-heckler calling cheat on deviant.
-someone else prove heckler just is a butthurt by using logic and his other works.
-heckler too stupid to admit he is wrong.
Seriously this guy is a god-tier hyperrealistic
artist. Can people stop shittposting on his deviant and admit he is just good?
Why is being Good not trusted nowadays?
How can artist give back trust to common people?
how much proof one must give for his art to be trusted?
Even traditional oil artist are now called cheat if they use projectors...
I talked to Nadar, he is a nice guy. There is shittstrom on him for no reason.
When you see his step by step it look clearly hand painted.
When I look the industry a lot of things could look fake but in fact it is a matter of skill. I bet Davinci art was called cheat during his time. Ignorant people just can t understand process and still believe magic exist.
There is no magic just skills.
>step by step it look clearly hand painted.
no, it doesn't. It looks like it was painted over a photo and then made a reverse step by step image to help his lie.
Other artist have done this exact thing. His step by steps are not believable at all. I'm confident I can paint just as good as he can and I can say that no artist paints the way his step by step's show.
Please the 2nd step is clearly painted, YOu can see brush strokes.
There is reason none believe is fake but few grumpy skill-less artist on deviant and here.
None ever showed legit fake here even if I read all the time this place full of professional.
Just admit he is very good. The poor guy is getting depressed from insults :(
>I can say that no artist paints the way his step by step's show
This, so much this. This is how you KNOW it's a farce, I was watching a speed paint video from one of the famous chinese artists, can't think of his name and even though it turns out amazing in the end, you can see him adjust things, move things around, make corrections. It's the same with literally every artist who's actually creating and not just tracing, even if they're using reference. Rendering only takes time to do, it's not how much it's "rendered" that makes it unbelievable. It's the total lack of sketches and changes and any evidence of the same process that everyone else in the world goes through when they draw that blatantly spells it out for what it is.
also, this faggot has absolutely no respect for art/ He steals from photographers and never gives them credit (until he got called out on that shit).
He is a talentless faggot. The photographer is doing all the hard bits for him. He has done nothing creative at all in the year he's been around. The photographer figures out the concept, does the models makeup, hair, posing as well as the technical sides of photography. Values, color, composition, post processing, and basically everything important in creating a visually stunning image.
All this faggot does is copy all that work and doesn't give the photographer a cut. Those photographers could sue if they wanted cus he's sure as fuck selling his work and not changing enough of the original image for fair use.
Why there is only 2 layers on his video?
One on bottom is the original I guess and 2nd one seem empty??
Is that video editing or you can have similar setup on Photoshop without being a fake?
you sure can make a career doing portrait copy on computer.
How come none is wanting to pay IRL artist but virtual ones get lot of attention?
I know some artists will do everything on the same layer and instead just save constantly. If they do add a layer, they merge it immediately. Drove me mad to watch since i like a lot of layers.
I'm on the fence on whether or not he does any of the painting himself or if he's reverse-painting it like others in this thread are saying. I haven't seen enough evidence yet to decide. I will say however that if he DID paint this from scratch, I don't find it that incredible. It's still copying. Eyeballing. It's still taking another person's work and copying it. It'd be more impressive to see something from scratch from imagination because all that eyeballing skill means jack shit if you don't retain anything when its just you and your brain.
Pretty much this. There is a lot of disregard and disrespect for photography in general here. People steal/copy from photography (which is no problem until you start putting it in your portfolio and/or sell work) with the mindset that what they do is hard and photography is easy. Photography was never about how hard it is to make a good photograph but to actually go out your way and take it.
If it's so easy and pointless then shoot your own reference photos or actually start to give credit and ask permission if you are trying to sell.
