At first I thought most of these images were photos.
They are all inspiring paintings from some amazing artists and I recommend you check out the rest of their work by clicking on the links.
1. Shower Scene
Artist: http://alyssamonks.com/
2. Milk Girl
Artist: http://www.diegogravinese.com/
3. Station Scene
Artist: http://www.bertmonroy.com/
This Photoshop image by Bert Monroy uses a total image count of over 15,000.
4. Lunch In Tiburon
Artist: http://www.bertmonroy.com/
5. Self Portrait
Artist: http://davidkassan.com/
6. People Swimming
Artist: http://alyssamonks.com/
7. Graffiti and Wood Peeling
Artist: http://davidkassan.com/
8. Under Water Scene
Artist: http://alyssamonks.com/
9. Female Portrait
Artist: http://www.drublair.com/
10. Splash
Artist: http://www.ericzener.com
Great images!
Breathtaking!~
You’ll also like the work of Gerhard Richter (http://www.gerhard-richter.com/art/) – his painting “Betty” (http://www.gerhard-richter.com/art/paintings/photo_paintings/detail.php?7668) has been a favourite of mine for many years.
Yo, check out emmatooth.co.uk – her work is as good as this!
Saw some of Alyssa Monks’ pieces at a gallery walk last night in Lincoln, NE. They were all phenomenal. Looked like a photo in person as well.
I love these images! Fabulous work!
Hyper-realism is not art, it is neither paintings not photography, only the expression of a technical approach to ego. Craps.
Do you think that I deserve to know what the hell makes you such a loser. Thank you!
wooow .. truely amazing …
great job really .. specially for the under water and female scenes ..
thank you so much for sharing these gorgeous photos with us ..
regards,
(linkback) Cool or Lame? 10 Awesome Images That Are Actually Paintings [VOTE] – http://www.pikk.com/7d0e4
I’ve always had an appreciation for photorealism – thanks for sharing.
jesus christ
THIS IS SH!T!
PHOTOSHOP != PAINTING
JESUS
Another similar artist to check out is: Heidi McFall
She’s really good IMO.
unbeliveable :O
Your talent’s remarkable, I really hope you get the recognition you deserve.
Photo realism shows an artists skill, but there is no creativity. Can it really be called art?
What is the point? Just take a photo.
I dunno bout y’all, but I wouldn’t hang any of those on my walls. Nice images, but not something I’d really call “art.”
Such a troll..
WOW……………..
!!!
I’m surprised!!!
WWWWOOOOOOOOOWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh my god
very good.thanks for you
photoshop alert!
I agree with WTF!!!!! PHOTOSHOP LIES
TRASH!!!!
photoshop lies!!!!! go jump a roof guys!!
hello milk gril and under water
awesome images are awesome.
i have seen the step by step drawing of #9 and i can say that was totally awesome.
some of this “paintings” is only a photos
watch this
http://nayah-cha.livejournal.com/39425.html
In response to someone who says that photo realism in art avoids creativity:
It’s knowing WHICH scenes to paint in realistic style that make it creative, not necessarily forcing your own view of the world onto what’s there. There are different methods of expression, and just because someone finds something beautiful just as it is and wants to make it eternal doesn’t mean that they aren’t creative. Sorry for the rant, but I I really like art, and it seems like so many people adhere to just one style or one methodology, and that frustrates me.
Look at http://www.joseluiscorella.com
Love these paintings, but I found a mistake in #2. There’s a shadow for her body, the carton, and the milk coming out of the carton, but the shadow for the milk dripping off her chin is missing. Check it out!
These are realy awsome, Well done.
so who is the troll, the person who posts using a user name, or the one who posts anonymously? LOL
as for whether it’s art or not…it is the development and practice of an artistic skill, that can be used in original artworks.
what technology do they use to make these, though? it isn’t just paintbrush and oils. is it similar to pixels? I’ve seen that technique. Take a picture, zoom it down to pixels, and copy the exact color of each pixel…???
Hi to All
It is very very good .
The hand of person who paints this art is similar to a printer
best reguards
cool pix
I really don’t like paintings that are so realistic. I don’t understand the appeal or purpose. It’s almost like the artists are just trying to show off, to say, “Look how good I am–I can make a painting that looks like a photograph!” But, to me, I don’t see the point of painting something that looks exactly like a photograph when you could just take a photograph and get the same image/story.
