There’s Something Odd About This Picture…

Published on May 21st, 2007

There’s something really unusual about the image above. Don’t click on this link until you’ve taken a hard look. I bet you won’t guess what it is.

38 users responded in " There’s Something Odd About This Picture… "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 tallwookie said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm

the ends of the earrings dont match… is that it?

# 2 bigsidd said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Would it be CG by any chance, I have seen a similar one to this before and the likeness to a real face is remarkable.

I have just checked and I appear to be correct to some degree. Not totally right but I knew it wasn’t a real photograph.

Woo! +-20% woo factor

# 3 DavidtheDuke said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Ha! I was right! Where my money? Where’s my money man? Where’s my money? 5:00.

# 4 John C Dvorak said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Wow…amazing work. If real.

# 5 SN said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:30 pm

“There’s Something Odd About This Picture…”

An attractive woman smiling at me?

# 6 Jägermeister said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm

That’s what I call talent.

# 7 Jerk-Face said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm

I know what’s wrong with it, the guy took all that fricken time to draw it, and forgot to include the boobies! What a fricken moron!

# 8 Jägermeister said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pm

#3 – LMAO!!!

# 9 Jägermeister said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pm

#5 He did include the boobs.

# 10 Misanthropic Scott said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Actually, I was going to guess the eyes. They don’t quite look like they’re from the same person to me. Perhaps it’s because neither is from a person at all.

# 11 Jerk-Face said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm

7. “He did include the boobs.”

Out of the frying pan and into the fire… when drawing boobs, never draw clothes over top of them!

# 12 James Hatsis said, on May 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pm

I call foul… I don’t think this is a painting.

# 13 Professor Johnnycakes said, on May 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Looks like 3 front teeth, and any mediteranean woman with fierce black hair as hers -has got to have some upper-lip fuzz. Also, her right eye closest to her nose has a little too much pink into the whites of her eyes. Ahh photorealism… and the fight for artists to separate their interpretations of life from photographs drags on… this guy is just an illustrator with too much time on his hands. Give me that drawing robot story any day rather than this slub.

# 14 Undissembled said, on May 21st, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Her ears and nose are too big and her teeth don’t seem centered. I have not looked at the link yet….

# 15 Undissembled said, on May 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm

WOW. Good work. I forgot to say she had too much foundation on…. I would have been close!

# 16 tcc3 said, on May 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Wheres the time lapsed you tube video?

That would be more believable

# 17 James Hill said, on May 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm

It’s a guy was my first guess.

# 18 A_B said, on May 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I’m a big fan of photorealism. This painting is technically, amazing, but substantively, it’s incredibly lacking. You look at it and ask yourself, “OK, but what’s the point?” I think it doesn’t have point other than as a technical exercise, which would be fine except for the fact he attacks other artists in his discussion of the painting (see below).

He says he spent 70 hours on the painting. I’m sure people would be surprised that a lot of artists could do similar work with that amount of time (it is quite a technical achievement; I emphasize “similar”).

He has an anticipatory, somewhat defensive, response to those that would criticize the work, on his web page:
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm

But he’s defending an entire school of art, not what he did. The school doesn’t need the defense, I think he knows his work does. Or perhaps he is clueless, because he attacks other artists by saying, “photography does not qualify as art…”in his personal definition of “art.”

Say what?

Why does he makes such an outrageous claim? “[I]t is only a mechanical recording of reality”! LOL, the irony is thick. It would be difficult for this guys painting to be less of a mechanical recording of reality. For a guy that’s essentially a technician or crafts person, he’s got a lot balls to say photography isn’t art. Indeed, his focus is apparently so tight on mechanically recording reality, it’s clear he doesn’t understand photography, or art, at all.

He doesn’t understand that artists in the 19th Century were pretty damned good at painting reality and realized, “what are we doing? This is a dead end.” Leading to Manet and onwards, including the development of photography. For him to say, over 100 years later that photography isn’t art is so wrong, it’s almost delusional.

