ab Fab(?) just popped into my head..
What's the difference between a painting by someone who chooses to paint like a child, and a child's painting?
So true.. :)

Sande
05-24-2007, 12:59 AM
It's one thing to have the skills to do that sort of thing, but at least apply them in an artistic manner. Make something up, instead of photocopying something else.
Hmmh, I don't quite follow. He set up the lightning, pose and such and took the original photograph himself. Then when he decides to make a painting out of that, it all becomes futile? I guess there are people who could appreciate even that original photo! :D

Regarding the point in this the artist himself wrote: "After some deliberation, I decided to test the limits of my visual skills by completing the project painting."

Whether it's "art" or not... Well, I don't really care. We have seen the whole "art or not"-debate many times before. I think it's at very minimum an amazing demonstration of technical skill.

voriax
05-24-2007, 01:09 AM
Hmmh, I don't quite follow. He set up the lightning, pose and such and took the original photograph himself. Then when he decides to make a painting out of that, it all becomes futile? I guess there are people who could appreciate even that original photo! :D

Regarding the point in this the artist himself wrote: "After some deliberation, I decided to test the limits of my visual skills by completing the project painting."

Whether it's "art" or not... Well, I don't really care. We have seen the whole "art or not"-debate many times before. I think it's at very minimum an amazing demonstration of technical skill.

Yes he did set up the photo himself .. it becomes futile when he reproduces it so perfectly that he may as well have just blown up the photo (something a few people already think he did). To go so far as to reproduce imaging errors caused by a digital camera? Next he'll want to start painting jpeg compression artifacts .. then it could REALLY look like it was a digital photo!

:D

I can understand him wanting to test the limits .. If the exercise helps him to add this sort of intricate life-like reality to his other work then it was worth it .. if it didn't teach him anything other than how to copy a photo, then in my eyes it's not so worth it. He'd just be an walking colour inkjet printer.
Just my opinion.

ghostlight
05-24-2007, 02:45 AM
I don't believe it. I mean, it MUST be real because the guy teaches classes and there must've been witnesses!

Anyway, I GUESS it's art. Maybe more a testament to his control and skill than a piece of expression, but it does make you think about the differences between photography and painting.

I dunnooooo........ something fishy about this "painting", no?

ghostlight
05-24-2007, 02:48 AM
By the way, I totally agree with oDDity that trying to replicate photographs with 3D are great exercises.

Any EVERY artist - whether filmmaker, photographer, 3D, painter, or otherwise - benefits from a trip to the museum to study the masters of light.

Stooch
05-24-2007, 04:21 AM
Didnt it occur to anyone that the guy just loves what he is doing and he isnt out there to prove anything to anyone. Guy probably sparked a fattie and locked himself in the studio with music blaring. Pulheease. Hey yuo can blow up a photo all you want. but a painting that looks like a photo will still fetch the million bucks ;)

one of a kind baby. :) as far as art, like i said many times before, you cant define it cause everyone has their own idea. just keep your ideas to your self and everyone will be happy lol.

Matt
05-24-2007, 04:44 AM
I don't understand the "what was the point, he could have taken a photo" argument.

The skill to be able to recreate it THAT good makes it what it is! I'd rather see art skills like this than some talentless Turner Prize winner any day.

Of course it's art, WTF!

parm
05-24-2007, 05:26 AM
I'd rather see art skills like this than some talentless Turner Prize winner any day.

Funny that.

The very first Turner prize winner back in 1984. Was the photo-realist painter
Malcolm Morley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Morley)

:D

G M D THREE
05-24-2007, 06:02 AM
I am always a bit suspicions when I see stuff that looks to good to be true. So to begin with I believe that Dru Blair has painted a photo real image of great quality, demonstrating great technical ability. What I don't believe is that the close up image of the face is the one of his painting. Top image A. on his site shows the process of the painting in steps but the image in the middle must be the reference photo. I assume that because of the small seam from the outfit of the model that was left out in the final painting on the bottom image D. artist and posse posing. I took the pre-final image B. into Photoshop and placed it on top of image C. Scaling it to the exact same size, so both images are on top of each other. When I toggled the layer on and off I noticed some discrepancy below the eyes but mostly around her gums. If I overlay the close up C. with the image on top A. they match seamlessly. That leads me to the conclusion that the close up is the actual reference photo and not the final painting!