I much prefer paintings where the brush strokes are thick and visible. Where the medium of paint is evident and adds to the image and emotional message of the work, as opposed to an almost show-offy style that just mimics photography.
sorry but the portrait of the woman is actually a photograph
OMG, SERIOUSLY?? :O
thats..impossible
I find it interesting that people have developed a very narrow guideline for what they will consider art. If these pieces are not considered art, then we might want to contact the curators of the Louvre, the Tate Modern, the British Portrait Gallery, as well as galleries across the US. Maybe you can enlighten them, as to what art “is.”
I’m a painter by myself and I just want to say… Maybe someone who has no idea what “real” art is, likes these pictures. Technically these paintings are made well but there is no creative process at all in these works. Humanity invented photography to free the art of illustrating scenes that look real… We have so many opportunities to invent own objects, forms and so on… And you? You’re wasting your time on doing things that look “real” but include no creativity at all (believe me). (excuse me for my bad english, I’m an art student from Leipzig, Germany)
Yes this is art, this is style and skill. It shows the viewer exactly what the artist wants them to see and leaves you to wonder WHY they chose it. Take a picture? No, you do not know if the real scene was different and they are making it better. I can make art, I can create, but I could NEVER paint a picture that looks that exact. THis shows GREAT talent and skill. SO impressive!
To all the people who are saying these are photoshoped could they please read the article and look at the references. To everyone else, thanks for the comments they are much appreciated and they are all read.
oh dear.
I hate it when people say that the pure talent on show here isn’t art!
It’s better than the bullshit that is ‘modern art’
That is indeed art. Beautiful!
The picture of the girl’s face is obviously a photograph. i like the milk girl and the graffiti/wood.when i see this stuff, i think “no way” and to me that is art. the artists have a great skill to capture moments on canvas, with their hands. i’m sure none of you can remember but there was a time when artists were hired to do just what these artists did; preserve moments forever sans camera. before photography artists had to train their eyes/hands to recreate the likeness of royalty and illustrate momentous occasions in history. and if something keeps me guessing and constantly curious of its origin, and keeps my guests wondering “is that real” then i would definitely consider it art and hang it on my wall.
this can’t be prints omg!
#9 is truly impossible
unbeliveable ~!
these are stunning! i can’t even draw a stick man realistically.
I don’t understand why someone would try to replicate through painting exactly what cameras were made for. Sure, these paintings show talent, but there is no meaning behind any of them.
They are cool images!
Thanks
WOW…FANTASTIC…THE ARTISTS ARE REALLY AMAZING
I might also suggest that you add Charles Wildbank to this group: http://www.wildbank.com/
Dan
brillant art but having sold art for 38years there is one formular we use “if it looks like a photo it wont sell”
Painting or illustration?
I asked this of an artist who referred to himself as an illustrator.
His reply was that he painted what was there, in all its detail, without any addition, subtraction or license. He painted/illustrated birds for ornithology books.
What do you think?
i like eight,it is sexy,hehe
These are not paintings, not done with brushes and paints. If anything, they may be Photoshop art. But they are fakes if they are trying to pass for paintings. Especially the female portrait. Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that’s not a photograph? Come on. Zoom in on it.
I’m sure some of these are by amazing artists but putting in photographs to try to scam people is just weird. Or calling Photoshoppery a “painting.”
WOW…FANTASTIC…THE ARTISTS ARE REALLY AMAZING< unbeliveable ~!……..!
Very intriguing images. To some commenters here – please don’t be so quick to criticize…
@Siobhan: How exactly do these images have no meaning behind them? These artists have gone to painstaking length to create these photorealistic images, at no small expense in time or talent I would imagine. How exactly would a photograph contain more “meaning”. I would encourage you to read more on Bert Monroy’s website about the personal journey he goes through as an artist when creating his work. Certainly you might be able to find some “meaning” there, no?
@Nate: I don’t think anyone’s trying to “scam people” or pass on fakes. Some of these are digital paintings – take the time to click-thru to the artists’ pages and you’ll find that most admittedly (and proudly) use Photoshop or other digital tools to create their images. But some – as in David Kassan – are using more traditional painting techniques (oil on wood in Mr. Kassan’s case). Whether using digital or traditional techniques it does not change if they are paintings. Try to be a bit more thoughtful
Don’t condemn and ridicule right off without spending a little more time to properly assess. It makes you look mean (in the sense of base, limited and stupid)
@ Nate
Did you even bother to go to the linked sites to see the rest of the work by these artists? As far as i have been able to find, from reviews of their work to whole articles about the artists and their abilities as photo-realistic painters, they are all paintings. Some are brush, some are airbrush, but none are photos. As for the female portrait, just go to their web site, has tons of pics of the painting process as well as a whole explanation on how the amazing skin textures where done.
