Do you really need a camera?

if I was one of the 0.00000000000000000001% of the population that had the ability to do photorealistic finger paintings then, no, I probably wouldn't need a camera. But seeing as i'm not, i'll stick to my camera and potato prints :)
 
I saw that very impressive, i know a guy who onlu uses pencil and produces work that could easily pass for a B&W photograph. I do try to make pencil drawings of some of my work, and its hats off with these skills.
 
I dont think its the technology which is limiting and I dont think it has been for a while, graphics tablets and styluses have been used for a long time in certain industries. Whats limiting is peoples ability to use it, I for one can barely even write using the touchscreen on an iPad, it looks like a child has written it but thats just me, as seen in the above link some people can create masterpieces.
Its similar to what I saw the other week about a guy who created artwork just using MS Paint, that was very impressive too.
 
In the great scheme of things, few of us really NEED a camera, the exceptions being those who rely on theirs to put food on the table. To get a recognizable picture though, that's a whole different question! I can barely draw the curtains, let alone get a decent picture down on paper.
 
Interesting but not sure of the commercial future for this type of art. Artists are bemoaning the poor value of digital art compared to oils, watercolour and other mediums. I can't really see this improving much as I'm not sure who would pay big money for the original that can't be differentiated from a copy. And as soon as I click save as there are now 2 identical digital copies. Maybe print it? But then its not digital art anymore in the same way film is not analogue once its scanned to a computer.

Will be interesting to see how this genre develops. Artists in it with some serious talent, but they do need to earn a living and can digital art provide this? 200 hours work for a digital painting is a significant time commitment.
 
Steve said:
Interesting but not sure of the commercial future for this type of art. Artists are bemoaning the poor value of digital art compared to oils, watercolour and other mediums. I can't really see this improving much as I'm not sure who would pay big money for the original that can't be differentiated from a copy. And as soon as I click save as there are now 2 identical digital copies. Maybe print it? But then its not digital art anymore in the same way film is not analogue once its scanned to a computer.

Will be interesting to see how this genre develops. Artists in it with some serious talent, but they do need to earn a living and can digital art provide this? 200 hours work for a digital painting is a significant time commitment.
Click to expand...
maybe the "artist" is selling his digital skills to who ever may require them and a bloody good way to demonstrate them. although i can't see any company waiting 200 hrs for his next finished project. still very good though:thumbs:
 
Extraordinary!!
 
Do you really need a camera? Yes you do.

I suggest that it's not possible to create a photo-realistic image unless you have a photo as the source material.

Or is it? Discuss. That could be a good essay topic in an art class somewhere, I'm sure.
 
StewartR said:
Do you really need a camera? Yes you do.

I suggest that it's not possible to create a photo-realistic image unless you have a photo as the source material.

Or is it? Discuss. That could be a good essay topic in an art class somewhere, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Good point.

And if the artist has copied a photo exactly to the extent it is photo realistic....is that a breach of copyright?
 
Bah humbug... I thought it had been shown as a fake now...done with Photoshop
 
Steve said:
And if the artist has copied a photo exactly to the extent it is photo realistic....is that a breach of copyright?
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is, if the painter didn't take the photo and doesn't have permission. In fact it doesn't have to be an exact copy - just using a photo as the source makes it a 'derivative work' which is also a breach of copyright.

A couple of years ago there was a case here on TP where a contributor found that his (highly distinctive) photo had been copied as a paintning and was being sold commercially. He got a settlement out of it. It's a pretty long thread but the start of the story is here and the result is here.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Good point.

And if the artist has copied a photo exactly to the extent it is photo realistic....is that a breach of copyright?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I have a print from a painting that was copied from a photograph. No copyright problems since the painter took the source photo.
 
There's other pics too they're all amazing, couldn't believe they are drawn.
 
That's pretty damned amazing to be honest.
 
It does indeed.... not quite in the way I intended... LOL.. but yes it does.
 
To me it just seems like a bit of an exercise in technical skill for skills sake, ultimately the artistic vision on display here was in the taken photograph.

If I can build a replica of car out of scrap metal that's identical to an original yet costs 100 times as much I shouldn't be expecting my skills to be valued highly.
 
Last edited:
It is a technical exercise, yes. There's zero creativity here: He is copying a photograph.

It's still amazing though. Some photographs that were technical exercises only, were still amazing when first seen. What makes them less so now, is that everyone goes out and copies them. At some point, someone created the very first burning wire wool image, and it would have been impressive. It's not now of course, because there are already a million of them. This however, will be far more difficult to copy, so will still be a rare occurrence when an artist pulls off a genuinely photo realistic image.... but one done with your finger on a iPad just lends it a greater sense of achievement.

If you could build a perfect replica of a car from scrap metal, your skills WOULD be valued highly. You'd not be heralded as the designer of the car, you'd not be creative, but you'd be regarded highly, and your skills would be sought out to build cars for other people. It may take you longer than the car took to be made off the production line.... but you'd probably have order books full of people wanting their 67 Mustangs rebuilt :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
It is a technical exercise, yes. There's zero creativity here: He is copying a photograph.

It's still amazing though. Some photographs that were technical exercises only, were still amazing when first seen. What makes them less so now, is that everyone goes out and copies them. At some point, someone created the very first burning wire wool image, and it would have been impressive. It's not now of course, because there are already a million of them. This however, will be far more difficult to copy, so will still be a rare occurrence when an artist pulls off a genuinely photo realistic image.... but one done with your finger on a iPad just lends it a greater sense of achievement.
Click to expand...

Such photography is always going to have some degree of artistic input though, using a "gimmick" might make that more limited but it will still be there. If this painting is an almost direct copy of a photo then really not artistic input has taken place at all.

If you could build a perfect replica of a car from scrap metal, your skills WOULD be valued highly. You'd not be heralded as the designer of the car, you'd not be creative, but you'd be regarded highly, and your skills would be sought out to build cars for other people. It may take you longer than the car took to be made off the production line.... but you'd probably have order books full of people wanting their 67 Mustangs rebuilt :)
Click to expand...

Depends which car I built of course, something very mainstream that could be bought new seems a closer parallel to this situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top