PDA

View Full Version : Have you seen this before - I had no idea an iPad could do this.



Concordia 33
12-03-2013, 10:46 AM
All it took was an iPad a finger and one month.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uEdRLlqdgA4

Full Tilt
12-03-2013, 10:48 AM
Saw it on FB. I don't get it. Still a photograph.

Tom Wilkinson
12-03-2013, 10:54 AM
Saw it on FB. I don't get it. Still a photograph.

???? How so?

It wasn't done with a camera. Individual strokes placing colored pixels on a screen are certainly different than a photograph.

Concordia 33
12-03-2013, 10:55 AM
Saw it on FB. I don't get it. Still a photograph.


No, painted with a finger on an iPad. Typically something like this would be done on a desktop Mac with one of the very expensive drawing programs and even then it might not look realistic enough to be a photograph.

htom
12-03-2013, 11:04 AM
If I understand correctly, it's a digital image made using a fingertip and digital paint program on an Ipad, and not a photograph.

Full Tilt
12-03-2013, 11:14 AM
The consensus on FB is it's FAKE.

Tom Wilkinson
12-03-2013, 11:24 AM
The consensus on FB is it's FAKE.

And lots of other sources say it's not, including this one that shows other works by the same artist.
http://gizmodo.com/this-incredible-portrait-of-morgan-freeman-was-painted-1475026182

the artists reply to that accusation.

I'm overwhelmed by the response to my finger painting video and happy that it has reached as many people as it has in such a short time.

"One of the big reasons I wanted to paint this portrait was to create a video that entertained, inspired and educated people about digital art. I've met a number of artists who were motivated to start painting after seeing my previous videos. I've also heard several cases where teachers are using my videos to inspire their students.

After using Procreate on my iPad (the app I created this portrait with) I realised that for the first time I could create a really highly detailed digital painting and have the whole process documented in a video. This was when I decided to start this painting.

The process began with me blocking in the essential colours and shapes of the portrait and then reducing the brush size to add features and details. Each stage of the process took a step closer towards the painting becoming more realistic.

To answer your question, no at no stage was the original photograph on my iPad or inside the Procreate app. Procreate documents the entire painting process, so even if I wanted to import a photo layer it would have shown in the video export from the app.

The key to panting accurate detail at this obsessive level is to break down the portrait into much smaller paintings that are more achievable. Once you do that, the detail becomes easier to manage. However, the consequence of this is that the overall painting then takes a lot longer to complete.

I trained as an oil painter and have been painting portraits and concept art using my Mac and iPad now for around 10 years now. Essentially, I've spent a lot of time learning how to paint realistic looking images. All I have done here is adapted my usual technique to work with my fingers instead of a stylus or brush. Other than the fact I am using my finger, the process of painting on the iPad is identical to all other digital mediums and in many ways similar to working with real paint.

The whole point of the video is that the final image looks almost indistinguishable from the reference photo. If it didn't, then the claim of it being 'the world's most realistic finger painting' wouldn't really be a valid one.

Full Tilt
12-03-2013, 11:33 AM
Fake Art=Fart.

Lew Barrett
12-03-2013, 12:33 PM
I like Morgan Freeman but he is everywhere.

Full Tilt
12-03-2013, 12:43 PM
I like Morgan Freeman but he is everywhere.


Michael Douglas, Robert DeNiro, and Kevin Kline co-star with Morgan Freeman in 'Last Vegas'.

Freeman is the only redeeming feature in the flic.

Old Dryfoot
12-03-2013, 01:03 PM
Google images returns this photo from several sites.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3xOkRCEXZLc/UAIbgnkHlvI/AAAAAAAAFVE/KdNV2TnXVLU/s1600/Morgan+Freeman.jpg

This is from the artist's website.

http://www.kylelambert.co.uk/gallery/morgan-freeman/images/kyle-lambert-morgan-freeman-photorealistic-ipad-painting.jpg

I'm skeptical but if it is a fake, it'll be shown as one soon enough.

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 01:14 PM
He intended to copy a photograph. If he were successful, it would look very much like the original. "Fake art" is a little harsh. It ain't Vermeer, but it shows considerable skill.