# 19 Kevin Purcell said, on May 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pm

show me a camtasia produced video and I will believe it

# 20 BubbaRay said, on May 21st, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Some of the astrophotos I take (and spend hours on) for research could probably be considered art. Yet there are some amazing artists with photorealistic visions of the universe.

Here’s just one great link among hundreds:

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/aa_menu_thegraphics.htm

# 21 AdnFubar said, on May 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm

All of you are wrong!!! This is what Osama Bin Laden looks like now……

# 22 Justsaying said, on May 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pm

As a gamer it was easy to figure out just by both hair and skin texture problems. No one ever has perfect skin like that without photoshopping or screen filtering. I believe 32bit color will be obsolete one day and we will have a 64bit palette with 64bit or more of some coding for specific colors attract some types of colors type of thing.

# 23 Ballenger said, on May 21st, 2007 at 6:36 pm

No question the artist has the skills mastered. Unless you zoom down and check the interior of the pores on the girl’s nose, it’s not easy to spot mistakes or irregularities. The scalp color around the part looks a little off, but no more so than a photo taken with a average or worse quality digital camera with less than decent lighting. The line that defines the models chin, may be as perfect as rendered by the artist. But, again if you do a deep zoom, and only then, it looks slightly like a mechanically generated semi-circle. In general if there is anything odd about the work, it’s that it is so flawless. From the grief experienced restoring my family photos, I think this guy should get whatever grade is better than an A+++. Oh, and he should have included boobs and also shoes in every example, that way, if there were problems both men and women would have been distracted enough to miss them.

# 24 John C Dvorak said, on May 21st, 2007 at 7:54 pm

There are plenty of artists with a narrow view of what constitutes “art.” Generally speaking whatever art “is” centers around them. A bigger question to my way of thinking is to ask if THIS is art or is it craftsmanship? And when do lame pictures of jets constitute art anyway?

If this is genuine, then it pushes the boundaries of mock photographic reality. Now if it is actually a photograph that has added errors, it may be a debate ploy regarding photography versus whatever you call this sort of creation.

And if photography is not art then why copy the photographic “look” and call that art rather than invent a new perspective that cannot be captured by photography. It seems weird. Something is amiss.

The kicker for me is the following…where are other examples of this extreme realism by the guy? His Eagles are crummy by comparison and everything else is mostly metal, chrome and other inanimate objects. Now he does this face to perfection out of the blue. Come on. What’s wrong with this picture indeed.

He shows one other hyper-realistic picture if you dig deep enough but what about this one done around the same time:

Does this look even reasonably good compared to the face pic?

Furthermore he brags on the site about winning the 1988 National Airbrush Excellence Award, Look up National Airbrush Excellence Award on Google and he is the only guy cited (and only cited by himself) and there are no other references to this award. So who gives out this award and where is their website and has nobody else won it? Where are his other awards?

This guy has talent but so do a lot of other people.

# 25 Erik Blazynski said, on May 21st, 2007 at 9:03 pm

He gives her perfectly white teeth and then a black one in the back? seems odd. But if you were going to fake such a thing don’t you think that he would go through the trouble of fixing up the black tooth?

Me thinks that he air brushed a photo. I’d have to see this with my own two eyes to believe it.

# 26 Mac Guy said, on May 21st, 2007 at 9:55 pm

I was going to say her left eye didn’t look natural, particularly in the corner closest to the nose. Looks like the pink bled onto the white of her eye.

# 27 gquaglia said, on May 21st, 2007 at 10:11 pm

#5 I agree, the same applies to me.

# 28 Mr. Fusion said, on May 21st, 2007 at 10:52 pm

I agree with John on this. The portrait is amazing. It is near technically perfect. As for John’s comment about painting metal, he has a point. It reminds me of all those budding amateur artists that can sketch beautiful horse heads but not much else. But, outside of the commercial crap, which most likely pays his way, the guy has proved he can do the intimate stuff.

