Praise to N4dar!

>>2870259
Is there a reference?

>>2870436
>Is there a reference

how can you have a reference for a photo?

File: 1437143432223.jpg (45KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 427x640px

>>2870436

>>2870506
fucking kek, he may as well just upload the photo

>>2870455
the face is pretty spot on yeah, but the hair and shirt give it away

>>2870628
You don't get it. There is no reference because there is no painting. It's just a photo with some gentle manipulation.

also, is it me or did he give her a zit on her chin? why?

>>2870687
oh... I just assumed the artist had some integrity orz

what's the evidence of him just manipulating the photo?

File: 1443024963128.gif (261KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 500x500px

There's always this classic.

>>2870703
the evidence is literally
>>2870506
and for proof, see
>>2870710

>>2870703
there's no evidence, because there is no photomanipulation whatsoever.

some retards at /ic/ fail to understand that some people can autistically render a copy of a picture.

>>2870259
pardon my naivete, but he just paints over photographs or what?

>>2871893
A lot of d/ic/ks will claim that he paints over photos and runs some filters over them, and there have even been a few (rather poor) attempts by people to "prove" it. As far as I know though there is no definitive proof. I think Irakli even has some videos of him painting, which of course has been accused of being fake, but again, I have not yet seen any concrete proof of this.

Either way, he's very skilled and gets a nice end result even if it is not to everyone's taste. It's kind of a meme though here to cry out that he's a faker hack, and if anyone insinuates he might be legitimate then that person must be a noob.

>>2870778
>>2871913

you guys are painfully new. these are the most painfully obvious photomanips ever.

it's a good thing for this guy there are so many credulous rubes.

>>2871916
Eh, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I know a guy who actually bought the video of him painting, and apparently the video is legit. I haven't seen it myself but I trust my friend enough to not accuse Irakli of photomanips when I don't know for certain.

>>2871937
i have that video, he is legit and his brushes too

It's not that he photo manipulates, or even traces his references. He has videos on his Facebook of him mirroring the image in photoshop. He makes his image the same size as the reference and then as he works on a part of an image he zooms in on the reference to match. Sorta like the grid technique but he zooms in so much that his lines are only pixels off. That being said his rendering is still pretty fantastic.

>>2872152
Sounds like a super autistic approach

File: 014.png (1MB, 551x2773px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 551x2773px

>>2872152
wouldn't let me link the video so here's some screenshots

>>2871913
His gumroad videos are definitely edited and his twitch Livestream only has videos of him painting freckles for hours...

>>2870710
lmao. It seriously blows my mind that there are people dumb enough to believe he actually paints these. Like, this guy could literally copy paste a photo without even doing anything at all, not even doing the color balance chances and the blur filter, and some morons would probably still think he just copied a photo pixel by pixel.

>>2872250
is it really so hard to believe that he's just super duper autistic

>>2872247
>>2872250
So you just call everything fake or say it doesn't count. What about all the gifs of his process he has posted? How are the videos edited then? What about the images that are clearly more stylized and not a photo copy?

I mean you've got guys who have done 1 for 1 copies of photos and autistically rendered every pore but done it with airbrushes or acrylics/oils, so why can't you have the same for a digital artist? If he's doing what >>2872152 says then he could have more accuracy than a simple grid.

Sounds like you guys are just in denial and are resorting to namecalling to anyone who thinks he could be actually painting these.

>>2872244
Gee, I wonder what's the technique he uses to make his brush strokes always look like pixelated jpg artifacts. He must have some serious dedication to on purpose always go for the "it looks just like a shitty photo paintover" look.

File: 732_max.jpg (439KB, 820x1200px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 820x1200px

>>2872263
Dude, I really don't know what else to tell you here. If you can't tell how these are so obvious photo manips, then I guess you are indeed his target audience. To everyone with a fraction of knowledge about the digital medium, it's clear that he has the photo on the background layer and is slowly erasing a gaussian blur layer mask. Then he films himself doing that and painting miniscule detail for hours. There exists no video or livestream of him actually doing a painting from start to finish, doing visible brush strokes and building it up like any regular artist would.

