After receiving some positive feedback to “yuka” Lukasz decided to write a detailed tutorial about creating process

http://www.cgarena.com/ccount/click.php?id=38

WOW~! :bigthmb:

Double WOW!! :bow: :bow: :bow:

...another one of those tutorials that doesnt teach you anything beyond - if you're a REALLY talented artist and have a graphics tablet, you too can paint an exact copy of a photograph ;)

The brush settings were somewhat interesting but beyond that - its basically just a series of pictures

...another one of those tutorials that doesnt teach you anything beyond - if you're a REALLY talented artist and have a graphics tablet, you too can paint an exact copy of a photograph ;)

The brush settings were somewhat interesting but beyond that - its basically just a series of pictures


I completely disagree. There is a lot to be learned by disecting the process. Sure you're being told how to create a specific picture but there are many concepts that can be applied to other projects. It's unfortunate when efforts are wholy discredited because they may not yield the exact results that are desired. It was both generous and time consuming to have put together this tutorial and the artist should be commended.

The guys even says it himself - beyond brush settings theres nothing to it but patience, hard graft and buckets of painting talent
Apart from the above, there are really no more tricks; just a lot of patience, close examining of the real photograph and painting, painting and once again painting.

After that its art 101. Sketch, colour, details.

And isn't Art 101 THE fundamental art class? How would that in any way imply worthlessness as a tutorial? if anything you just proved my point.

And isn't Art 101 THE fundamental art class? How would that in any way imply worthlessness as a tutorial? if anything you just proved my point.
Anyone attempting a work of that magnitude should have at the very least the most basic concepts of how to create a painting - I learnt that at primary school. And if you didnt know about those fundamentals, this 'tutorial' wouldnt explain them in the depth required to fully inderstand them, nor would be be in a position to put them into practical use following the 'tutorial'.

Whether its a good tutorial or not, its still amazing work.

I'm 101% with NancyJ on this one.

If the guy had painted this from scratch - ok, WOW;
If the guy had transformed the photo into something "Artful" - ok, WOW;

But to take a photo, spend some hours working hard and return to exactly the same photo - sorry, that's just Duh!

Obviously this artist does have talent, obviously this artist does have technique. There are so many good things that he could have done with this image. I just can't see why he put out on the Web a day trip to nowhere.


Rô

But to take a photo, spend some hours working hard and return to exactly the same photo - sorry, that's just Duh!


Rô


Check out the work of Anthony Brunelli or Bert Monroy. There is a whole photorealism movement both in traditional media as well as digital media that has both a lot of artistic worth as well as a lot of technical merit.

And as to Nancy's comments, to see one of these guys produce a photorealistic work is a whole lesson in and of itself. Sometimes the best tutorial is to sit back and observe the process, no matter how sure you are that you have nailed the original concepts back in grade school. There is a big difference in knowing the concepts and knowing how to put them together to create an actual work. This tutorial isn't about learning the basic concepts, it's about learning new ways to apply them... and that is valuable.

There is a whole photorealism movement....
Although you may not expect me to say so - I fully agree. :)

But "photorealsim" does not mean making something really look like a photo.

Wikipedia: Photorealism is the genre of painting resembling a photograph, most recently seen in the splinter hyperrealism movement.
The idea is to create an image which is much more than a photograph could ever be, representing a perfect vision of a scene that would never actually be possible.

The two artists you cited are "hyperrealists" and Bert Monroy has already been the subject of a very similar discussion (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13346).

However, back to the case in point. If the Artist had turned the original photo into a hyperreal image then I would be applauding in the front row.
As it stands Mr. Lucasz Szeflinski missed out on an excellent opportunity.

Still Duh!

Rô

Photorealism/hyperealism in traditional media is a feat of amazing technical skill and dicipline. To recreate colour and form so perfectly as to be almost indestigushiable from a photograph is aweinspiring. To do it in photoshop from a photo is 'paint by numbers'. Trace the form, then colour pick your 'paint', the rest is just a test of patience and stamina.
I have no problem with realism in digital media, but if you're working directly from a photograph - what was the point? You've gone from a to b via z but if done to perfection you've ended up with what you started with.

Photorealism/hyperealism in traditional media is a feat of amazing technical skill and dicipline. To recreate colour and form so perfectly as to be almost indestigushiable from a photograph is aweinspiring. To do it in photoshop from a photo is 'paint by numbers'. Trace the form, then colour pick your 'paint', the rest is just a test of patience and stamina.
I have no problem with realism in digital media, but if you're working directly from a photograph - what was the point? You've gone from a to b via z but if done to perfection you've ended up with what you started with.


How is photorealism any less technically skillfull with 2d Digital media? You still have to recreate colors and form the same way you would with a brush. You have to recreate textures and light efects the same way you would in a painting.

