Mind-blowing portrait of Morgan Freeman

And just to check for myself here is the data for the 2 files :

Original photo :

fotoforensics.com...

Kyle Lambert's "painting" :

fotoforensics.com...

Maybe we can "hoax" this now ?

Also I Wonder how many sales have been made on procreate in this last week, I can't find the info for this...

he may have used the color pallete of the photo, that's what i do if i want to do an approximate rendering of a photo. it's not layering or copying , it's just taking the color up from the photo with an eyedropper and using it on your pallete with your preferred tool to paint, such as an airbrush or paintbrush. that would require loading it in the paint program. otherwise, how would you be able to mimic the colors so precisely? my guess is that's what he did in photoshop - he loaded the photo to get the color pallete.

First off - Exact reproductions do not qualify as "art." They do fall into the category of forgeries though, which is what this Freeman piece is. Its digital propaganda intended to deceive. That is, the viewer is seduced into the purchase of two products - the iPad Air and the artistic software "procreate" - by means of deceptive advertising, and advertising is really the modern definition of propaganda.

MamaLeonne
First off - Exact reproductions do not qualify as "art." They do fall into the category of forgeries though, which is what this Freeman piece is. Its digital propaganda intended to deceive. That is, the viewer into seduced into the purchase of two products - the iPad Air and the artistic software - by means of deceptive advertising, and advertising is really the modern definition of propaganda.

edit on 10-12-2013 by MamaLeonne because: (no reason given)

i put it in paintshop and zoomed in on it, and there are thousands, literally, of differences. his original canvas was probably huge. the larger the canvas and the higher the resolution quality, the more detail you can get in the painting so that when you either resize it to viewing size or allow the browser to resize it, the details look very precise.

undo

MamaLeonne
First off - Exact reproductions do not qualify as "art." They do fall into the category of forgeries though, which is what this Freeman piece is. Its digital propaganda intended to deceive. That is, the viewer into seduced into the purchase of two products - the iPad Air and the artistic software - by means of deceptive advertising, and advertising is really the modern definition of propaganda.

edit on 10-12-2013 by MamaLeonne because: (no reason given)

i put it in paintshop and zoomed in on it, and there are thousands, literally, of differences. his original canvas was probably huge. the larger the canvas and the higher the resolution quality, the more detail you can get in the painting so that when you either resize it to viewing size or allow the browser to resize it, the details look very precise.

I just went to the app store and purchased procreate - I have to laugh

reply to post by MamaLeonne


I can't help but think there's big money to made by this being "genuine".
The leap in talent from his other work is irreconcilable.
I don't mean to savage his work, he's good with digital images fwiw.
Interesting how he laid in everything precisely and never had to move a thing.....

Asktheanimals
reply to post by MamaLeonne

 

I can't help but think there's big money to made by this being "genuine".
The leap in talent from his other work is irreconcilable.

Yea.....I am also a sometime 'digital' artist using Paper53 - but now that I saw this I figured I might as well download procreate just to see what it can do.

MamaLeonne

undo

MamaLeonne
First off - Exact reproductions do not qualify as "art." They do fall into the category of forgeries though, which is what this Freeman piece is. Its digital propaganda intended to deceive. That is, the viewer into seduced into the purchase of two products - the iPad Air and the artistic software - by means of deceptive advertising, and advertising is really the modern definition of propaganda.

edit on 10-12-2013 by MamaLeonne because: (no reason given)

i put it in paintshop and zoomed in on it, and there are thousands, literally, of differences. his original canvas was probably huge. the larger the canvas and the higher the resolution quality, the more detail you can get in the painting so that when you either resize it to viewing size or allow the browser to resize it, the details look very precise.

I just went to the app store and purchased procreate - I have to laugh

edit on 10-12-2013 by MamaLeonne because: (no reason given)

why did you do that if you think it's all an advertising scheme? hey if you have money to throw around on stuff ya don't think is legit, can you buy me zbrush? hehe no this is not an advertising for zbrush. i've just wanted it for 5 years lol

reply to post by undo


Pixel differences happen when you downsample a picture. I do agree with you on the point that the bigger the canvas the better the detail, so you do not have a problem with the fact that Kyle did 285 000 brushes when using a pixel detailed canvas ?

Also for instance, we will say there is that average of 50 000 hair strands on the "painting", if he was painting 1 hair a second with a 100 % accuracy, it would take 14 hours to do the hair (it would probably just take that long to count them), now lets bring the time up to 10 seconds a hair strand (lets not forget that he has to also scroll, zoom, change color, change brush) that brings us up 140 hours to do the hair... Can you see where I am going with this ?

reply to post by undo


The procreate APP is only $6.99 How much is ZBrush?