So next time how about you actually learn a little about what your criticizing first, maybe you won’t look so stupid in the future.
Anyhow….really amazing work thanks for the post
neat stuff – I bet it is even really better to see the paintings up close for realz
These are amazing, but where’s the romance?
It just feels like plain photography
FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!
A Splendid piece of art work. They are all paintings and none of them are photographs. The proof is in their websites and how they painted all of it.
I don’t believe that portrait of that girl is real…there’s just NO WAY
#9 actually isn’t a painting. It’s a blownup photo and those suspicious looking men are liars. Honestly… what was the point of that?
OMG no way
It is such a good work of art that I would really like to know more about the artists.
It is not often that one sees such special art.
@ Siobhan Grey – You clearly have no idea about what art is do you..
Classic.
These are incredible.. Mucho kudos to the artists involved. Very Impressive!
Invisible…Hmmm…
ONLY SOME ARE PAINTINGS!
Theres no way any of these are f**king paintings.
these are not paintings they are digital art, yes they are painted on a computer but ask any of these people to replicate them with real paint and i bet not a one of them would be able to
you can actually watch a video of #9 nine being done, it its not a photo it is really created by an artist but on a computer in photoshop
dont believe you
Hi,
Some of them I already knew, but most of them I hadn’t seem them yet.
This is what I call knowing about colour.
Awesome works.
Best regards,
José
My stickmen are quite realistic
as someone said. There is no point doing this. Where is the creative part? just take a camera and click. Or do it, but with fantasy. Copying is no art.
The kind of brush strokes required to make photo-lookalikes..?
Why wouls someone make a painitng that looks like a snap?
I orefer brush strokes a la Gogh
Very nice!
LOL BULLSHIT THAT SHIT IS JUST PICTURES THERE IS NO WAY THAT IS A REAL PAINTING WOULDNT YOU THINK THESE GUYS WOULD BE WORLD FAMOUS BY NOW?……….
hahaha thats so stupid its not a real paitning look at the salt and pepper picture and in the relfection of the pepper shaker you can see the guy with the camera
I don’t do reality but am floored and trying to understand the study – fantastic !!!!!
FWIW, I don’t consider Photoshop “painting.” Painting with brushes on canvas is painting. This is digital art. Still very impressive, and Bert Monroy is one of my absolute Photoshop heroes. But, I was expecting to see paint on canvas when I clicked through to the article, and I worry that referring to this as “painting” diminishes the actual art of painting, which is COMPLETELY different, artistically speaking.
@ Paul H
The reason why publishers use paintings instead of photographs in bird books, insect books, plant books, etc. is because a painting conveys a archaetypical version of the subject in question and will always have all the features the genuine article is meant to have. In that sense, it’s easier to identify them when you see them in real life because you are using a ideal, accurate representation in your mind’s eye. Photos aren’t very good for this because a photo is not a representation of all of a thing, it’s actually just an image of a specific, individual thing unique in the world.
Never buy a bird book with photos, you won’t learn anything.
It’s much easier when you base them on pictures, I’d like to see them doing it on their own (specially with all the “effects” correctly applied to the slightest detail, from a phisics pov: reflections, shadows, translucence, fluidity, texturing, morphology, etc., etc.) – now THAT would be something to be stuned about (although impossible to do in practice, even for someone with an insight on the specific fields), I’d say.
Good, but i have a question
Why because the hiperrealistic painters always paint awful things?, always they appear with lack of inspiration.
All of these are brilliant… with the exception of: Drublair
What happened between hour 7 and 70?
Why aren’t there more pieces of art like this in his folio?
Why can’t i see details?
Totally a photo.
Wow, this work is great. Feel free to post your artwork on our site!
http://www.artistsforartists.com
Brad
None of these are paintings..they are derived from photographs. nice try.
These are really amazing stuff…great post.
I think it’s a tribute to the artists how many people here refuse to believe these are not photos.
These are cool to some degree… Dont really care much for the Photoshop ones, as you can sit and nit pick yr details forever until you get it right, but some people can actually paint photo realistic stuff with real paint.
I think its impressive that people can paint like that but I have agree Siobahn, I feel it lacks any real meaning beyond what it means to the artist to work so intensively and what the original photo might have meant.
You can take whatever meaning you want from these, digital or otherwise, but all they mean to me is that someone has the skill to paint amazingly true to life but not the interest in creativity to add their own flair to it. I can memorize someone elses play and recite it back to you, or i could write my own play…. ya know?
Check out my friend LJ’s site. She is a photo-realism painter and has done some really amazing work.
http://www.ljlindhurst.com/paintings.html
http://www.ljlindhurst.com/lock10.html
Hi guys i’m a bit perplexed about alot of the arguments going around on here
I’m a painter that paints realistically often using photos, but there’s more to the paintings that you’re looking at than the finished deal which as viewers is all that we’re seeing- there’s the choice of subject, there’s the process of creating the piece, the time of creating the piece, the time to construct the “original” reference photo and the artists actual intention. If you want to ask the question is it art? Ask Chuck Close (do a search of his work on google images. Another guy to check out is Ralph Goings who paints American cafe scenes from photo.) Chuck Close has been painting huge blow ups of photographs since the 60′s. Why, to show the failure of photography to depict reality (that’s right I said failure), photograpy blurs edges, things go out of focus, there’s is choice and subjectivity in what is chosen and not chosen to be shown just as there is in painting, photos can over saturate it’s subjects so that subdued colour can become vivid if not sickly. reality is mostly dirty, dusty, beige and mundane. A collection of photos can be wittled down so that all you have is a collection of ideal images, as there will undoubtedly be some photos that dont show the feel that you want or maybe show your it all too well. With photoshop coming along, we know everything that we see in all the magazines and in advertising is an airbrushed half truth, yet we still keep looking at the pictures as if they were real(do a search on youtube for the Dove evolution advert). Of you guys with a photomanipulation program, who hasnt tried to change an image by covering a spot, hiding a shadow, deleting a figure ,enhancing a tan? Photography as a “truthful” depictor of the “real” is losing its crown.
Just because they are photographic and therefore familiar don’t dismiss them as artless and conceptless, it might just be that you just dont get it
if you want places to learn more check out wikipedia and the words hyperealism and photorealism
if these are actually paintings, then it’s a rather massive waste of time. Just take a photo, it’s faster, and you can spend your time doing something creative with your photo realism skills. Seriously…
some fucko above says that “there’s no meaning to this” well fuck you! it has meaning. its shows the super powers of creative humans, unlike u posers who just know how to comment. so go kill urself and help humanity in general by not being here. fuck off.
Can’t believe they are not photographs.They look so real #incredible
Alyssa Monks uses oil on linen, if you click through you can see the brush strokes detail. Splash is oil on canvas.
Artists don’t automatically have photo-realistic abilities. It takes time and practice, you have to prove that you can do it. So to those saying “what is the point when you could take a photograph” and that they could do something more interesting with their time, their art isn’t just one painting, it is a journey always trying new things, trying to get better, and always learning.
Queensboro Bridge by Andreas Orosz: http://www.andreas-orosz.de/contents/index_ger.html
Wow, these paintings are amazing! Now that’s talent!
Those are pretty good, but these are astounding:
http://www.anthonybrunelli.com/main.html
http://www.hyperrealism.net/Anthony%20Brunelli.htm
http://www.anthonybrunelli.com/index-anthony_work.html
the last one with the earrings is a photograph, the “artists” made this whole spiel about it being a painting as a joke…. casts some doubt on the rest of the “paintings” here.
me sorprece is something that I am learning also to do how is everything?
Those are amazing!! I want one! ha
Lmafo, number nine is a joke chumps. Peace
The number 9. must be a photograph.
all I have 2 say is……………………. WOOOOOOOOOOOW!
i am pretty sure most of those are fakes, seriously, and the one even says “this photoshop contains over 15000 images” well that would be a lot of work, certainly, but that doesn’t make it a painting, it still makes it just a picture. and number 9 is obviously a photograph, from the individual strands of hair to the texture of her skin and teeth, no painter could possibly achieve that level of detail with a brush. i call shenanigans on pretty much all of these.
wow nice collection
Number 9 is not a fake.
You can see the making of it online.
Several of these (including #9 and #3) are not traditional paintings, but created in photoshop.
Still, an amazing achievement.
should i have my image?
Sometimes these photo-like paintings offer us something interesting, but when you look at the late rembrandt self-portraits, you see a man who uses the paint expressively as well as a means of intense visual description
Имели мы Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð²Ñех имеем и будем иметь.
Совершенно Ñекретно, гриф ÑекретноÑти 10. Теперь мы беÑÑмертны, мы Ñвета и тени ÑмеÑи, и дом наш будет поднебеÑье храм указующем перÑтом.
ЗарÑд блаÑтера на макÑимум в другой руке куÑок плаÑтика, Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð·Ð»Ð° ползла ползла Ñлыша поÑтупь вибрации по коммуникациÑм крейÑера, по трубав винтелÑции. Ð’Ñ‹Ñтрел один, другой, третий доÑтали вы Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð±Ñ€Ð°Ñ‚Ñ†Ñ‹, за пазухой капÑула вырезать лазером лаз в низ, разум в проÑтрации а в теле проÑнулаÑÑŒ машина убицйÑтва, Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð¼Ð½ÑŽ точно точно вашу Ñверх Ñекретную формулу …
Мы вÑеравно Ñильней
number 9 is an airbrushed painting. (zach) the artist who did it even founded an airbrush school, and i’m studying under him in another week! i’m stoked
These are amazing I hope I have the ability to aspire such art in my lifetime.
This is almost impossible, but I know now day any thing is possible. I do a little and have a sister that does oils.But this gosh it is so clean . Thank you …..J.
Godspeed – ti o chem? k psihiatry davno ne hodil, chtoli??
These are truly amazing. The milk in Milk Girl looks a little too viscous though, like paint almost, it should be thin like water.
Number 9 looks fake. Nobody can get that detailed. But in light of all that why not just take a photo? If these ARE real, then I can appreciate them for extreme technical proficiency only. I find hyper-photorealistic work incredibly boring.
many, if not most of these are just photographs with filters applied in photoshop to make them look like paintings.
Retard.. most are paintings. Please think for second before posting next time.
Truly gifted artists.
alyssa monks, diego gravinese and eric zener are now my new favorites! thanx 4 sharing this awesomeness!
gooooooooooood
I think that for any art movement we have good and bad artists.
We can say that also a photo is warm or cold.
Photorealist must be great painters, they can also interpret the original image, like Chuck Close.
Some years ago, I was lucky to see some work about an italian photorealist, starting from the begin.
She started from a color photo, for realizing a b/w paint. It was amazing, she trasformed the color image in her mind, giving to the paint deep of field and blur.
here a link to her work – http://www.chiaraalbertoni.com
what amazing work, an inspiration. The female portrait is out of this world with painstaking detail!!!
Pete
impossible!
don believe it!
them ugly picture
#9 is NOT a fake. I thought so too until I remembered that picture being covered by AIRbrush magazine a couple yaers ago. It is real.
cool! I wish I could paint like that..
though hyper realism isn’t my style ^^
Wow, these are really incredible. I love all of them but my favorite is probably the first one, Shower Scene
Please don’t link back to your site with keyword rich anchor text.
If you want really want links for your site, please contact us and we can arrange to write you some content that will drive great editorial links.
nice bt can`t belive ……………..
Greate painting……….
they need to make paintings of celebrities doing the slam dance(having sex).
VERY GOOD PAINTIGNS OMG
wowwwww those dont lok like paintings
woww are those real
Those are definitely real, but if your trying to make photo-realistic pictures, why not just take a photo? This skill is unnecessary. These look like they’re paintings of photos anyway.
For those who are saying those are fake, no they’re NOT…but personally I don’t like photo realism they’re too technical. Most, if not all, of these painters use projectors meaning they’re merely tracing from a photo. It’s cheating for the purist of painters. Also, as the comment above me said, why PAINT a photo realistic photo that is based on a photo? That’s just carbon copying the photo, no imagination and not very artistic in my opinion. Might as well just frame the photo used.
Rafter242…I wanna watch it.
Back in the 70′ I went to a “Photo Realist” exhibition at L.A.C.M.A. yet the works stayed in the realm of fine art,
with visible brush strokes and splattered paint, thus making the works more aestheitically pleasing on the eye.
These artist, some who used projectors, due mostly to the sheer size of the canvases, some spanned whole
walls, but these were all established fine art artists, and used aids to speed up the production of the works. I
have no problem with that, only for the novice and aspiring young artists who must realize that even a 2D photo
is complete in its visual integrity, nothing has to be created from the beginning, everything is already complete!
Photo Realism like for example Impressionism is strictly a matter of taste. If you get close to an Impressionists
work, it’s pastel blots of pigment, and a Photo Realist work always has a hint of cartoon in it, if you know what I
mean? The 1st time I saw Leonardo’s thumbnail sketches in the 60′s I was awed! Dali also has very exquisit work
in this medium. My personal favorite work is by the Dutch, strange as it seems it combines the best of all visual
presentation; Light/ Dark, Drama and a Fine Art Realism,…it’s most sublime in its visual wetness of surface, yes!!