"Photo-Real Art" Yay or Nay

[JxXxR]

basically are you a fan of 'photo-real' art aka the Alex Ross style

[Dr Doom]

Even though I'm fully familiar with the style you're referring too, I still demand EXAMPLES motherfucker!

[JxXxR]

EXAMPLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/Jugulus/AlexRossDoesBush.jpg

http://www.scificool.com/images/2008/03/alex-ross-age-of-tv-heroes.jpg

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/Green%20Lantern%20Alex%20Ross%20No%20Fear%20movie. jpg

http://comicrelated.com/graphics/solicits/dc/dec09/1SpecialEvent/Green%20Lantern%2049%20variant.jpg

http://www.firstcomicsnews.com/solicits/dccomics/201103/EmeraldWar8.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/i/glewcv7varr1.jpg
best examples i can google real quick lol,

[Dr Doom]

Short answer, it's cool. Ross is pretty damn good at it but other artists using it tend to be 'meh'.

[Requiem]

I like it for covers, or posters, but when it comes to actual issues, I prefer the over the top stuff. I liked the way Amazing Spider-Man was being drawn when the Big Time story arc came out.

But for the real stuff, like Kingdom Come, Batman: War on Crime etc it's not bad. They had some "realistic" drawing in X-Force in the beginning, I thought that was alright.

[sirded]

just: YES, the more the beter althoug if they use an alex ross just fore the cover the inside art has to exptionaly wel even if done by another artist. becaus most of the times the use artist who make rob liefield look good :S wich is just sad and pisses me of

to me these are in tradition of the great american illustrators like rockwell(although the thema's are far apart of cours), wich im a big fan of.

also i never realy felt comftrabal calling this style photo-real becaus these days the realistic painters in art are doing some absurdly realistic stuf like this painting that in real life is about one by one meters
http://www.yokiattitudes.com/photos/w_800px/5dbfa1_10_Close_Nat_1972_1973.jpg
and you can count the pore's :S THAT i am not a fan of

[Jack Roller]

Just for covers. It's pretty stuff but you lose a lot of motion - especially if it's a superhero book.

[Chapter]

Just for covers. It's pretty stuff but you lose a lot of motion - especially if it's a superhero book.

When it comes to comics it's mainly the coloring that causes that. Using paint instead of the ordinary coloring method really takes away the sense of speed from the artwork.

With that said, photo-real art is fine to me. It all depends on if I like the artist's style or not. Ross is very skilled but he's not a favorite of mine.

[sirded]

When it comes to comics it's mainly the coloring that causes that. Using paint instead of the ordinary coloring method really takes away the sense of speed from the artwork.

With that said, photo-real art is fine to me. It all depends on if I like the artist's style or not. Ross is very skilled but he's not a favorite of mine.
that realy just depends on the artis. If its the right artist it can have even more speed with paint. Just look at that x-Force sex and violence mini a short while back

[Chapter]

that realy just depends on the artis. If its the right artist it can have even more speed with paint. Just look at that x-Force sex and violence mini a short while back

I think that one was mixed media, but yeah it does depend on the artist as well.

[Jack Roller]

I guess I gotta disagree. I don't think any painter will ever draw action like Jack Kirby when he was inked by Sinnott. I just don't think painters cause as much excitement from panel to panel. I could be wrong but that's just my experience. I'm sure some painters are better at it though and I just have Alex Ross in my head.

[gdatruth]

this thread needs more pictures.
I love photo-real art especially when done well but only in small doses. it should only be used for covers and posters imo.

[JxXxR]

did someone say somthing about King Kirby?

http://i55.tinypic.com/2h4jhqf.jpg

http://i51.tinypic.com/df7d39.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/9jemfd.jpg

[Jack Roller]

Alright G, here we go. Here are a few images by a couple of stylized artists - Kirby and Buscema.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q93/parnivalplunder/kirby.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q93/parnivalplunder/buscema.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q93/parnivalplunder/buscema1.jpg

Notice the obvious action in all three? Now look at Rockwell. A photo-realistic artist previously mentioned...

http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/Norman%20Rockwell%20Print.jpg

Is that old bitch putting that turkey down or just holding it to show off? I can only guess because there are no speed lines to tell me. Just one of the limitations of photo-realistic art.

