Mind-blowing portrait of Morgan Freeman

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I disagree look at the difference in skin tone or why not ask Lambert himself I can tell you his imperfection with his digital crutch on this piece but I have seen lots of my peers/friends do this and better. I will always defend an artist even if my stick figures suck I can barely draw one

Seriously, easy fake. Just take original image, add a few filters for minute differences between the original and painting, then deconstruct the image. Reverse the footage and it it will look like it was painted on video.

ETA: Also, this guy saved every stroke on the iPad as a screenshot so he could make the video? Seriously? That would've been more another tedious task. This is seems like a marketing gimmick. Would you spend this much time on this if you were not getting paid?

Deny ignorance.

Unmask The Deception
deconstruct the image.

How would one do that?

reply to post by gentledissident


Um.... start brushing over the original. Play in reverse. One can turn a real image into a cartoon in a few seconds.

anybody think morgan's eyes look like he has glaucoma or cataracts?

I seem to remember this is what iridologists call a 'scurf ring' and it relates to the way the skin is acting as an organ of elimination. This grey area around the outside of the iris means that the skin is not working very well at elimination and is clogged up => he could do with dry skin brushing to get it working better. Just my take on it from what I remember when I learned iridology. :-) He may have those cataract/glaucoma things as well of course.

Unmask The Deception
reply to post by gentledissident

 

Um.... start brushing over the original. Play in reverse. One can turn a real image into a cartoon in a few seconds.

Have you found this easy to replicate? I'm assuming you're a digital artist. It would take me more than a few seconds to reverse a build up. I would have to match the surrounding colors as I stripped away each part. I would have to add add each base that would have been altered by the next layer. It would be much easier and shorter for me to build it up like Kyle.

Why do you think this artist cannot do what other artists can?

I still say fake. Why?

The artist claims two hundred hours, on an iPad, with his finger.

While I am sure there are artists capable of recreating that photo right
down to the last detail, I am also sure that it is not possible to recreate
each hair, shade and highlight that hair to near perfection, and accomplish
that on an iPad--with your FINGER, in two hundred hours----not possible.

It's simply math---just start counting the hairs on the mustache and you
will quickly see that even if the artist could recreate each individual hair
in 5 seconds, he would fail---and that's just THE HAIR...not the face

So no, I don't buy it for a second.

Either the statement of facts about the painting is false or the painting
is false.

reply to post by rival


Wow, your ignorance is on display today. Procreate has customizable brushes, so you can make any brush stroke you want. So for hair, you can make a brush that has several squiggly lines on it that lays down what appears to be little hairs in one stroke. Tap, tap, tap, haha, hair. If you watch closely, you can see the style and shape of the brush stroke especially when he does that forehead light reflection bit. A lot of those hours he probably spent creating just the brushes he needed for the various parts of the painting. A pro artist like this would create an entire inventory of customizable brushes to achieve all sorts of effects.

And as for the ultra-real look to the pic that everyone seems to be harping on, thats 4K people, get used to it. And around the corner from that when everyone upgrades to 4k, will be 8K. Got a Best Buy in town? Go see if they have any 4K TV's or 4K computer displays, you'll be saying, "Amazeballs!"
You can't get a sense of it watching a commercial of it on your paltry 1080p HD TV, you need to see it in person.

reply to post by CAPT PROTON

Procreate has customizable brushes, so you can make any brush stroke you want. So for hair, you can make a brush that has several squiggly lines on it that lays down what appears to be little hairs in one stroke. Tap, tap, tap, haha, hair.

This may be true, but several squiggly lines laid down so that they appear
to be little hairs in one stroke, is not the case here.

In this case each individual hair is represented. The foreground hair is
in the foreground, the front hoar is in place in front, each squiggly
line is a near perfect match, highlighted and shaded for EACH AND
EVERY hair.

No program of squiggly lines did this. It was either copy/pasted and
then painted over or painstakingly dome by hand.

And if I'm ignorant, so be it. The artist can consider that the most
excellent of compliments. If I created something and someone
didn't believe a human could have created it because it was too
perfect, I would be highly flattered...

reply to post by WeSbO


Agreed and as other have stated as well , its to exact to be a drawn picture. Marketing lies, I mean creativity.

The whole thing is exact , but I pointed out a few of them:

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by undo

 

Hey undo, you are a good artist too.