EDIT - I see .......zbrush is around $900 for a single user license.

reply to post by undo


I quote Kyle Lambert :

"(…) 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."

MamaLeonne
reply to post by undo

 

The procreate APP is only $6.99 How much is ZBrush?

edit on 10-12-2013 by MamaLeonne because: (no reason given)

Wow 7$ if this marketing scheme incited 100 000 people to download the app (more than 8 million people viewed the video), thats alot of money for a couple of hours work !

MamaLeonne
reply to post by undo

 

The APP is only $6.99 How much is ZBrush?

um, $639 dollars lol it's a 3d modelling program. you sculpt the models with sculpting tools and skin with textures, paint it, and so on. i was kidding about you buying it for me. i have wanted it for a long time, but once i had it, i'm not sure if i would be able to put it to best use. i'm not a professional artist or modeller, and it's professional level. just fun to see the immense talent of the people who excel at using it.

WeSbO
reply to post by undo

 

I quote Kyle Lambert :

"(…) 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."

yeah i know i read that. but someone mentioned that at some point, the image was uploaded to photoshop. so that was my assumption -- that he uploaded it to photoshop to get the color pallete. and then painted it in procreate with that pallete. i have no real idea. i just know from looking at it in zoom, that there are so many differences between it and the photo, that you wouldn't notice unless you zoomed in tight, that the original canvas was probably extremely big and very high resolution quality

reply to post by undo


The mention of photoshop in the daya is not really a problem as i've being checking alot of exif data on procreate paintings, and it seems to always mention photoshop somewhere in the metadata. Maybe procreate is somehow connected to photoshop Tools, I have no idea. Maybe he used photoshop to crop the painting, that's ok.

What is surpising, and a 100% fact, is that the original photo was at some point modified and resaved as kyles creation, if it was never resaved the ID would not be in the history of the file, the ID does not lie.

WeSbO
reply to post by undo

 

Pixel differences happen when you downsample a picture. I do agree with you on the point that the bigger the canvas the better the detail, so you do not have a problem with the fact that Kyle did 285 000 brushes when using a pixel detailed canvas ?

Also for instance, we will say there is that average of 50 000 hair strands on the "painting", if he was painting 1 hair a second with a 100 % accuracy, it would take 14 hours to do the hair (it would probably just take that long to count them), now lets bring the time up to 10 seconds a hair strand (lets not forget that he has to also scroll, zoom, change color, change brush) that brings us up 140 hours to do the hair... Can you see where I am going with this ?

i think it was mentioned around here somewhere, that there is a tool in the program that mimics hair texture. he may have learned how to use it. let's face it, digital art is not just straight up paint brush strokes. once you learn how to use all the features in a graphics program, you can generate some beautiful things but they may not all be like a traditional art work. i know i can't use a pencil to draw anymore. my fine motor control was damaged from being in a coma. i have to erase so often, that graphics programs are about the only way i can paint. i love the undo feature lol

reply to post by undo


The hair has not been mimicked, it is exactly the same ! No brush can reproduce the exact same hair from another photo, down to the pixel. It was not a hair mimicking brush.

WeSbO
reply to post by undo

 

The hair has not been mimicked, it is exactly the same ! No brush can reproduce the exact same hair from another photo, down to the pixel. It was not a hair mimicking brush.

edit on 10-12-2013 by WeSbO because: (no reason given)

no it is not exactly the same. i looked at it. real close. not the same. close but not identical.
a face is composed of a few major features:
1. jawline
2. forehead
3. nose
4. eyes
5. mouth
6. eyebrows
7. cheeks
8. hair and coloration of hair
9. skin texture and coloration of skin
10. imperfections

now lets say he did the thing in sections. first he laid down his color pallete, as is evident in the video. then he did a basic overall painting. then he isolated each section and began to fine tune it. first for basic color. then for texture and finally for small details. if your canvas was big enough it would be pretty detailed by the time you were done.

i'm not betting the farm on this, i just don't think it was faked.

reply to post by undo


Maybe you could point out a hair that is not in the right place ? I mean even a hair that is not as curly as in the original, I have being looking and i have not been able to find one.

If someone can find an out of place hair that will almost do it for me. Do not show me smuged pixels as all the differences that I have been able to find are due to downsampling errors.

reply to post by WeSbO


am i allowed to copy parts of this guy's painting for reference?

Lets play a little game : spot the differences lol ... There should logically be a few in this image.

on the left painting - on the right photo