Making of Yuka

[ashras99]

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

[aceman]

WOW~!

[Swampy]

Double WOW!!

[NancyJ]

...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

[goose443]

Originally Posted by NancyJ

...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.

[NancyJ]

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.

[goose443]

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.

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by goose443

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'.

[aceman]

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

[byRo]

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

[goose443]

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!


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.

[byRo]

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.

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!

Rô

[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.

[goose443]

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.

[NancyJ]

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.