Ironic, because I think this Lambert guy used the "undo" button about 285,000 times.

He started with the real painting, and then finger painted the detail out bit by bit using the surrounding colors, ultimately making a less detailed 'portrait' until it was nearly a silhouette. Then he simply played the video backwards.

Clever, but fraudulent. Especially since his "portrait" lines up with the original PIXEL-for-PIXEL.

I am so ready to see you doubting digital artists make an animation in reverse that mimics layers being built up. I've been a digital artist since since 1984. I was employed as a digital artist in 1986. I have no idea how to make that video by starting from the photograph and working in reverse.

reply to post by Brotherman

I disagree look at the difference in skin tone

something that could easily be changed in the program. i'm entertaining the idea that some human inputs were substituted for computer inputs.

i'm not saying the photo was taken, then presented as a painting, but that the painting was not wholly done with a person's fingers.

perhaps i am wrong, and i am quite willing to consider that. are you prepared to entertain the possibility that it wasn't 100% human inputs?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I would agree that this isn't a painting, however, I am going to say that I have seen people do things like this before with my own eyes of course with technical assistance. I have also witnessed people do things like this indistinguishable from a photograph with nothing other then shampoo, cigarette ashes, water and a brush, made photorealistic artwork. I don't think that this is a cut and paste like other people here down play this artists work to be.

I just asked Kyle Lambert if he can give a better video and or explain or show how he did this. Just saying

Brotherman
I just asked Kyle Lambert if he can give a better video and or explain or show how he did this.

I'm guessing we don't see the grid overlay.

reply to post by gentledissident


Yeah Idk if he will answer or not figured it wouldnt hurt to ask though

Let me explain why this is a hoax. Kyle says that he did this painting in 285.000 brushes.

- The painting is clearly identical to the photo down to the pixel, each hair has been done individualy, you can not create a special brush that recreates the exact same hairs in exact same place with exact same curvature, so each strand of hair has had to be done individually. A human has an average of 100.000 strands of hair on his head (not talking about beard and everything), lets say on the paintig there are 50 000 strands of hair because we can not see the back of his head. That is 50 000 brushes just for the hair, with not one brush error, and all that down to the pixel. In another words it would take more than 285 000 brushes just to do the hair in my opinion.

- The resolution of the painting on kyles website is 1000 x 740 , which is 740 000 pixels, I would imagine that the original image on his ipad is much bigger in order to get this level of pixel detail, but lets admit he did the image in 1000x740. Morgan Freeman covers about 75 % of the image (the rest is gray background) so Freeman represents 555 000 pixels on this digital painting. As I said in order to get this level of detail, you have to paint on a pixel scale. That means we have alot of brushes missing !

qmantoo

anybody think morgan's eyes look like he has glaucoma or cataracts?

I seem to remember this is what iridologists call a 'scurf ring' and it relates to the way the skin is acting as an organ of elimination. This grey area around the outside of the iris means that the skin is not working very well at elimination and is clogged up => he could do with dry skin brushing to get it working better. Just my take on it from what I remember when I learned iridology. :-) He may have those cataract/glaucoma things as well of course.

I think sometimes it is just a pigment/genetic/hereditary thing. When people of my heredity ( not the same as Freemans) get very elderly.. they get weird eye colorations and kind of cloudy or hazy. Not cataracts or anything, just does it when we get very old.

or he has addisons disease.

And apparently even the metadata shows that the original photo was used at one point in the "painting" :

www.sebastiansdrawings.com...

I say apparently as I have not checked for myself...

Sorry, I gotta call BS on this one.
Nobody would bother to slavishly copy every hair, pore, mole and even if they could their sense of proportion is just a little too exact shall we say?

My suspicion is the video goes backwards, they started with a slightly altered photo (eyes, highlights changed) and worked backwards removing details.

I've spent 50 years doing stuff like this (not digitally) and there's no way you can make those kinds of detail with a finger. Even with a stylus it's difficult. Most artists fall apart when it comes to rendering textures exactly. Not this guy.

At a minimum there is some kind of cloning program used to stamp things like the cracks in his lips, the beads of sweat etc. but all my experience says you're being played.

ETa: I just looked over his images. Either the program is doing it or it's a total fraud.
Painting and illustration my ass, it's all digital.
I hate how they steal words that used to mean one thing are now commonly used for machine applications.
The human touch is being replaced.