[img:$uid]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/582772/thumbs/o-AFTER-570.jpg[/img:$uid]

More from the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost...ostpopular

Wow

It has always amazed me the level of talent some people have!!

He is very talented and what he does is amazing!!!!

i just loved everything he did!!!

It's easier than people think to use a photograph as a reference and draw or paint a realistic version of it. Now if it was from scratch...

ufoclub said:

It's easier than people think to use a photograph as a reference and draw or paint a realistic version of it. Now if it was from scratch...

..."easy" being a relative term there...I would think that most artists would have a HELL of a time recreating those details to such precision that it fools the eye into thinking it's a photograph.

Impressive nonetheless.

ufoclub said:

It's easier than people think to use a photograph as a reference and draw or paint a realistic version of it. Now if it was from scratch...

No its not

Harlepolis said:

ufoclub said:

It's easier than people think to use a photograph as a reference and draw or paint a realistic version of it. Now if it was from scratch...

No its not

I can draw from looking at pictures very easily, but not to this degree! This guy is amazing. I tried to teach my bf how to do portraits and he wasn't understanding about shading and where the light is hitting the object, etc.

Painting...now that is something I can't do at all! Give me a pencil any day.

I saw these drawing a while back, they are just unbelieveable. Had me zooming in and everything trying to see, they are so detail. They're amazing.

Harlepolis said:

ufoclub said:

It's easier than people think to use a photograph as a reference and draw or paint a realistic version of it. Now if it was from scratch...

No its not

I'm in a house full of artists who can all illustrate at the moment...including me! It's easy at a certain level. Obviously this guy takes a long time with each drawing in a painstaking way. It's this amount of time that is making the difference, he takes "between three and six weeks" for each one.

But if you go through any art school level exercise, you can see that's it's easy to approach photographic quality when you have a photographic reference.

For example this was probably done in much shorter time but still approaches photo realism: [img:$uid]http://www.imageblogs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/awesome-realistic-painting-by-alyssa-monks-14.jpg[/img:$uid]

or look at this article about a different artist: http://arkarthick.com/201...your-eyes/

or this different artist : [img:$uid]http://shechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/hyperrealistic-paintings-9.jpg?w=500&h=407[/img:$uid]

There's even more from someone else here:

http://twistedsifter.com/...os-campos/

[img:$uid]http://twistedsifter.sifter.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/hyper-realistic-paintings-that-look-like-photographs-pedro-campos-5.jpg[/img:$uid]

Meh. "Photo-realism" was an art movement in the 1970s. Google "Richard Estes" or "early Chuck Close".

The notable thing about Estes' works is the volume of reflective surfaces that he paints.

Making a figure drawing from a photograph always looks a little "off" to me - there are certain areas where the volume isn't quite right; it's better to draw from life.

Any draughtsman should be able to make a techniquely realistic drawing. The rub is that not all artists are draughtsmen/women. My friend is an amazing drawer (www.matgreiner.com); he uses crosshatching, which is a really old-school technique that is often used in woodcuts.

[Edited 4/27/12 14:29pm]

^^^^

This is amazing. I'm new to the photorealistic concept. But still, I wouldn't consider it to be easy all these intricate details contribute to the realism of these drawings, I'm assuming a great deal of time was invested into them.

Wow I thought that photo was real at first.

I'm doing it again, zoomed in, got my good magnifying glass. I guess since it was mentioned I might see something, probably not.

All of these are very good.

Definitely impressive.

Harlepolis said:

^^^^

This is amazing. I'm new to the photorealistic concept. But still, I wouldn't consider it to be easy all these intricate details contribute to the realism of these drawings, I'm assuming a great deal of time was invested into them.

I know! I am familiar with photorealism, and maybe it's not innovative anymore, but it doesn't make me say "meh"

That shit takes some talent and training and patience.

MidniteMagnet said:

Harlepolis said:

No its not

I can draw from looking at pictures very easily, but not to this degree! This guy is amazing. I tried to teach my bf how to do portraits and he wasn't understanding about shading and where the light is hitting the object, etc.

Painting...now that is something I can't do at all! Give me a pencil any day.

Me too. But this shit is RIDICULOUSLY GREAT.

I'm old school M.C. Escher fan here!!!

NDRU said:

Harlepolis said:

^^^^

This is amazing. I'm new to the photorealistic concept. But still, I wouldn't consider it to be easy all these intricate details contribute to the realism of these drawings, I'm assuming a great deal of time was invested into them.

I know! I am familiar with photorealism, and maybe it's not innovative anymore, but it doesn't make me say "meh"

That shit takes some talent and training and patience.

Well with the Cadden, I don't really see anything other than an accurately drawn figure. It doesn't speak to me about anything more than that, nothing deep. The Estes I posted, for example, might lead me to ask questions about commericialization, emptiness v. crowds, what is reflected - literally & figuratively, and I haven't even gotten to the way the painting is formally composed. The Cadden seems much emptier to me, there's nothing beyond the surface. Of course there is a place for both types of art but I almost always prefer the type that makes me think instead of just looks nice or pretty or cool.

thx for the Cadden link; saw it the other day but forgot to go back to it

love Escher, too