RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Community > Salon
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Salon Just hanging around...
(Social area, where non-retouching talk is encouraged)

Making of Yuka

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 07-18-2006, 07:43 PM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by byRo

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



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.
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 07-18-2006, 08:32 PM
byRo's Avatar
byRo byRo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Goianésia, Brazil
Posts: 1,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by goose443
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.

Quote:
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.

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!

Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 07-18-2006, 11:59 PM
NancyJ's Avatar
NancyJ NancyJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 729
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.
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 07-19-2006, 04:46 PM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by NancyJ
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.
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 07-19-2006, 05:20 PM
NancyJ's Avatar
NancyJ NancyJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by goose443
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.
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 07-20-2006, 12:54 PM
goose443's Avatar
goose443 goose443 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by NancyJ

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 07-20-2006, 02:48 PM
NancyJ's Avatar
NancyJ NancyJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by goose443
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'
Quote:
Originally Posted by goose443
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.
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 07-20-2006, 03:49 PM
byRo's Avatar
byRo byRo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Goianésia, Brazil
Posts: 1,609
My friends, please don't forget the smilies - otherwise some people might think you're getting into a personal discussion.

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!!
b) Art: No, nothing, null (Duh!)


(Ps )
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 07-20-2006, 04:10 PM
aceman aceman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: new Zealand
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by NancyJ
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
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 07-20-2006, 04:19 PM
NancyJ's Avatar
NancyJ NancyJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceman
How about we see your photorealistic digital work as you seem to be the expert on that
I'd be happy to oblige but how would you tell its not a photograph :p
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Community > Salon


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to lighten image with making it look washed out? measuri Image Help 9 04-09-2007 04:43 PM
Making an image brighter Nature1 Image Help 5 11-12-2006 03:42 PM
making digital photos look like film Faust Photo Retouching 9 10-27-2006 03:11 AM
Making Thin Lips Fuller rnbluvva Photo Restoration 32 08-19-2005 10:28 PM
tip for making a mask winwintoo Photo Compositing 3 05-22-2002 08:16 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved