Thread: Hyper-realistic drawings

I'm unsure if any of you have heard of this art style before, but it essentially an artist who draws with only pencils and makes pictures that look like old-time photos. I'll post an example and you can follow.


Post your favourite hyper-realistic drawing:

What a waste of time and talent.

Originally Posted by Marvo

What a waste of time and talent.

Not really. They often make news headlines in art. The quality of their pencil drawings is unheard of. Most of these artists can make $2,500 a week drawing for people, you can't tell me that's not a waste. If they have a steady source of requests they would be making $96,000 a year. Pretty damn good for using just a pencil.

Originally Posted by Xei

What's an old-time photo..? You mean grey scale?

Do these people use an existing photo as reference?

An old time photo is a photograph that looks like it was taken with a camera that can only capture in black and white. Paul Cadden, who drew the picture that I posted, supposedly will study a picture and then re-draw it after discarding it.

Why is it a waste of time and talent?

What's an old-time photo..? You mean grey scale?

Do these people use an existing photo as reference?

I don't see anything remotely interesting about a handdrawn replication of an otherwise mediocre photo.

Looks like plastic wrap filter. Not sayin it is. I gotta agree with Marvo on this one, unless you can find some better examples to share. Also "old time" =/= B&W.

You guys are a tough crowd. I took a year of art in fourth grade and that is all. You cannot tell me that a pencil drawing with as much detail as these isn't impressive at the least? I'll post another. If you think this next one is mediocre then you have no appreciation for talent.

What do you like about that piece? Tell me, in your own words, what do you like.

From my point of view, there are four reasons:
1: It shows personality and thought in an old hard working man, taking a break from his otherwise uneventful day.
If this is the case, then you are enjoying the photo, not the drawing.

2: The man has interesting facial features, his eyes are very well represented and pretty.
If this is the case, then you are enjoying the photo, not the drawing.

3: It's black and white.
If this is the case, then I don't know what to say.

4: It's drawn by hand.
If this is the case, you are not enjoying art, you are enjoying a technical achievement.

You have to keep in mind that it is not just a replication of the subject in a photo. It is literally a replication of the photo it self. The guy included focal depth, noise/grain, motion blur and the B&W component. While it is technically an impressive feat, the fact that it is hand drawn does not add anything to the piece, in terms of artistic value.

Mind you, realistic drawings are great. But a realistic drawing that is essentially just a replication of photo, that's just a waste of time and talent.

Marvo, isn't it sometimes just nice to acheive something that took a lot of effort?

I could hop in a helicopter to take me up to the top of a mountain, where I could hop off and take in the view then be flown back down. But I would be much more satisfied to walk up the mountain myself, spend hours and hours of arguably pointless effort (since I can just take the chopper) to reach the top. Experiencing that view knowing that I have toiled on my own to reach it makes it infinitely more special.

Originally Posted by Patrick

Marvo, isn't it sometimes just nice to acheive something that took a lot of effort?

I could hop in a helicopter to take me up to the top of a mountain, where I could hop off and take in the view then be flown back down. But I would be much more satisfied to walk up the mountain myself, spend hours and hours of arguably pointless effort (since I can just take the chopper) to reach the top. Experiencing that view knowing that I have toiled on my own to reach it makes it infinitely more special.

That's not a valid comparison.

I will agree that something that takes effort can be nice. I disagree that acting as a human printer is impressive for any other reason than the brief novelty and the technical achievement.

What weird reactions....
I Really like this stuff!

But that's also not a valid comparison. We don't have a machine that instantly makes a cathedral or a gymnast. We do have a device that instantly produces what this guy is spending a lot of time on. In fact, he's using this device's products as a reference for his drawings. I would find this a lot more interesting if he drew something surreal, or at least creative, interesting, instead of just generic mediocre photos.

It might've been subtle, but what I said in my first post is that this guy definitely does have talent, but he's not using it for anything interesting.

I could post something interesting I've made, but that would derail the thread and also not prove anything.

Originally Posted by Ilumirath

What weird reactions....
I Really like this stuff!

What do you like about it? The subject and motive, or the fact that it was drawn by hand?

Some people paint with their mouths and make money on the novelty. If they have no hands, then I can understand. I doubt this artist doesn't have access to a camera.

I find the images to be awesome feats of human skill and perseverance and I got a lot of enjoyment from seeing them, much the same as the way I appreciate a grand cathedral or a perfect gymnast; thanks Lahzo.

I challenge anybody whining about the 'pointlessness' of these works to post an impressive achievement of their own. If they have any.

This is mostly contingent upon the guy's claims of discarding the reference being true.

