painting ??? WOW

Oh, I HATE Daniela Cicarelli! This is a photo manipulation, isn't it? Not a painting...

VectorMonkey: thx
Imperfeta: it is a painting.. you can see the step by step version at:
http://www.euskal.org/euskal12/prods/gfx2d/colours%20of%20life.zip

sorry but i don't belive it, if this is really painting you're a God

hmmmmmm. very nice, the step by step is too big, darn.

I think it's quite visible that's a painting, especially on the face and some parts of the hair. Really Good, guy I think ger face has a quite strange shape , maybe because mouth and the lower jaw are too large, in my opinion. However great work guy

Bullshit. It's a photo manipulation, or retouched collage if you will. Don't tell me I'm wrong, because I'm not. I see little parts you painted some to get stuff together, but that's it.

You should move it to PM.

When I turn Adobe Gamma on, the hair is the thing that catches my eyes the most.

The software doesn't lie... and even without the software it's too obvious.
There are many pieces here which you can sell as a painting. But not this one.

Just put it into the right section and everything will be fine and I could give you some points for the nice colorscheme
BTW as I know when you make portraits you have to post the reference http://www.abarroshp.hpg.ig.com.br/mulheres/danielacicarelli01.jpg
(That's what I was told as I published my Johnny Depp portrait)

edit:

Oh my god! *lol* just klicked through the making of.
Move it man please move it *lol*.

Please just move it before some of the users who must feel for sure as if you think they're not able to see if something is a photo or not calls an Admin.

Hey Jackass, so why is it that I type Daniela Cicarelli into Google I get the same exact picture??????????????????????????

Pic 1
Pic 2

Or I can save everyone the trouble:


Photo-Manip.

When you move it I'll give you 10 points!

I saw the making of... It's a job well done, but you inserted a lot of the photo's.

You just changed the quality of the pic, darling, Why don't you just say: Hey, Sorry! This is a manip!?

Imperfecta: Maybe because he isn't online right now? o_O

LOL

Na, seriously, i do see some alterations, but they are very subtile. Maybe he just CALLS this painting, because it is like a matte painting. But over here on GFX, painting is something different.

ARTOONATOR: Just download the making of and it will answer all your questions ^_^

I must say: The BEST making of I've ever downloaded. Sadly he didn't show how he made those nice colors on the trees I really wanted to see that!

Ok,I gave 7 points and I wanted to believe you(It my choice:to believe people),but when i understood whats going on...It's unfair to show this to people who work so hard on their PAINTINGS!

I believe it, I think.

Using a model reference, and just using the picture are different things. A reference is seeing how folds fold on the body in a particular way, seeing how a specific color pallete works, looking how locks of hair are formed. This isn't referencing.

As far as my harshness is concerned, I'm usually the nicest one in dealing with this kind of subject, but they say, "this is a painting" suggesting no photomanip when it's so obvious...c'mon man...

Points go to  DreamTheater for his avatar...one of my favorite Family Guy moments!

hey another lamer... and some ppl who dont have a clue and voted for it

I'm going to make the first step and apologize for calling you jackass, I got a little heated when I first saw this. However, my opinions about it violating the Artwork Quality Guidelines put forth on this site (in terms of copyright violation, copying photos) stays the same. And I still belive this is a photo-manip, or worse...a highly skilled paintover. Again, sorry for the name calling.

This pic meanwhile appeared to me like an event of a small "on it's own forum" discussion

How long will it take till the picture is finally moved to the right section?

Will somebody get a heart attack?

And will the artist finally add his comment to this discussion?

We'll see it

those nice colors, reilanchan? Do you mean those red tones? I believe the trees were in their own layers, so you can just adjust the colors in Photoshop or color them a bit with airbrush. Even if they weren't on separate layer, you can just select them and do the same, or just airbrush over with low opacity airbrush.

This is a modern matte painting, which means photo manipulation.

i dont understad very well your posts cause my english is too poor.. but i this is not a photomanipulation

See the step by step version, it is true that i take the girls face from a photo, but i draw it 100% from a white document.

If you dont want to belive, ok.. i wont post anymore .

bye

here you have one of the steps...

http://club.telepolis.com/hysp/step7.jpg

It was my second gfx, not very creative, i know.. but i think it is well worked, it took my about 3 months.

The background was made separatly and then mix together by layers.

I dont like the way you talk to me

Hey, I said I was sorry didn't I??? And after posting a link that was actually small enough to load I can see it's more of a matte painting and not just a photo-collage, so I'll give you credit there. It seems you do have some skill with the digibrush...so for that I also apologize.

But read the Artwork Quality Guidlines in reference to copying photographs that don't belong to you. Plus you need to post a link to any picture used for reference, that's also in the rules.

There are many in the art community who do such acts and try to be sneaky thinking someone won't realize they just copied something that already existed. Post some more original work, I'm sure it will be better than anything you reproduce that exists already since it will come from your imagination.

Take care, and good luck

Ty, didnt know it was necesary to include a link to the original photo... i tried to read the guidlines but i am not very good in english.