How is photorealism any less technically skillfull with 2d Digital media? You still have to recreate colors and form the same way you would with a brush. You have to recreate textures and light efects the same way you would in a painting.
How is colour picking from a photo technically skillful or in anyway comparable to mixing paint?
When you paint in traditional media, you cant colour pick and get every piece of information about that point. With real paint you have to look at an object and completely and utterly disassociate yourself from it, you have to block out the signals from the logical side of your brain that tell that you know what the object looks like, and you know what colour it is - because you dont, if you paint allowing those thoughts, you will paint a representation of the object, not a true likeness of the object. You have to draw in perfect perspective exactly what you truely see - not what you *think* you see. And that is something that is far harder than can ever be described with words.
When choosing colour you have to perfectly match colours completely just from your eyes interpretation, ignoring the colour you 'know' it to be. I have a piece of paper on my desk, I know its white, if asked what colour it is, I would say its white. But to look at it with an artists eye theres not a single spec that is white. Now a lesser artist may use shades of grey to represent this piece of paper, but a trained eye can see that it has shades of pink, green, orange and blue.
And even after you've correctly determined the right shade, you then have to disect it into component parts to acurately reproduce that colour by mixing pigments together - which is a feat in itself given that mixing paint colours is a completely different colour model to the way the colours of the world are created. (addative vs subtractive)

But if you really feel that creating an exact digital replica of a photo, with the photo underneath the 'painting' is just as skillful as photorealistic painting then I would suggest you photograph a scene or even a simple household object and create a replica in photoshop using what you've learned from the tutorial and then paint it for real - being as photorealistic as you are capable of. Then you can share your experience comparing the two method, their ease of creation and final result.

But if you really feel that creating an exact digital replica of a photo, with the photo underneath the 'painting' is just as skillful as photorealistic painting then I would suggest you photograph a scene or even a simple household object and create a replica in photoshop using what you've learned from the tutorial and then paint it for real - being as photorealistic as you are capable of. Then you can share your experience comparing the two method, their ease of creation and final result.


You're making an unfair comparison. You assume digital photorealists simply place the photograph as the bottom layer and rebuild on top of them. This is rarely if ever the case. It would be akin to traditionally painting on top of a photograph to produce a photorealistic painting. I still hold that doing this would be as easy, and as worthless as what you suggest.

Color picking, with paint, is almost as easy to the trained artist as color picking digitally... especially if you have the physical photograph in front of you. I'm sorry if it feels like such an insurmountable challenge.

You're making an unfair comparison. You assume digital photorealists simply place the photograph as the bottom layer and rebuild on top of them. This is rarely if ever the case. It would be akin to traditionally painting on top of a photograph to produce a photorealistic painting. I still hold that doing this would be as easy, and as worthless as what you suggest.

But this is what we're talking about - this discussion is about digitally creating an exact replica of a photograph - as in the 'tutorial'

Color picking, with paint, is almost as easy to the trained artist as color picking digitally... especially if you have the physical photograph in front of you. I'm sorry if it feels like such an insurmountable challenge.
Well, I'd love to see your photoreal paintings - as you are such an expert in the field.

My friends, please don't forget the smilies - otherwise some people might think you're getting into a personal discussion. :eek:

On the 29th of May 1953 (Sir) Edmund Hillary reached the top of mount Everest - and then came down again.

Often quoted as one of the world's greatest heroes / adventurers - if we look at the round trip he got nowhere at all. But what he did do was prove possible something that many, at the time, imagined to be impossible.

So applying this thinking to our friend, Mr. Lucasz Szeflinski. He stared with a photo, and ended up with an exact copy of the photo but we can say that there is some merit in showing that it is possible - starting from scratch - to digitally produce a very realistic image.

My personal gripe with this is when the tutorial is considered as anything but a classroom exercise. I'm quite sure that it is extremely difficult to produce such an image and I admire the technical prowess of those who can do it. The danger is when you try to stick an "Art" label on this.

A photocopying machine uses a very complex system to produce it's copy. So, as is the case here, I put in an image, go through a complicated process, and get the same image out. Now that's pretty amazing (well, it used to be) - but Art it ain't.

Summing up this strange mixture of analogies:
a) Demonstration (tutorial) of technique: Wow!, double Wow!! :bow: :bow:
b) Art: No, nothing, null (Duh!)

Rô
(Ps :) ;) :) )

Well, I'd love to see your photoreal paintings - as you are such an expert in the field.

How about we see your photorealistic digital work as you seem to be the expert on that :lol: :bow:

How about we see your photorealistic digital work as you seem to be the expert on that :lol: :bow:
I'd be happy to oblige but how would you tell its not a photograph :p

I would be curious to see what people here think of Bert Monroy's work... well... then again... I'm not sure I'd like to know...

I tend to think it's a real shame when very talented, artistically sound people get completely discredited because their work is forced out of certain people's very narrow definition of art. The greater shame is tha many of the memes, tropes and techniques these narrow-minded people have come to base their own work on are owed in large part to the efforts of these artists they constantly attempt to discredit.

