Discussion in 'General' started by peteone, 20 Jun 2005.
It looks like a photo to me, I'm pretty sure no one could keep a canvas as white as the background is. The "In progress" pictures look too fake too..
IMO, looks like a photo
Busting fakes is a pet fave of mine. It's a photo and it's an april fools gag.
If you want the proof, here is an analysed image in Photoshop, showing the join between the overlaid picture and the canvas. Follow the red line down and you can clearly see the join between the correctly lit canvas and the crop of the original.
thing that stood out to me immediately, is that looking at his work in progress, no artist works like that, but would do it all by layers. Doing it the way he did it, would mean he would have to remix the colours... which is never an exact science and wouldnt look as good as that at the end.. tis been busted
Looks like a picture to me. There's absolutely no proof whatsoever in the image to even look like a painting...
The whole final image (where the guys are around the image) is a dead giveaway: "Lets open some paint up and make it look like we actually did something!" ... in all honesty, there's no way they could keep the perfect white canvas.
err... do you guys really care their both hot!
This is Henchman:crg's mum!!! I think that it is probably a painting - I have looked at it in my Paintshop Pro program in close up and it looks as if some of it has been done with an airbrush to get the smoothness of the skintone. I have seen other genuine paintings that do look very photographic (on a par with the one here). This would have required a lot of patience to get it right - as my son says, I'm a fair artist, but not that good, sadly.
reasons as follows:
1. if you zoom in (in photoshop) on the super closeup of her face, you can see that those 'pores' are really just texture effects and not pores. Also, it is easier to tell the the shading is airbrushed.
2. it was said before, and I'll say it again - reputation. This guy has one and wouldn't want to damage it with a hoax - which brings me to my next point:
3. this guy's good - yes, that good. here's one of his bios (third party so as to be less likely to be related to supposed hoax)
4. I remembered #4 - he teaches classes in photo-realistic pinup painting
I might edit this with more or reply
1. If you zoom in real close, you see pixels. That image doesn't have a high enough resolution to allow you to study the skin texture zoomed in.
However if you look at the earrings, at say, 200% to 400% zoom, you see photochromatic aberations and light flaring. You can also see this in the pupils of the eyes and to some extent in hair filaments and the edge of the skin (where it meets the background).
2 and 3. Reputation is subjective. He is good, but I have not seen any other work displayed by him of comparable realism.
4. I have not seen his class produce anything of a comparable standard. His Pin-Ups look good, but again not nearly as realistic.
It's definatly a photo, espaecially as it's only about 3 foot by 2 foot, theres no way a human could be that detailed on such a small scale, maybe if the canvas was 10 feet wide...
at 300% zoom in ticastepwebbig (save picture as, not copy) you can see what I'm talking about.
Here's another link about him:
as far as the hair and such is concerned, I've know a few airbrush artists that would have no problem painting hair like that.
looks like a photo to me!
Could he have painted it from a photograph and so copied these things? It says it took about 65 hours, so I'm guessing the subject didnt sit there for tho whole time.
..No. Besides, there would be no point. No artist would paint in the photographic anomalies (this kind of overexposure is not wanted, so there would be no point in reproducing it)
If the point is to paint a painting that looks like a photo, then there would be a point.
He has said that he works from photgraphs.
Separate names with a comma.