The interesting thing is that a perfectly-executed handmade copy in a digital medium of a of a digital photograph would be identical to the original, unlike, say, copy in oil paints of a photo. One important point about digitization is that things can be copied without degrading them much, if at all.

Lew Barrett
12-03-2013, 01:20 PM
If it's not fake, it's still somewhat pointless as a singular piece.

Concordia 33
12-03-2013, 01:28 PM
If it's not fake, it's still somewhat pointless as a singular piece.


Not necessarily. Like so many other aspects our society, even art is making its way into the digital age. Artists will often paint from a photograph. What's the difference if the paint used is oil, watercolor, charcoal, ink or digital ink? More and more original art is being created on a desktop instead of on a canvass.

Granted, there are some things that only oil paint can produce such as the texture from built up paint and brush strokes. Given the advent of the 3D printer, I could foresee a time where even this can be duplicated digitally.

Lew Barrett
12-03-2013, 01:49 PM
Not necessarily. Like so many other aspects our society, even art is making its way into the digital age. Artists will often paint from a photograph. What's the difference if the paint used is oil, watercolor, charcoal, ink or digital ink? More and more original art is being created on a desktop instead of on a canvass.

Granted, there are some things that only oil paint can produce such as the texture from built up paint and brush strokes. Given the advent of the 3D printer, I could foresee a time where even this can be duplicated digitally.

I suppose my point is that if you have the photograph and you copy it line for line using a technology no matter how skilled you are, it is nothing more than a copy. In my view this removes it from the realm of art and makes it a craft.
I'm not suggesting there isn't a lot of work and time invested, and perhaps even a heap of technique, but calling it art is something I think we could debate.

It poses the greater, age old question: what is art? I fall on the side of "craft" for this one, and since the original is easily duplicated using more available approaches, it assumes a certain "pointlessness" (a pun!) in my view.

Copying from photos is certainly a practice, but not one you frequently see used by masters, and couldn't be employed until the late 19th century (more or less). So we could debate.......

Keith Wilson
12-03-2013, 01:57 PM
. . . and since the original is easily duplicated using more available approaches . . . Like cut and paste; three mouse clicks. Not the point, though.

Jim Bow
12-03-2013, 01:57 PM
I hope Mr. Freeman is being monitored by a good dermatologist. Those spots on his neck are a bit alarming.

Lew Barrett
12-03-2013, 02:05 PM
Freeman is the only redeeming feature in the flic.

A likeable and excellent actor. The rendering that is the subject of this thread does not cause him to suffer from overexposure. :D

Some other stuff might! (loved him in Glory).

Breakaway
12-03-2013, 02:11 PM
If it's not fake, it's still somewhat pointless as a singular piece.

+1
Its the painting equivalent to Karaoke: Its lip-synching; good lip-synching...but lip-synching nonetheless.

Kevin

Lew Barrett
12-03-2013, 02:13 PM
Like cut and paste; three mouse clicks. Not the point, though.

I presume the point is to show what can be done within the medium. I followed Tom's link and visited the artist's page and would contend that this is not "finger painting" in any but the most liberal use of the term. It's neat and admirable that he's taken so much effort to figure out this technique. Maybe he or somebody else can now make more than slavish use of it.

This may be harsh, but a copy is still a copy.

ron ll
12-03-2013, 02:17 PM
As discussed in the Vermeer thread, art is knowing what to create and why you are creating it. Copying someone else's what and why is not art in my book.

Tom Wilkinson
12-03-2013, 02:27 PM
The link I provided goes into some of that. Seems like the intent behind this was to show what was possible. The artist the created it has plenty of other non-copy original work from the limited research I did.

I doubt many here would ever have guess that it's possible to create a photo real picture using this technique. If he creates a realistic digital picture of someone usuing this method, with them sitting in front of him rather than from a photo as he did here, how is that different from someone using oils to paint a portrait.

L.W. Baxter
12-03-2013, 04:26 PM
Dude wasted a month of his life.

Old Dryfoot
12-03-2013, 08:45 PM
Ok I'm no longer skeptical. I did a quick transparency overlay using the two images and this was done by eye. With no small amount of skill I should add. Still I'm in agreement with the "it's not art" opinion, more of a pseudo manual facsimile really.