Digital Painting of celebrities.

[midget31394]

I saw this person's videos and just thought, "Wow..."

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjbGaTqFacY[/ame]
Time : 5 hours

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNDCnlruRdg[/ame]
Time : 4 hours

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JooN-5yFors[/ame]
Time : 6 hours

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgcnN21Mllg[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ReMkBmKLs[/ame]
Time : 5 hours

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI69vSMb_K0[/ame]
Time : 6 hours

 

[HazeUk]

Very good.

 

[whohitme]

wow, thats great - wish it said how long those took to paint. Thanks!

 

[midget31394]

It does on the actual videos, hold on! I'll ninja edit them in

 

[Two Listen]

Meh. Referenced painting is way overrated. Especially in digital painting. Don't even need to come up with your own color palette.

The problem these days is that so many people put a lot of stock into painting from reference, but they never actually take anything away from the experience. The point is to use the reference to LEARN something, so that you no longer need it. But for the most part, people don't bother - and paint from reference, after reference, after reference. And never wind up being able to create their own ideas from scratch and have them turn out half as good.

 

[koolaid]

wow thats amazing nice find midget

 

[-Jv-]

Looks very awesome ! I love the megan fox - tranformers 2 hair !

 

[FingerFactor]

I realise reference has been heavily used, but there is no denying that this man (or woman) has some serious skills. One of the things I did notice though (in the first video atleast), is that there are links to tutorials based on what hes drawing at the time. The links are in the top right corner, in the form of youtube annotations. Anyways, not sure if anyone else cares, but I'm certinaly going to check them out when I get the chance.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[BORAT!]

wow thats cool

 

[midget31394]

Her name is Stephanie Valentin, I think. She's french =D I tried following the tutorials but got lost at trying to keep up with the screen, and read the English translations.

 

[midget31394]

Meh. Referenced painting is way overrated. Especially in digital painting. Don't even need to come up with your own color palette.

The problem these days is that so many people put a lot of stock into painting from reference, but they never actually take anything away from the experience. The point is to use the reference to LEARN something, so that you no longer need it. But for the most part, people don't bother - and paint from reference, after reference, after reference. And never wind up being able to create their own ideas from scratch and have them turn out half as good.

Double Post =/

Anyway, to my point. So would you say Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings are overrated? I mean, he painted the Mona Lisa with her as a reference. As do most portraitures. The same with still life paintings.

 

[-Jv-]

Double Post =/

Anyway, to my point. So would you say Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings are overrated? I mean, he painted the Mona Lisa with her as a reference. As do most portraitures. The same with still life paintings.

You make a very good point there. It takes skill and a lot of patience to accomplish something she does.

 

[Two Listen]

Double Post =/

Anyway, to my point. So would you say Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings are overrated? I mean, he painted the Mona Lisa with her as a reference. As do most portraitures. The same with still life paintings.

Yes and no. Those paintings were done in traditional mediums, which take a lot more to - for example, get your color palette, and there is no undo button.

In digital, though. Painting from reference is as simple as alt+clicking for the exact color, having the photo literally right next to what you're painting - instead of several feet in front of you - which means getting size, proportion, and everything down a whole lot easier.

This makes it far less impressive, and 90% of the people who do so much reference painting, can't do anything from their own minds - which means that they take very little away from the experience.

And in spite of the differences, yes, several things like the mona lisa are very overrated - as are still life paintings. You can have hundreds, THOUSANDS of people capable of the same thing today who don't get famous for it. The world is not the same, and regardless of talent, people will never get the same credit for it as they would've hundreds of years ago.

Also, DaVinci - while great at painting from reference, could also do A TON from his mind, with no reference at all. This is what made him great.

Painting from reference alone - with major emphasis on digital?

Not so much.

 

[midget31394]

You put forward a good point, although. Many digital artists that work from refrence and use as little layers as possible, to work around their mistakes.

Everybody can work and think of stuff to do by themselves. People's working methods however should take no meaning in how hard said painting is.

If somebody draws this using coloured pencils, is it harder than using paints? No. Some people are better working in different mediums. I know myself I suck at drawing, but am pretty good painting traditionally.

Just because some mediums are harder to use, doesn't mean it's less skillful. If you are a good scout in TF2. Would you say a good pyro is a worse player than yourself? He uses different tactics, plays in a completely different way. Yet, still gets the same amount of kills.

 

[Danster]

Wow. Megan Fox's drawing is amazing.