There is no point in me sharing my photorealistic painting as the arguement has nothing to do with my technical skills or what I personally can or can't do. That really has little to do with anything. If however the argument has devolved to that point I think it's rather moot to continue it as "I know you are but what am I" would soon become a valid retort. This is a shame also.

Well said goose.


I also think some people just like to make sure everyone knows that they KNOW MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE EVER!

What you call this...?

http://www.cgarena.com/gallery/2d/description/femaleportrait.html

What you call this...?
AWESOME and well done!

I never understood why does people bother...?

The line is very thin... what art is and what it is not.

Now... Mr. Lucasz Szeflinski's Yuka tutorial.

In my opinion: It's great. It really is a simple, step-by-step, visual guide to get you started.

Nancy... About the TUTORIAL, if you really didn't learn anything it means you can do it right? Are you a REALLY talented artist?? because if you're not, You shouldn't write that kind of comments about someone who really is.
And... about the WORK it self ...I don't think you really thought "it was basically just a series of pictures" Because, when you sey it like that, it sounds easy and dull. If you really think it takes a REALLY talented artist to create something like YUKA then... don't take the credit away from him with something like: Oh... he just did THAT, any talented artist can do it... It's just plain dumb. Don't you think?

goose443... I don't think is art either, ... but as I said in the first place. Who has the final word in the subjet? I know I don't and I don't think you do :)

Again sorry for my english.

Godmother, I'm not debating his talent as an artist/copier - its the quality/value of the tutorial that I have an issue with.
Its a series of images with a handful of sentences scattered between them. It doesnt go into any detail about anything (except the brush settings), it doesnt instruct the reader or give them great insight into his technique - nor does it provide the reader with the necessary skills/tools/knowledge to replicate his efforts.

This (http://www.wade.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tutorial1.htm) is a tutorial.
And fwiw, its art too.

This (http://www.wade.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tutorial1.htm) is a tutorial.
And fwiw, its art too.

Very good tutorial. Very good art

IMHO this WHOLE conversation proves the following:

1) Jealousy of souch a talent makes people blind
2) Art cannot be tought (not even with 1000000 tutorials)
3) Art does not need complex things that others can "learn" the "secret" from them (in contrary... complexity vs art)
4) When people cannot immitate what they really want to do... they try to find flaws (pfffff.... who needs it)
5) I am jealous too (LOL) :blush:


:)

IMHO this WHOLE conversation proves the following:

1) Jealousy of souch a talent makes people blind
2) Art cannot be tought (not even with 1000000 tutorials)
3) Art does not need complex things that others can "learn" the "secret" from them (in contrary... complexity vs art)
4) When people cannot immitate what they really want to do... they try to find flaws (pfffff.... who needs it)
5) I am jealous too (LOL) :blush:


:)
I think all the thousands of art schools in the world would disagree with you there.
While true art is something that has to come from yourself, the techniques to express that art CAN be taught. Even the greatest painters in the world started with stick men.
As for jealousy - I have no need for jealousy, my own portfolio of work was, at one time, highly sought after. But I have since moved away from photorealism as a genre, realising the futility or pursuing a goal that can never be achieved. I now work digitally, free from the constraints of convential media where I can create art

I think all the thousands of art schools in the world would disagree with you there.


Of course!!! They wouldn't have anything to "sell"!!


While true art is something that has to come from yourself,


You cannot be more right!


the techniques to express that art CAN be taught.


Again right!!!! ...but true art is not based on technique... even less from others technique!!! ;)



...as for jealousy.... it was mostly a personal realisation and judjement.

sorry if I offended you :(

This was a good diccussion/debate. I hate I missed it.

I did want to add in a couple thoughts of my own, if that's ok.

First- the digital painting is very beauiful. I do think it is better than the original photo, the artist has indeed added something ,even if only to make the composition more pleasing.

I began as an artist, a fine artist before the "digital revolution." I went to school and learned about mixing paint, about seeing things as they are.

I am sure you have all heard this before, but for those of you who "think" you can't draw, it can be learned. Pick a simple photo of something not too elaborate to start (say a Coke bottle), and turn the photo upside-down, and draw that as you see it. It is part of teachign yourself that, as NancyJ said, it is indeed the difficult part - drawing what you see rather than what you "think". You will suprise yourself. Turnign the image upside-down tricks your mind - the shapes become less recognizeable for what they are and become shapes and form and light and dark. Someone who is a natural artist has this inate ability to do that, but anyone can be taught to do the same.

Mixing paint, even if the photo or object is right in front of you, is very very very.........very much more difficult and different than using the color picker in PS. Serisouly - if you haven't ever tried it and really think it is easy, go try it. It is Fun though, too. So enjoy it!! :D

ANywho - those are my thoughts for the most part. It is really good to see everyone having these discussions, and being so good about it. RetouchPro is SO the best place EVAR. lol Seriously.

Dawn