Hardcore Photoshopping

Sparky191 · 12 Apr 2006 at 00:28

Loaded ok for me and I'm only on a 2MB cable. Hes a photorealisim artist. Used to be into this kinda stuff when they did it with Airbrushes. Prefer 3D stuff now. Its an impressive piece of work. But to be honest. I prefer some of his other samples.

http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/Oakland.html#

Drake5 · 12 Apr 2006 at 00:34

nikebee said:
might be just me, but that page is taking an age to load... been about 2 minutes and i've only just got the page title "Damen"

i get this problem also.

Beansprout · 12 Apr 2006 at 00:43

denic2k6 said:
i get this problem also.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6829852&postcount=17

cyKey · 12 Apr 2006 at 00:57

Well its a detailed image and very well made but I don't quite get the point in spending 11 months creating something like that just so you can say "Well I spent 11 months doing it." Its photo-realistic and would take 2 mins to replicate with a decent wide angle lens.

Neoni · 12 Apr 2006 at 00:59

cyKey said:
Well its a detailed image and very well made but I don't quite get the point in spending 11 months creating something like that just so you can say "Well I spent 11 months doing it." Its photo-realistic and would take 2 mins to replicate with a decent wide angle lens.

nope, not really true, yeh you could get that image, but if he had the 1.5gb original to view you would not get that sort of detail from a photolense.

nikebee · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:00

Beansprout said:
Mirror:

http://www.twobeds.com/ocuk/www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm

good work

original website does load for those who it seems to be taking ages with... but just use the above mirror otherwise

Psyk · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:05

When I first looked at it I thought "It's not that impressive, I've seen much better CG" then I realised it wasn't a 3D render :eek:

Doing something like that in photoshop is impressive if a bit pointless. Would have been easier to use PS to do texturing and then render it in Max or Maya.

cyKey · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:06

Neon said:
nope, not really true, yeh you could get that image, but if he had the 1.5gb original to view you would not get that sort of detail from a photolense.

Oh rly?

Kol · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:06

Amazing work there.

Neoni · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:07

cyKey said:
Oh rly?

and?

thats blurred when zoomed in, with his image it wouldnt be it would be crystal clear.

Arcade Fire · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:09

cyKey said:
Well its a detailed image and very well made but I don't quite get the point in spending 11 months creating something like that just so you can say "Well I spent 11 months doing it." Its photo-realistic and would take 2 mins to replicate with a decent wide angle lens.

But then you wouldn't have drawn it from scratch - it would just be a photo.

:confused:

Beansprout · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:09

Neon said:
and?

thats blurred when zoomed in, with his image it wouldnt be it would be crystal clear.

Huh? Are you implying that this guy's Photoshop image matches that large format image's resolution (maybe it does) and that a photo is better than a computer image? (definitely not)

cyKey · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:10

Neon said:
and?

thats blurred when zoomed in, with his image it wouldnt be it would be crystal clear.

His image would also be blurred if you zoomed in to the same degree that they zoom into. You can see the train in his picture but you can't even see the people in that photo.

Neoni · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:11

Beansprout said:
Huh? Are you implying that this guy's Photoshop image matches that large format image's resolution (maybe it does) and that a photo is better than a computer image? (definitely not)

im saying if we had the original 1.5gb image, we could zoom in.... and see superb detail even if it was generated, where as a photo we couldnt... who said it was better?

you just assumed i thought that

cyKey · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:19

Arcade Fire said:
But then you wouldn't have drawn it from scratch - it would just be a photo.

If it was a photo it wouldn't be a great photo just an ok every day photo so whats the point in spending 11 months to recreate something thats just a bit meh? So you can bask in the "ooh but its detailed" and "ooh but it took 11 months"? I know if I had his skill I'd create amazing pictures not just technically good ones.

Neon said:
im saying if we had the original 1.5gb image, we could zoom in.... and see superb detail even if it was generated, where as a photo we couldnt... who said it was better?

you just assumed i thought that

To a degree. His image would degrade just like the Gigapixels would.

It would take a video wall of 10,000 television screens or 600 prints from a professional digital SLR camera to capture as much information as that contained in a single Gigapxl™ exposure. Incidentally, a four billion pixel, uncompressed, 16-bit per component image is a 24 gigabyte data file.

24gb photo > 1.5 gb image. I'd say thats pretty darn detailed.

Arcade Fire · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:21

cyKey said:
If it was a photo it wouldn't be a great photo just an ok every day photo so whats the point in spending 11 months to recreate something thats just a bit meh? So you can bask in the "ooh but its detailed" and "ooh but it took 11 months"? I know if I had his skill I'd create amazing pictures not just technically good ones.

Sure, composition-wise it's not an amazing picture. But that's not what's impressive about it - what's impressive is the sheer amount of detail and meticulous care that's gone into it given a restricted medium.

Your question is like asking what the point of people trying to set new cycling records is, when we could just get in a car.

cyKey · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:23

Arcade Fire said:
Sure, composition-wise it's not an amazing picture. But that's not what's impressive about it - what's impressive is the sheer amount of detail and meticulous care that's gone into it given a restricted medium.

Your question is like asking what the point of people trying to set new cycling records is, when we could just get in a car.

But its not. I already said that the guy has talent but why doesn't he use that talent to create something with that impressive amount of detail AND a great image to look at?

Arcade Fire · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:29

Have you looked at some of his other work? A lot of those are very nice to look at, as well as being technically impressive. In any case, he's not obligated to draw what other people think is good and the fact that they wouldn't be considered photographic masterpieces doesn't detract from how impressive they are. They're not photographs, and so they shouldn't be judged by photographic standards - much as you wouldn't bemoan a Van Gogh for lacking detail.

I'm sure he has his own reasons for choosing to draw what he does, for example wanting to try drawing things which would be very hard to depict without photography.

cyKey · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:37

Arcade Fire said:
Have you looked at some of his other work? A lot of those are very nice to look at, as well as being technically impressive. In any case, he's not obligated to draw what other people think is impressive - I'm sure he has his own reasons for choosing to draw what he does, for example wanting to try drawing things which would be very hard to depict without photography.

I couldn't look at his other work since his site was very very slow to load and I had to use the mirror linked earlier. I know he doesn't have to do what others think is impressive. Its art and art should be about what the artist wants. For me though it just didn't really wow me. I've seen photorealistic images that take a long time to draw but also look beautiful. I prefer them as the person has taken time to create something beautiful not just technically good. For example.

Beansprout · 12 Apr 2006 at 01:39

Neon said:
im saying if we had the original 1.5gb image, we could zoom in.... and see superb detail even if it was generated, where as a photo we couldnt... who said it was better?

you just assumed i thought that

No, you can with a photo...cykey's link...large format photography