The easiest thing for me since I was a kid was being able to copy what I see exactly as it is, with pretty much no discontinuity. (I never worked for it, it’s just something I’m able to do. It's actually imaginative work that I love.) Though I know cheating does happen, since I can work like this guy in his step-by-steps, his processes don't look at all out of place to me. Sorry, I really shouldn't discuss myself, but just recently I found an old study I painted a couple years back that I'd forgotten about, on a site with a drawing app, along with an long page of comments debating over whether I'd used some complex program in order to cheat. The concluding post was a warning from a moderator of the site to never cheat again, along with a series of accompanying gifs the mod had made cycling from some of my studies to the original paintings, siting these as evidence of cheating.
I'm not computer-literate enough to be able to install cheating software, hadn’t understood that sort of thing existed, and hadn’t even really realized back then that these paintings would be public. I haven't and won't reply to these comments, because it wouldn't solve anything- it would just extend the discussion.
I’ve seen here that when this sort of discussion happens, those who read it often associate all of the artist's later work subconsciously with that discussion over their possible cheating.
If the career I'm trying to build gives people this unpleasant feeling, it's difficult to feel positive about art making, which I mostly pursue in order for others to experience pleasure when viewing my work. (Like I feel when looking at other artists' work.)
Sorry, I don't know. I just wanted to mention that it bums me out that probably not just me, but a lot of artists get accused of cheating when they're at a certain skill level of being able to reproduce subjects by eye, and they can't respond to the discussion without firing it up, (and providing their words for deconstruction, as I've seen here before, in odd ways which make them seem a very unpleasant person, a thing which is a little hard to take, considering some artists’ work feels like an extension of themselves, when they put everything they have into their pencil to try to create something wonderful to be enjoyed by others each time they employ it.)
I recommend you guys reading up on narcisstic personality disorder, because that's basically what is going on here if you are asking yourself how this guy is so obsessed about defending his photobashes and why he even bothers getting praise for something that he didn't actually draw.
if you don't do photo paintovers, your process steps won't look like photo paintovers to anyone who knows his shit. No one would ever claim something like pic related was a photo paintover for example. The dead giveaways about photo paintovers are:
1. JPG artifacts around the hair, eyes, lips and ears
2. brushstrokes in the first "process" images are blatantly used to hide what's underneath, instead of being used to build up values, colors and find the proportions. See >>2378171
3. median noise filters in the very first "step". See >>2378166
I got you, and thanks for the response, I hadn't thought about indicators. Considering this, I don't feel at all competent to determine the means by which the artist used their reference by seeing their finished product (setting it next to, colorpicking, putting it on top, etc, because it seems as if there are so many different possibilities as to why their work might look as it does to me, for example if they were working with reference to a photo, and those jpg artifacts were some of the colors they tried to match. Well, I don't really know.)
In any case, since it feels like the majority of the people who view art in general aren't at the point at which they can determine the process used to make a thing, (me included,) people sometimes are said to cheat and this implanted idea casts their body of work in doubt for many people who happen across and read these sorts of debates, whether (or not) the artist's done whatever they're thought to have done. Man, I don't know.
Are you for real? It's really easy to see this.
Hair always give it away and doing strange shit like not publishing stream or timelapse with all tools in photoshop.
This is an insult to a copy machine. What he does is more like if you put your image in to be copied and the scanner light was so hot it partially melted your picture so it smudged against the glass and then it didn't print out anything it just left you with a shittier version of what you already had.
Ever noticed how most of these faggots don't start from scratch on livestream? Usually the least they have is a sketch which could easily be traced off a reference.
Secondly, even when they do show the whole process they could just have the ref on a second monitor.
Thirdly, let's assess the actual contribution in this case. When you ref a photo, or (worst case) someone else's stylized illustration - what is your action exactly? The values have been set up for you, the gamut is already there, the composition is there, the subject matter is there. In case with reffing from an illustration, absolutely everything has been pre-chewed for you, all you need is to slap your boring sameface on. So what is it that you do? What's your contribution? You made the eyes more uguu? Congratulations, you're now able to compete with liquify tool. You're a fucking photoshop filter installed on a meat bag, nothing more.