# 29 John C Dvorak said, on May 21st, 2007 at 11:20 pm

I’m having too many problems with this pic and then there are these two versions shown on his website..

the pic where he’s standing with the other two guys at the painting:

and this pic showing the craft. Note the halter top. There is a knot on one and not on the other…a lump of fabric. Everything else is almost exactly the same except for this detail. The sameness even applies to hair anomalies. It looks to me as if the painting shown with the three guys is merely an airbrushed version of the other pic. In the process he took out the halter top lump or fabric. But never bothered to do the hair.

Is one the original photo? Or is it the painting because the image appears to be from the upper pic not from the canvas.

# 30 BubbaRay said, on May 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pm

[off topic]
#29, Mr. Fusion,

Visually, through a 1 meter scope (or even a 24″), horse heads are great.

The Horsehead Nebula region is perhaps the most beautiful region of the sky. Many different objects are together in a magnificent mix of color and light. This film photo from only a 12.5 inch newtonian at f/7:

http://www.koyote.com/users/bobm/horsehead.htm

[Yes, it's raining tonight, so nothing but computer time for me]

# 31 BubbaRay said, on May 22nd, 2007 at 12:06 am

#29, JCD, Hmm, must be the real John C. Dvorak, since my earlier post disappeared, Mr. Fusion’s post was edited, and renumbering has messed my post numbering to Mr. Fusion. I just wondered if it was really you posting. Now I know. Hey, it’s your blog, I was just concerned that someone was impersonating you. No offense was implied or intended.

# 32 Danijel said, on May 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 am

I was just wondering…why bother with all that hard work when you can take a photo like that in a couple of seconds? That ain’t art!

# 33 jill said, on May 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 am

I think this is his real painting. He said the difference between this and his other work is he didn’t have an imposed deadline. His earlier attempt at portraiture was reasonably good but is clearly airbrushed. This one he spent 70 hours on and didn’t bother to paint the full body. He obviously had more time to focus on the subtler tonal variations and details of skin. I’d still like to see the painting and the photo side by side.

The painting’s not perfect, I see subtle flaws. I don’t want to nitpick, the guy’s got skills. The thing that stands out most to me is the earring and earlobe. The earring looks like it’s just kind of floating on top with some quick fake shadows added for effect. With so much subtle detail and refinement everywhere else it makes the painting look unfinished. Also the the placement of the earring looks unnaturally low. Regardless, the flaws are what allow him to qualify his work as valid according to his own definition.

I get that he’s sensitive about what is “valid.” Photography is the reason photorealism was and is largely dismissed as obsolete. Why spend 70 hours airbrushing when you can just take a photo? It’s really unfair for him to negate photography, even based on his own definition of art. Photography is valid (maybe not so much those portraits you can get at Sears or WalMart, or pics taken with point-and-shoot cameras) but in general, people learn the technical aspects to facilitate the creative. He says that photography “removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element” How can that be when a photographer chooses their composition, chooses their focal point, depth of field, exposure, contrast, lighting, etc. They’re still choices based on personal taste, subject matter, and the understanding of the visual and relational elements of art. It’s not all mechanical.

# 34 dwright said, on May 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 am

Here is link to a board I go to. Check out Ricky Jackson’s comment from someone who knows him.
http://tinyurl.com/24px2y

Still, I have problems. For one, when he shows the steps in progress of the painting, why is the upper half of the face done with much detail and the bottom nothing? Wouldn’t you at least lay down a base color of flesh tone on the whole face first.

It sure would be easy to start with a photo and then reduce down and photoshop the “progress” working backwards.

# 35 Firas said, on May 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm

There is no way on earth that it’s a painting. It’s just a bit too real, and then there are the oddities already pointed out above especially the halter thing which John mentions.

# 36 Awake said, on May 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Great talent.
But if it looks like a photo… what’s the point… just take a friggin’ photo!

# 37 SN said, on May 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm

36. “what’s the point… just take a friggin’ photo!”

Because the girl in the picture doesn’t exist.

# 38 A_B said, on May 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm

“I took a digital photograph in my studio of a local model (Tica) with my Nikon Coolpix 8700, then printed copies for each student on my Epson 9600 printer.”

That’s the artist from his web page. She exists.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!