Also, I never said I don't believe digital artists can do photo realism, obviously there are plenty, just Irakli isn't one of them. Take Linran for example. If you zoom in on his work, you can actually see he used digital texture brushes. You don't see any photo artifacting, you don't see obvious giveaways like the hair in Irakli's paintings. Zoom in on how Linran painted the hair here and compare it with any Irakli image.

File: Dasha Dogusheva.jpg (223KB, 700x512px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 700x512px

>>2871913
>>2871937
>>2872007
>>2872263
https://youtu.be/AzvRBuEestI

I saw the video before, his video editing skills are just like his photomanipulation's, good enough to fool people who buys into his "totally painted paintings", painfully obvious to those who has the tiniest idea of how to actually paint.

The parts he didn't smudge or blur look exactly like his "references", down to the pixelated noise, grain, etc. He adds those obnoxious "stylish" effects to make it look like he intended all the noise to be there.

You have to be delusional to think Irakli's not a scummy plagiarist.

>>2872286
Ahh I'm starting to see what you mean now. It really clicked when you pointed out the hair orz. My apologies for doubting you anon

Ouch man. How are people stupid enough to actually believe he's painting these?

>>2872286
>>2872298
>To everyone with a fraction of knowledge about the digital medium, it's clear that he has the photo on the background layer and is slowly erasing a gaussian blur layer mask
I've been painting digitally for a number of years now. It might seem like he's using a guassian blur and removing it at first glance, but honestly when you look more into his work I start to really doubt that. The Ricky video hardly proves anything and has a terrible end result. It only resembles Irakli's work in a very superficial way.

Looking quickly at Irakli's artstation you see things like:
https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/004/228/181/large/irakli-nadar-arty1.jpg?1481551826
https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/743/723/large/irakli-nadar-arty.jpg?1465220101

Those are obviously painted. One this page of three images he even has gifs of the process in the description: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/LE4Kk

Comparing https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/976/016/large/irakli-nadar-arty.jpg?1467985171 with the ref http://i.imgur.com/mQEclfB.jpg you can see lots of subtle differences that are not just a guassian blur. You mentioned Linran's painting of hair, so I think it's worth mentioning on this one too, where Irakli made the hair actually look much nicer than the photo. I actually do much prefer Linran as an artist, but I do think Irakli is very skilled and don't think he is just doing photomanips.

Yeah I mean this is great and all but what does he actually fucking do to produce income for himself. He doesn't have a linkedin

>>2872152
>>2872230
>tfw do this
Oh shit, is this the wrong approach to studies?

>>2872343
There's no right or wrong way really. It depends what your goals are and what you want out of it. It's a good method for making very precise copies of things. The downsides would be that it's easy to focus on parts rather than the whole and it is easy to get into copying 2d shapes instead of thinking in 3d and analyzing/understanding the image. It's probably a goo way to practice rendering very high levels of detail since it makes a lot of things easier like getting general proportions.

>>2872387
Shut the fuck up. You cant produce anything close to what irakli does. You got accused by a couple of retards. Shut the fuck up faggot i swear to god

I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt here. Let's say he's actually "painting" these.

So he takes already retouched photos of pretty young women, and minutely copying them pixel by pixel.
He adds a weird circle to the iris, and Disney-fy the facial features.

To me, this is bringing nothing to te table whatsoever. Why not just make these small changes on top of the original? Why spend all that time and effort copying pixel by pixel if the final product is only going to deviate so slightly?

If he can't allow himself to paint on top of original and has to recreate it pixel for pixel (for whatever integrity reason he has), then why not shorten the process: He samples a pixel in the original, and puts it down on his canvas, until the thing is done, pretty much. Wouldn't it save him a lot of time and work to just sample the whole thing as a brush and just place it all in one click?