[sirded]

^^^ haha lol at that comparison and i didnt say rockwell was a dynamic comic book artist i sayd that those photo-real artist are like rockwell before them arent thAt photo real in my opinion becaus they stil have a sertain amount of style unlike some photorealistic painters in modern art these days who are just painting photographs wich i just dont understand

Also your not realy playing fair by using such a Static images. Although a dynamic picture by rockwell would probably stil have made your point pretty good

And i gues the sex and violence mini could be called a mixxed media. But almost every illustration is these days and the basis is paint i believe

Next time try vinding some more images but until the 22d im on y mobile phone becaus i just moved and internet didnt -_-

[Dr Doom]

What's that about 'no action'?

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9237/4726912590ec337e57afb.jpg

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/847/kingdomcomepageasianmed.jpg

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4291/rossy.jpg

Okay, it'll never be as 'actiony' as penciled art, but still. And of course, if you don't know what you're doing your 'photo-realistic' art can look pretty damn awful too.

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3866/jlra2dylux1copy.jpg

For the record, the girl isn't supposed to have Down Syndrome, lol.

[Chapter]

At this point this is becoming a debate of semantics.

Doom, what you just posted isn't photo-realistic. It's just realistic. Jack Kirby is realistic as well. He just doesn't overburden his art with details (same as Dell'Otto in Sex and Violence), which is also partly the reason why some art looks more static than others.

Sirded, I know what kind of art you're referring to (made by human fax machines), but just to clarify, being photographic in detail doesn't mean you don't have a style, it just means that that style presents itself in other ways. Your style is just a combination of skills (or lack thereof) and preferences. Chuck Close and Bouguereau would be good examples of being so real that at first glance you may not be able to tell if you're looking at a painting. I call Ross photorealistic not because I can't tell if his work is a painting or not, but because there is a substantial amount of detail.

And jackroller, using Rockwell isn't fair. Have him paint a guy punching someone through a wall, and instead of capturing a bunch of details put a blur at the focal point of movement and it'd look fast-paced.

[Dr Doom]

'Photo real' is between '...' for a reason, Black.

[False Profit]

yeah, but that's Black.

Art for him is like nerdy shit for me and Books to you, Doom.

[False Profit]

Anyway, "Photo-Real Art" is okay... as long as it isn't Greg Land. I used to be CRAZY for Alex Ross' art back in the day. I think my favorite piece of completed work by him is still that Tabloid sized Wonder Woman book he did.

[Chapter]

'Photo real' is between '...' for a reason, Black.

I call bullshit.

[Dr Doom]

You can call it whatever the fuck you want, lol.

[Chapter]

You can call it whatever the fuck you want, lol.

But I've already named it sir.

[Jack Roller]

The Rockwell things was mostly a joke. I guess a bad one... :( I stand by what I said though. There's a reason that comic book artists simplify things at times to tell a story from panel to panel. Call me a prick but none of the Ross panels impress me in that regard as much as others.

[Taskmaster]

I have no problem with realism, however

Carel Willink>> Con artist in thread title

As a painter, Ross is very, very mediocre.

[Chapter]

I have no problem with realism, however

Carel Willink>> Con artist in thread title

As a painter, Ross is very, very mediocre.

Why do you call him a con artist?

[Taskmaster]

Why do you call him a con artist?


It's hyperbole, however, there plenty of better painters in the comic biz ( Bolton murders Ross ), let alone those not in the biz, and Ross is known to have students of his ghost paint/draw for him, which I do not approve of. Besides that, his shit is just not that special.

Seriously, if you know somebody that went and made it through a decent art academy ( on that admits students based on merit) , they can deliver the same stuff as Ross easily, because it's the most generic shit they teach.

I don't dislike Ross' work though. This mentality is what you get working in a museum.

[Chapter]

Oh. In that case, as long as people like it his work isn't gonna get taken off that pedestal.

[Broddie]

Depends on the story.

[odeisel]

I love Alex Ross' work but guys like Greg Land who just pilpher because they can't draw or lack imagination is just a ripoff