Erm, it's a valid comparison if I say it is. I do have jurisdiction over my own opinions. "Much the same as the way I appreciate a grand cathedral"... not you.

The fact that you can't instantly produce a perfect cathedral or a gymnast is not really what I feel gives them value and was not what I was referring to. The important aspects I was referring to were... the aspects I referred to.

And as far as I see it, to some extent cathedrals and to a very large extent gymnasts are an entirely pointless act in just the same way that drawing a photo is, anyway. The aim isn't to perform a function or to manufacture a material product.

Originally Posted by Xei

Erm, it's a valid comparison if I say it is. I do have jurisdiction over my own opinions. "Much the same as the way I appreciate a grand cathedral"... not you.

The fact that you can't instantly produce a perfect cathedral or a gymnast is not really what I feel gives them value and was not what I was referring to. The important aspects I was referring to were... the aspects I referred to.

And as far as I see it, to some extent cathedrals and to a very large extent gymnasts are an entirely pointless act in just the same way that drawing a photo is, anyway. The aim isn't to perform a function or to manufacture a material product.

We appreciate cathedrals, because the architecture is inspiring and creative. There is nothing particularly inspiring or creative about a person acting as a human copy-printing machine. It is a technically impressive feat, but from a creative stand point, it's boring.
You could make the same argument for gymnasts, except for the part where gymnasts are not artists, they are not being sold as artists and nobody looks at them and thinks "a lot of creative thought went into their training".


And I will ask this question again, why do you appreciate a cathedral? Why do you appreciate this man's work? What do you like about these things?

What this man has done is impressive, but not from an artistic stand point. He could make it very interesting by making something genuine with creative thought behind it, but he chooses not to.

So what I'm really getting at, is that, what he is doing, is impressive in the same way, as a savant memorizing a thousand books is.

Originally Posted by Marvo

There is nothing particularly inspiring or creative about a person acting as a human copy-printing machine. It is a technically impressive feat, but from a creative stand point, it's boring.

How is this in any way not creative? The artistic element comes from the fact that we at first mistake it for a phtotgraph, we then realise that the artist is capable of something that would seemingly be impossible to recreate for most people's drawing skills, then we realise that maybe humans are capable of much more than we think they are etc etc
I think it's pretty thought invoking which last time I checked seems to be what most artists are trying to achieve with their work.

Incredible work! Great draughtmanship! Creativity?


Paul Cadden is from Glasgow in Scotland.

Paul Cadden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hyperrealism: (Wikipedia)

Hyperrealism (visual arts) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Things have changed since I went to (Art) college.

I remember when I did a highly detailed pencil drawing (not to Cadden's standard I hasten to add ) on A4 paper back in the day, as a commission; I must have done 40 to 80 hours on it. I nearly had a nervous breakdown because I had to concentrate so much as it was done freehand. Never again I thought!
I've only done about 2 or 3 since as I haven't got the patience for really detailed work like I used to have.
Either that, or I'm just plain lazy!

It seems to me that if it isn't drawn while a person is looking at the model in real life, or has themselves in front of a mirror, it's suddenly deemed "worthless."

Which again sets off this bad assumption that everyone cannot use references at all to build on the imagination that will serve to be of use to them in the future (Because unless someone has extraordinary visual prowess and seeing things spatially, this "imagination" will not be enough unless they learn through examples).

It's as if trying to go through the process of trying to make a "copy" is so wrong, as if the artist will not gain any kind of experience in understanding depth, realism, spatial recognition, and such.

What this man has done is impressive, but not from an artistic stand point.

If you really wanted apply it from an artistic stand point, you would be cognizant that each type of art (Traditional graphite drawing, digital drawing, Abstract photography...and the list goes on and on) each have their own scale the makes them distinct from each other, which means factors such as creativity and genuine intentions will not always be applicable, because that introduces to one's own desire of conforming each type of art with few rules and exceptions rather than taking it subjectively.

So what I'm really getting at, is that, what he is doing, is impressive in the same way, as a savant memorizing a thousand books is.

If you took it at an artistic stand point, every form of art, will be sustained digitally or through traditional manners (paper, etc.) in some manner. If someone just looks at the drawing, it's obvious to question the means of how they accomplished this, and then based on how they did it, it's suddenly "boring."

And not only that, this is deeming that the tools the artist utilized to accomplish this is not valid, or a "cheat."

It may be boring when you just look at it (and the process that created it), but again, as Xei declared, unless someone has actually performed something better or as worthy for a "job well done", you cannot use what you think it would feel like and suddenly declare that it's not creative or genuine.

