Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Karmachinery t1_iude88x wrote

I don’t even know how that’s possible to get that photorealistic with colored pencils. You are an amazing artist. The lines are so sharp and well done. Dear lord that is incredible.

413

Dr4g0nSqare t1_iudz4h3 wrote

These aren't Crayola pencils from school. Colored pencils made for art can layer better and can go on darker therefore have a wider range of possible colors.

They happen to be my physical medium of choice though I'm nowhere near as good as the person who drew this.

133

burnerbummer666 t1_iufa2mk wrote

What brand(s) would you recommend?

23

Toros_Mueren_Por_Mi t1_iuffhdo wrote

I have a set of 144 Prismacolors that I really like but haven't used since I transitioned to digital. They're very vibrant and have great opacity, and they work with multimedia paper or cold press paper alike. Haven't tried them but another seemingly comparable brand is Faber-Castell. Keep in mind both of these sets are not cheap, but you don't need to get 100+, for starters get yourself a set of 48 or even 72 and it won't break bank too bad. Blick store brand also has their own and they're not bad. Reason Prismacolors are my favorite is that you can use them with all their stuff together, layer them with Prisma markers, watercolors, etc. Lots of good options out there.

Edit: get yourself some nice paper also. A sheet of Bristol or Strathmore 400 series will stand up to a lot of technique abuse, Bristol is excellent for marker and colored pencil use

39

cinndiicate t1_iugohgg wrote

I've used both and they are excellent in very different ways. Of course, they have the same professional finish - vibrant, great opacity, beautiful layering etc

Prismacolours are very buttery smooth - they are great for laying down large swaths of colour but can be difficult to do detailed work with. You'll need to constantly sharpen them to keep the point sharp.

Faber castell polychromos are more waxy. They keep a point beautifully and I use them for almost all my detailed work nowadays.

4

Toros_Mueren_Por_Mi t1_iugx988 wrote

I have yet to try the Polychromos, would be a vanity purchase for me as I only do digital now but you never know. This makes me want to go find my pencils haha

2

artbykabirhirani OP t1_iuhetvx wrote

>but you don't need to get 100+

that is true, I myself started with the polychromes set of 48 for the first 5-6 months of my practice.

2

artbykabirhirani OP t1_iuheoyj wrote

I personally use a mix of Prismacolor, Faber Castell Polychromos and Caran Cache Luminance for my artworks

2

pantsareoffrightnow t1_iudqrso wrote

Oh it gets even more realistic than this. I’ve seen pencil drawings indistinguishable from photographs

35

lordaddament t1_iuefypz wrote

I’ve always wondered what’s the artistic point of doing super photorealistic drawings when you can get the exact same result from a photo.

12

TheStoriesICanTell t1_iuet58r wrote

You'll get downvotes but I understand what you are saying. Personally, I can appreciate the amount of time an artist takes to make a drawing indistinguishable from a photo. But, like you said, I do not get the artistic point of looking at something indistinguishable from a photograph

18

holyluigi t1_iuf47jp wrote

Likely a display of skill. To draw something photorealisticly you have to know the tiniest details and know how to apply them the right way.

13

doveup t1_iufa8mu wrote

It may resonate down from the times when there were no cameras. For instance, the kings who were sent paintings of their brides. Or would pay the best artist to go to a faraway country just to paint the portrait of that ruler out of curiosity about what he looked like. And for me, it’s a pleasure to see someone striving to do something perfectly.

6

filagrey t1_iuf0t7h wrote

Even stranger, when the top comments are like "wow, I thought it was a photo, amazing art".

5

theavengedCguy t1_iufkuus wrote

Because it takes an incredible amount of skill to do? Not everything has to be "artistic" for the sake of being "artistic". Sometimes it's about just flexing and showing off what you can do like anything else in life.

4

kagamiseki t1_iug3yb9 wrote

These days, the drawing an exact likeness doesn't have as much point, but the underlying skill certainly does.

If you can legitimately draw photorealism (as opposed to sectioning and carefully copying a photo), then it represents a deep understanding of how natural phenomena affect form, the consequences of physics anatomy on body shape, and how shape affects light and perception.

Mastery of these concepts is prerequisite to creation of new works. How does having wings change a character's anatomy? Extra arms? How do you create buildings that look plausible yet alien? How do you create new garments that have believable textures and draping? Skills that are useful for cinema, for design, for editing.

The photorealistic drawing itself is probably of little artistic value, but it's a step towards creating realities that don't exist.

4

cchap22 t1_iugn1ie wrote

It's fun to feel like a dumbass sometimes. Like huh, I totally thought that was a photo... Maybe my 5 divorces really were my fault.. huh yanno 🤷

1

artbykabirhirani OP t1_iuhf0lo wrote

I just enjoy detailing haha, plus an advantage with having the object with me is that I get to add details that I can see under the magnifying glass but the camera could not capture, due to issues like autofocus, etc

2

TheDoom398 t1_iufny6o wrote

I don‘t know how you would consider this photorealistic.

0