///

theo
05-24-2007, 06:47 AM
I am always a bit suspicions when I see stuff that looks to good to be true. So to begin with I believe that Dru Blair has painted a photo real image of great quality, demonstrating great technical ability. What I don't believe is that the close up image of the face is the one of his painting. Top image A. on his site shows the process of the painting in steps but the image in the middle must be the reference photo. I assume that because of the small seam from the outfit of the model that was left out in the final painting on the bottom image D. artist and posse posing. I took the pre-final image B. into Photoshop and placed it on top of image C. Scaling it to the exact same size, so both images are on top of each other. When I toggled the layer on and off I noticed some discrepancy below the eyes but mostly around her gums. If I overlay the close up C. with the image on top A. they match seamlessly. That leads me to the conclusion that the close up is the actual reference photo and not the final painting!

///

Nonsense... it WILL match almost seamlessly because he projected the original photo onto the board for the initiation sketch. 99% of all airbrush pros use a projector when it's possible.

G M D THREE
05-24-2007, 07:07 AM
As for the definition of what is art and what is not, according to Dru Blair. I only can say what a hypocrite. Saying photography is not a art-form and than paint of a photograph calling it art. In order for Mr Dru to be recognized as a Artist by himself he should be able to paint without a fine mechanically engineered air brush that uses pressurized air.

We have to distinguish between artistic skill and intellectual ability. As to my believes each on there own is a great achievement. But true art needs to be a combination of both. Having great ideas and be able to artistically express them. Thats what defines most great artist like Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo or Picasso. Pushing the envelop on a technical level and cultivating the mind at the same time. Reason why the Mona Lisa is a in a museum and Dru Blair's pin up girl on the cover of a airbrush magazine.

///

G M D THREE
05-24-2007, 07:20 AM
Nonsense... it WILL match almost seamlessly because he projected the original photo onto the board for the initiation sketch. 99% of all airbrush pros use a projector when it's possible.

Don't take my word. I am not arguing that its not well done, I just belive in the human imperfection. See it for yourself:

Steamthrower
05-24-2007, 07:22 AM
As for the definition of what is art and what is not, according to Dru Blair. I only can say what a hypocrite. Saying photography is not a art-form and than paint of a photograph calling it art.

I noticed that too. If photography isn't art, how can he copy it and make any just claim to have created art?

I still don't buy the whole thing anyway. As Ghostlight said, the whole thing's fishy.

jasonwestmas
05-24-2007, 08:04 AM
I'd like to see the photo with a magnifying glass so I can see the pencil marks. It would be impossible to completely hide them. Right now I simply can't see any resemblance to any hand done details.

CMT
05-24-2007, 08:11 AM
G M D, I believe you're right. Too many things not lining up in that overlay. Mostly in the highlight discrepancies in the hair. The close up couldn't be the final piece shown.

I just found it funny that he suggested he was trying to remove his stylization from his art and going on purely what he sees. I think your identity as an artist is the most valuable thing and he's trying to eliminate his from his work.

Andyjaggy
05-24-2007, 08:41 AM
I noticed that too. If photography isn't art, how can he copy it and make any just claim to have created art?

I still don't buy the whole thing anyway. As Ghostlight said, the whole thing's fishy.

I agree maybe it just hit a nerve because I do photography but he says that photography isn't art because it is only a representation or reality and removes the human filter from the final product. Obviously this guy has never taken a photo before. the human element is very much a part of photography. From deciding how to compose to waiting for the light to get right, to deciding how to expose the picture to best show what you want to portray. Then don't even get me started about post work on the photo. That's all about the human element.

bluerider
05-24-2007, 09:11 AM
I agree maybe it just hit a nerve because I do photography but he says that photography isn't art because it is only a representation or reality and removes the human filter from the final product. Obviously this guy has never taken a photo before. the human element is very much a part of photography. From deciding how to compose to waiting for the light to get right, to deciding how to expose the picture to best show what you want to portray. Then don't even get me started about post work on the photo. That's all about the human element.

Your spot on. The irony of his statement is ill thought out. To dam the medium of photography as not being an art form them copiously copying it, most strange.