You'd have to try and achieve this same feat to really understand the process behind it, and if you cannot even come close to it, assumptions are going to be your only way of "experience."

Each art should be taken subjectively, and if it's something that "looks" like it's done by a robot or mechanically, it should be considered a waste of talent and effort?

Sure, creativity itself is important in "art" in general, but to deem something such as this as not creative is simply not understanding this from an artistic stand point. Creativity is not the only factor. Originality should not be the only factor.

Does anyone not acknowledge how they were able to make it seem as if they drew and shaded in every strand of hair, but didn't?

Did you take into consideration that they focused on tones to create the illusion that it looks like a photograph? Not many people can pull this off without being pressured that seeing everything is the only way to finish it.

Did you take into consideration of the tools that they were limited to achieve something like this?

Did you take into consideration of the tools they could've used instead (digital painting through tablets) to pull off the same realism? Is the fact that they can pull off this with just a pencil and a few blending stumps not constitute as enough merit from an artistic stand point?

So what I'm getting from this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the process itself isn't really important in seeing if it's "creative"?

The artists' visual prowess in picking out those small details that makes all the difference (such as showing a big contrasts in single strands of hair from an already complex form of shading and stroking gently to create other hair-like structures) is suddenly not a form of respect and merit that shows that they are creative enough to make use of the tools they have?

Does anyone take into consideration on how perseverance was important in achieving art such as this? It's not just for a "pat on the back."

Isn't creativity sustained through the efforts, the process, perseverance, and so many other attributes?

If not, then how does creativity become apparent? What sets the limit for determining creativity?

Is being able to create realism without reference (even though to achieve that kind of imagination involved looking at references in the first place (and I don't mean only limited to reference photos)) is so crucial?

Even Paul Cadden in the link RobStar gave us says that although his work is based on photographs, the idea is the go beyond that. It seems that he is successful in the sense that he is achieving what he wants. When I look at the photographs, like dutchraptor, my incessantly chattering mind goes off on a tangent. The pictures instill some thought evoking seed into my mind, just like any other art. If you're worried about material success, Marvo, he has that. I told you how much he is making atleast.

The wonderment that somebody gets from a feat is based on the skill of the person doing the act. I could take the gymnast argument and say "They're not doing anything extraordinary. Their body is doing all of the work." Which is technically true, the body is doing all of the physical work, but we're still amazed by what they're capable of doing, but then again I don't want to pull a Marvo.

I think the work is really great.

I would be happy to draw half as well.

The skill is evident, and it shows someone who pays attention to the fine points. Sometimes it's all the little details that make life/art really special.


So it's a reproduction...it's done very well.

If only it was made by a DV member.

A lot of people here seem to be missing my point. This man is very talented, very good at drawing, he notices and is capable of reproducing extremely subtle aspects of real world sceneries. The problem here is that he is recreating photographs, instead of using his talent to create fascinating new scenery.

Basically, the equivalent of this person is somebody buying a 50 thousand dollar camera and then only taking pictures of paintings with it.

Originally Posted by Marvo

A lot of people here seem to be missing my point.

That's because it's kind of a ridiculous point (IMO).

You are trying to degrade the work simply because it's a human doing something a machine can already do. You think there is no 'value' to it, because it doesn't 'improve-upon' anything. The image itself is not 'fresh'. It's not an image that 'only that person can create', because it was already created by a camera.

I think most of us get it.

I also think it's going out of your way to refuse to understand why people are both impressed and fascinated by it. It's the level of skill it takes to do something like that. Yes, it's the drawing, because it's a drawing that was done by a human, to such an amazing level of detail that it, in itself, speaks volumes about what humans are capable of drawing. Certainly the image is not unique (although, in the way you're using it, I think it's better to say the "subject" is not unique), because it's a copy of the photograph, but the technique is remarkable. Technique, in itself, has artistic merit.

You are speaking of a photograph as if it takes the same level of skill/artistry to create as a hyper-real, hand-drawn portrait.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

That's because it's kind of a ridiculous point (IMO).

You are trying to degrade the work simply because it's a human doing something a machine can already do. You think there is no 'value' to it, because it doesn't 'improve-upon' anything. The image itself is not 'fresh'. It's not an image that 'only that person can create', because it was already created by a camera.

I think most of us get it.

I also think it's going out of your way to refuse to understand why people are both impressed and fascinated by it. It's the level of skill it takes to do something like that. Yes, it's the drawing, because it's a drawing that was done by a human, to such an amazing level of detail that it, in itself, speaks volumes about what humans are capable of drawing. Certainly the image is not unique (although, in the way you're using it, I think it's better to say the "subject" is not unique), because it's a copy of the photograph, but the technique is remarkable. Technique, in itself, has artistic merit.