Insisting on this pixel-by-pixel copying process, is the only thing that allows him to call himself a digital painter. Take that away and he's simply a retoucher.
Making this silly process as arduous and time consuming as possible is his way of getting as far away from that realisation as he can.

The sad conclusion is almost poetically summed up in his finished pieces:
They end up close to indistinguishable from the originals. The hours upon hours of work, whatever internalised knowledge of the craft he possesses, or original vision - none of it is evident in the artwork itself. The end result is thus nigh on completely devoid of any artistic agency.

Nadar's process is menial and extraneous, and his distinction as an artist can only be arbitrarily construed on the basis of pure techicalities.

>>2872244
The way he works is very suspicious. Starting from a blurred piece (that isn't show how it was made). Followed by eyes, hair, mouth, etc. made with few brush strokes and perfect accuracy and precision. And also because he never made corrections or tweaks, which would need KJG levels of autism.

>>2872343
yeah dude it is, i mean if you wanna learn how to construct properly it is

>>2871913
Fuck off, Irakli.

File: FuckIrakli.jpg (336KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 900x900px

>>2872152
Yes, he does. Not only that, but he literally copypastes parts of his old pictures into new ones. There are several examples where he's edited a photo he found like he always does, then pastes one of his old faces onto it, and makes tiny adjustments to it.

For fuck's sake, look at the two bottom pictures. They're two different pictures.

If anything, Irakli is basically just an airbrusher.

>>2870710
Wow

Makes me want to give up on realism entirely.

File: fb.jpg (151KB, 1024x1429px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x1429px

>>2872244
i got this video off his gumroad ages ago. it clearly shows him painting everything from scratch. only thing is that he used a lot of tricks. like he made his canvas and the reference the exact same size, and then made it so when he zoomed in on his canvas, the reference would zoom identically (i think it was Window > Arrange > Match Location). he also used rulers and the eye-dropper tool to sample color. so although he doesn't paintover, how he produces these is still unimpressive as fuck and literally anybody with the patience can do it.

i tried it after i watched the video and got pic related. it's not fun at all because you have zero freedom and unlike with a regular photo study, there's not even much thinking involved. just mindlessly copying literally inch by inch

File: 1474040952514.png (575KB, 564x763px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 564x763px

>>2872497

File: NYORK.jpg (59KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 728x546px

>>2872497
>>2872501
kek

>>2872501
fucking kek

>>2872499
So basically this >>2872438 ?

>>2872501
Its like looking at a pile of dead fish

>>2872618
that looks really nice. is is me or the nose and mouth are slightly missaligned?

>>2872499
>literally anybody with the patience can do it
And yet your result looks nowhere near the level his does.

File: 1452352303363.jpg (751KB, 1426x764px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 1426x764px

????

>>2872482
That's the best part. It doesn't matter how much he copy/pastes, people don't even seem to see that.

>>2872693
How to appeal to normies:
>lifeless puppet-doll eyes
>baby-nose
>puckered-botthole lips

>>2870259
As long as the end result looks good who cares how he got there

>>2872765
>who cares how he got there
Irakli does

>>2872693
slightly*

Come on man, at least put a bit more effort than Irakli.

>>2872765
Everyone should care, since he's ripping off the photographers and basically stealing their works.

Speaking of, I'd imagine if there's some sort of artstation for photographers they have a really good laugh over there when they go to our artstation and they see their copied 1:1/manipulated photos as one of the most popular and liked works. Pretty embarassing to be honest for us painters, we are supposed to be the creative ones and not just the "monkeys who press the "take picture" button".

>>2872618
DAAAMNNN

Ps or Clip studio?

>>2872886
Photographs don't give a fuck about art and painting
don't mind just love

>>2872763
nigga if your asshole looks anything like that, go seek medical attention