Anyway i said it was based on a brazilian model. I am only asking for respect and education, i've just joined gfxartist and dont feel so welcomed...

See you

okay okay now i belive you sorry +9

I transfered the pictures into jpeg and PUT THE MAKING OF ON MY WEBSPACE cause Wysiwyg asked me for it.

here is the link: http://83.151.17.24/rei/Daniela%20Cicarelli/

Some of the steps which I think are the most interesting ones:
http://83.151.17.24/rei/Daniela%20Cicarelli/colours%20of%20life%2007.jpg
http://83.151.17.24/rei/Daniela%20Cicarelli/colours%20of%20life%2008.jpg
(The background)

The hair:
http://83.151.17.24/rei/Daniela%20Cicarelli/colours%20of%20life%2013.jpg
http://83.151.17.24/rei/Daniela%20Cicarelli/colours%20of%20life%2014.jpg

NOBODY on earth draws like this. Nobody puts lines like this.

Don't make me putting Adobe Gamma over it to show the so called photo parts. There still are too many. So I'd still suggest you to move it that's all

PS: Maybe you don't feel welcome here that much right now cause you misunderstood the definition of the categories a bit

Sorry bud, she's right. Those butterflies just appear all of the sudden, and the hair in Step 11 is what really convinces me this should not be in this catagory.

You may not realize this, but no one is bashing the composition itself, we are just saying it's in the wrong catagory.

I AM TOO TIRED!!! if you dont want to belive me.. you are free to think in this way.

reilanchan: if you dont know what are you speaking about, then dont speak, please. Turn on the photoshop, gamma, or whatever you want.. it is a draw. You speak about the hair, can you see the original photo and compare it?? It has not the same shape, or i am a blind man (or maybe you, everything can be)

About the way i draw.. ok, it is not usual, i know, but this was almost a pixelling work, (do you know what it means??) i wanted so much detail in this gfx that there was no other way to get it. This was the original size of the document, no final reescaling. It means that i draw almost PIXEL BY PIXEL all the background, and all the face details.

You can compare the gfx with the girls photo.. if you cant see the diferences it is not my problem.

I hope you someday work VERY VERY HARD on a gfx and everybody will tell you LIER!

I have more steps by steps if you want in my pc, but i think it is not necessary to show you my work when you dont want to belive me.. my gfx is much more detailed than the original one, it is very different, and if you zoom it you can see how it is painted...

No more explanations.

Bye

PS: and lot of thx to the ppl who believes me

I love this artwork very much!

4/5 points because I WANT to BELIEVE thats is painting, even if "per pixel painting" isn't usual
There's some defaults and instead of thinking you add them to the original picture, I prefer thinking that's because you paint them ^^

Soooo after you pixel-by-pixel drew those trees... Did you also pixel-by-pixel recolor them? >_>

All of you who are still so highly critical of this work: have you never heard of giving someone the benefit of the doubt (even if you don’t believe him!) He says he painted it, stop calling him a liar and just accept it.

Personally, I love this work!

liiga said: "Soooo after you pixel-by-pixel drew those trees... Did you also pixel-by-pixel recolor them? >_>"

I will tell you all how i colorize the trees.. just set your pen in "color" mode (photoshop) and this is the result, the amount of black and white dont chage, just the color value. It is easy, i think... so i dont need to recolor them pixel by pixel

If you really paint it, well done, but I don't like it.
For me, copying literally from a photo doesen't have to much credit. I cannot see your hand there, there's no personal expression... it's just a copy from a photograph.
Apegarse a la realidad, sin aportar la magia que viene desde tu interior, solo lo vuelve una copia de la realidad.

awesoem photo manip +8

I'm tired of always saying the same: "it is not a photo manipulation", you can believe me or not, it is up to you all. But please, dont say it again, it is annoying to read it again and again and again.

It is just a painting based on pictures (if you want, it is a partial copy) but not a photomanipulation, at first it was just a white canvas.

I wont write here abut it again, if you want to talk about it you can send me a private message or an e-mail, i will reply in nice way

See you!

This is very beautiful! color, detail's, movement all is awesome, your are very great.

Wow!

it cant be real...cant...and i believe wysiwyg more...sorry but i cant believe it

http://perso.wanadoo.es/buscaminas3d/steps1.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.es/buscaminas3d/steps2.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.es/buscaminas3d/differences.jpg

Please, take a look at those links, specially at the last one, and then compare both pictures. Thanks.

Beautiful painting. Great work. Look forward to more.

Jakass is and insult. I thought that they didnt allowd insults around here.
Beautiful work¡¡¡¡

mmm... I remember that image (from some time ago) and I know how he was painted that.

I can affirm that: REALLY IT'S A PAINTING!!
he used a variant of "paint + pixel by pixel" (I don't like very much, but it's a really hard work).

the true "pixel by pixel" painting are used in a lot of old-school graphics and very common in the demoscene.

good work Hysp!!! +9/+9