You are speaking of a photograph as if it takes the same level of skill/artistry to create as a hyper-real, hand-drawn portrait.

Disclaimer -
Before I launch into this - O and Link - I know you guys are currently engaged in working extensively from photographs - which trust me is something I did for many many years, and is absolutely essential and invaluable in terms of learning. I probably learned half of what I know that way - maybe more than I'm even aware of. And I'm also not saying that working from photography has no place in producing art - it absolutely DOES! I am NOT one of those purists who think that using photoreference is cheating - that's ridiculous, and many great artists and illustrators who's work I admire do it all the time. I'm essentially just saying there's a big dfference between 'working from" a photograph and directly copying one without making any choices yourself.

As a technical exercise of course that drawing is a monumental achievement of uncanny skill - nobody would deny that. And of course, not being able to see the original photograph we don't know how laboriously it was copied or if maybe there have been some changes made. But if you're a judge in an art competition part of your criteria is originality/creativity. The very word artwork includes Art (inspiration/creativity) and Work (technical ability). We don't accord as much value to a paint-by-numbers kit, no matter how well executed, as to a Rembrandt, even though Rembrandt obviously looked directly as his model and drew out exaclty what he saw more or less. And that's largely because in a paint-by-numbers kit most of the truly artistic choices have already been made, and by someone other than the painter himself.

Beginning from the choice of what to draw or paint. Of course in this case the artist did select a photograph he wanted to copy. And that's really what this is - it's not a drawing of a man using photoreference, it's actually a drawing of a photograph.

Choices an artist makes include selecting a model ( for simplicity's sake I'll stick to portrait type work featuring the head and face, like these drawings), working out the pose and expression, placing lights, positioning the camera and choosing background elements or props etc - even the framing (how much space is visible around the model, is the framing rectangle vertical or horizontal, etc). All of this is integral to the statement the artist wants to make. For an artist working from an existing photograph of course, all of these choices have already been made - except in the case of an artist who hires a model and takes his own photographs with the idea of using them as reference for the finished work.

Then of course the artist can choose to selectively change elements from the photograph, or to montage together various photographs, to make subtle or extreme changes in pose, hairstyle, clothing, proportioning. All of this is demonstrated in the example below by Gil Elvgren:



This is what I would call "working from a photograph" (as opposed to directly and slavishly copying a photograph). It requires knowledge in every area of picture-making - composition, understanding of anatomy and proportioning, rendering etc. It also clearly shows the hand and mind of the artist making creative choices. And even though Elvgren worked in color, he always took black and white photographs because it simplifies shapes and tone and then he wasn't influenced in color choices by the photograph.

Also, one very important thing that an artist should be able to do when working from a photograph is to clarify confusing areas. Sometimes a photograph has weird clumps of shadow or color that make no real sense. It takes an understanding of anatomy and structure and of 3 dimensional rendering skills to be able to create information that's readable and convincing in place of the weird splotches you sometimes see in a photo.

I spent the better part of the 80's drawing from photographs - sometimes merely as exercises trying to copy exactly what I see, sometimes modifying it to varying levels, but in between I was also drawing entirely from imagination. At that time my 'from imagination' drawings were really weak and I didn't realize it. Eventually I understood it was because copying photographs had made me very good at shading and texture and pattern etc, but I knew very little about STRUCTURE... about anatomy and proportioning, composition and related things. So I completely stopped working from photographs for years, bought a bunch of books on artistic anatomy and composition, and worked nearly every day on teaching myself those skills. Again, it took years to get anywhere - but eventually I found that I could merge the two different kinds of skills - when I was becoming competent at creating decent compositions and structuring the human body and other things in a convincing and appealing way, I was able to apply my hard-learned shading and texturing skills over top of it and create drawings that were much more satisfying.

Finally let me say this - everything I just said above is directed toward a classical type of art where realistic or somewhat stylized depiction of reality is the point. Most people wouldn't conside the Gil Elvgren piece I posted to be Art (with a capital A), but 'merely' illustration. Personally I'm not so concerned with that kind of thing - whether an artist is making a Statement that's Important etc... but I do like to see both technical skill and creativity at work.

I believe these hyperrealistic drawings are a different kind of animal altogether. I suspect they're some sort of postmodern statement about the dearth of creativity in today's media and society, and I think the whole point of them is to spark discussions exactly like the one we're having. In that repsect of course, they're working brilliantly!!