You really have to be kidding. Even in yours there are adjustments and things being built up, the sketch is messy, things moved around. With his everything starts in exactly the right place, exactly the right color and value and shape and size. Even the best copiers have to build up their picture and sometimes misinterpret things. Pic related, look at the arm holding the poker handle. Elvgren made her wrist slightly more bowed than it really is because of the way the shadows fall and make it look bowed. No matter how good someone is at copying a photo, human error or bias or interpretation or whatever you want to call it shows through. It could not possibly be more obvious that he's not genuinely painting these, not even as a photocopier.
is this kr0n trying to prove he's not like Irakli
no point in that. nobody's gonna change his passionate opinion, no matter how much evidence you throw at them.
he just copies a photo side by side using photoshop's window>arrange>match all, which is pretty much the same as using a grid. if you really put some effort into trying to copy photos, you'll probably learn by yourself every trick this guy does. he's just proficient doing that very particular, useless thing.
>pixel perfect accuracy between reference and painting
Nah. Fuck off m8.
It's still 100% accurate it just looks like they used the warp tool to pull half of it slightly so I don't know how this is supposed to serve as a proof anyway. I would consider this even below the minimum amount of effort to try and hide that he just reposted someone else's photo.
Pffft I knew that bitch looked familiar, but since she can't shoop her face anymore now that she's on tv a lot (In japan which isn't really a huge accomplishment if you understand their daytime television) I forgot what she 'used' to look like.
Jesus christ just watch his video and determine for yourselves instead of all riding the /ic/ bandwagon on who to hate next.
He was saying those minor differences don't prove it's not a fraud because the guy was at least smart enough to know he'd better change it at least a little to get around the tracing charges. I followed up by pointing out how all the pixels still match they're just moved slightly in one area so clearly all he did was warp it a little. Those "differences" are basically the same as shrinking the picture slightly on a second layer, lining the two layers up and saying "see totally different!". Anyone could see through it, I'm convinced nobody actually believes it and anyone who says they do is trolling without a doubt.
Really? You think your photobashing is comparable to fucking da Vinci? Da Vinci was a mastermind inventor who made a significant mark on the world, while you're not even worth the oxygen you disgracefully waste with your bullshit. Kindly choke on your ego and die, you subhuman sack of shit.
Not that Anon but people on IC are always so worried about if one method has more merit or less than another. As evidence by this thread.
All that really matters is can your technique make you money or not? Is your technique handicapping you and causing you to be stuck doing shit level jobs? If photobashing is becoming a crutch and causing your work to suck, making you less competitive, than it's not worth doing. If you can do it and make bank off it like the concept guys then go for it.
Who honestly cares what some internet tough guy thinks about it if you're making a living and getting to do art as your job. Davinci didn't have all the tech we have today so who knows what he would have done in the modern era. Old masters used camera obscura and traced shit too, don't be such a purist moron.
At the end of the day average people don't give a shit how you made a piece of artwork, just that it looks good/cool. Only amateur art plebs focus on the technique. Who cares what they think because their "purist" artwork looks like shit. lol.
He can use whatever he wants, the issue is trying to deceive people into thinking his work is something it's clearly not. If people didn't give a shit about how it's made then why post these fake process pictures?
But when you outright copy paste copyrighted photographs into photoshop, run them through a few filters and add some brush strokes, can you really call it "your" piece of artwork? At what point do we have to draw the line? If I used a random photo that I did not take myself and slightly changed the color balance and contrast, would it become my piece of artwork? After all, who's to judge my "technique"? It's the end result that matters.
Don't you have to pay to see the full video? The teaser is edited in a way that it could still be cobbled together and staged to look real. Unless he starts from scratch in the full video i won't believe it.
Oh you were being sarcastic. Shit, so he did misunderstand you. Someone else posted that picture in the last thread as a defense though so I can kinda see where that went wrong.