Using the airbrush artist own logic however it would go like this, " Photography is a non art, I copy non art, therefore I am even less of a non artist that the photographer. I am therefore a non non or double negative non artist or photographic plagerizer".

His article doesn't make sense.

jasonwestmas
05-24-2007, 09:17 AM
Digital 3D cameras are cameras too. You also can take things from reality and put them on your hard drive and take pictures of them within the computer in a virtual space and even manipulate them. How dense is it to say that a human being can't manipulate a photo, haha. It's almost like saying that if someone paints with oils it's not the artist that creates the image but the oil paint and the bristles on a brush on canvas, lol.

jasonwestmas
05-24-2007, 09:18 AM
In order for me to be a true artist, i must paint with nothing but my own blood with my finger tips!

;)

bluerider
05-24-2007, 09:20 AM
In order for me to be a true artist, i must paint with nothing but my own blood with my finger tips!

;)

I'm so glad you don't use anyone elses.

jasonwestmas
05-24-2007, 09:20 AM
I'm so glad you don't use anyone elses.

Well then they would be the artist not me, lol!

bluerider
05-24-2007, 09:22 AM
Well then they would be the artist not me, lol!

Thats a film right there. Get writing a script !

Andyjaggy
05-24-2007, 11:01 AM
Ya know what though, in the end I could care less if some "artist" cares if something is art or not. I like what I like and that is it. At the end of the day I would rather have a pretty "non art" photograph hanging on my wall then some "art" abstract.

But that guy is pretty amazing with an airbrush whether it is art or not.

bluerider
05-24-2007, 12:46 PM
Ya know what though, in the end I could care less if some "artist" cares if something is art or not. I like what I like and that is it. At the end of the day I would rather have a pretty "non art" photograph hanging on my wall then some "art" abstract.

But that guy is pretty amazing with an airbrush whether it is art or not.

Yeah....like that really huge cat in as your avatar, its art, weather its airbrushed or just a photo.

Seriously though, that cat looks scary.

Andyjaggy
05-24-2007, 05:23 PM
It's the Utah kitty of death.

G M D THREE
05-24-2007, 07:50 PM
It's the Utah kitty of death.

I always was thinking that it was just a knocked up cat!

///

sr way of topic here... lol

ghostlight
05-25-2007, 12:44 AM
Knocked up by those things in the movie "Slither".

cholo
05-26-2007, 02:18 AM
That picture is the equivalent of building a stretch of road with a spoon, no more, no less. As for the art bit, he's right, the photo he copied is definitely not art, not by a long shot :)

Stooch
05-26-2007, 01:07 PM
hehehe finally someone saw the irony in his definition of art i quoted. :)

Stooch
05-26-2007, 03:06 PM
I am always a bit suspicions when I see stuff that looks to good to be true. So to begin with I believe that Dru Blair has painted a photo real image of great quality, demonstrating great technical ability. What I don't believe is that the close up image of the face is the one of his painting. Top image A. on his site shows the process of the painting in steps but the image in the middle must be the reference photo. I assume that because of the small seam from the outfit of the model that was left out in the final painting on the bottom image D. artist and posse posing. I took the pre-final image B. into Photoshop and placed it on top of image C. Scaling it to the exact same size, so both images are on top of each other. When I toggled the layer on and off I noticed some discrepancy below the eyes but mostly around her gums. If I overlay the close up C. with the image on top A. they match seamlessly. That leads me to the conclusion that the close up is the actual reference photo and not the final painting!

///

if you need to open this up in photoshop to see the difference, then i think he did a [email protected] good job.

byte_fx
05-28-2007, 09:34 AM
A guy I've known since I was a kid does airbrush as good or better as the guy in the article.

Started when he was 7 years old. A lot of people told him he should become an artist.

He said - more or less - "Heck no - I want to make money".

And he does - airbrushing vehicles of all sorts.

Is it art? Not to him - it's just a way to make obscene amounts of money doing something he enjoys on his own schedule.

byte_fx

creativecontrol
05-28-2007, 01:11 PM
He teaches classes where he must replicate this process in front of students. He is one of the world masters at airbrush art and has been around for quite some time. Take a look at his aviation art. They're obviously not photos but it is scary close.

http://drublair.com/