You would think they were Photographs..
 

but they're actually Paintings........


http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/40-mind...tic-paintings/

Yea, they are dope, but are they digital paintings though? With how sophisticated digital art softwares have become, it's hard for me to give anyone the type of credit I would give them if I knew that they used nothing but "freehand" methods. There are so many ways to turn a picture into a "painting" these days that I don't know how much credit to give the artist or the software. GS though.

more or less,i can see why you think that.. but these are artists primarily built on fundamentals of freehand, they can use sketch tablets.. i mean if you dont know what that is tho it's pretty much a digital pen&paper.. im getting one soon hopefully but nothing top of the line.. i can see straight up tho that they did paint it themselves cause of the way most of them are when it comes to the shading and suck.. some is unnatural vs a actual portrait then again it could be the "style" they were working with

i give the artist the benefit of the doubt tho.. i didnt look into it but i think these are a group of respected artists, program pretty much is the paper and the tablet/pen is the actual pen lol,coloring/layering is pretty much the only reason they'd need the software form what i;'d believe


cant blame you for thinking that tho.. gots to be skeptical at times too.. ik

Lol...I know what a sketch tablet is. I use a Wacom tablet myself. Have you read the articles on the page? For example, right by the Angelina Jolie painting, they said this about the artist Wayne Forrest:
See? That's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying I don't consider it "art." I definitely still appreciate it, but before I give it a certain level of credit, I'd like to know the process by which it was made. I guess it's because I'm a freehand artist myself. I haven't drawn anything in a LOOONG ass time but when I was younger and in school, I used to draw pencil and paper drawings (freehand) that almost looked like black and white photos (not kidding). These days, people can "draw" or "paint" things on actual paper or canvas, but you don't know if they first used Photoshop to turn the photograph into line art and then printed the line drawing on an actual paper or canvas so they can use as a "guide" before they start tracing or "painting" over it. To me, as someone who actually freehands meticulously by just looking at an image and trying to duplicate its proportions, any kind of machine "help" like that makes it so I can't give them the fullest credit. Like they can never be a 10 but they can be a 9 because the shit is still art and it still takes some kind of skill to know how to use the softwares like they do. For example, if that dude who did the Angelina painting did it all freehand with traditional media and methods, then he's possibly the greatest painter in the world. But knowing that he had help, I can only say he's perhaps the greatest "digital painter" but not necessarily the greatest painter.