Art and Design | iPad | News

The Most Photorealistic iPad Painting Ever Created? — VIDEO


Watch British artist Kyle Lambert's creation as it comes to life and be amazed.

Lambert made it with the Procreate app, the NYDN reports:

Some have called into question the image’s authenticity, skeptical that a portrait can be recreated with such stunning detail. Lambert has sent the file into the Procreate development team so that they can verify the entire painting was done from scratch, he said.

Lambert said he hopes his viral recreation will inspire a new generation of app artists that will see their tablets and phones as a blank canvas.

“Just with an iPad and the touch screen technology, you can do cool things,” Lambert said. “The more people that understand they can do that, the better.”


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I didn't understand that. How was it done with fingers?

    Posted by: UFFDA | Dec 4, 2013 9:26:56 AM

  2. It's amazingly life-like, an impressive technical achievement, but I don't really get the point of it.

    The standard Art History line is that the invention of photography freed artists from realism- they no longer needed to strive for strict accuracy (or even forms and figures at all) in their paintings because photography could supply that.

    So Kyle Lambert spent 200+ hours making a portrait of Morgan Freeman that looks just like a photo. Why not just take a photo? In fact I think the "painting" is based on an already existing photo so other than demonstrating technical mastery there's really no reason for it at all.

    I'm not downplaying the talent and skill necessary to make this, just questioning the point of it. Artists should (IMO) make art, not attempt to match other technologies.

    Posted by: Caliban | Dec 4, 2013 9:29:37 AM

  3. It would not be that difficult (although very time-consuming) to do what's called a "reveal" using Photoshop's masking techniques so that the final details are revealed rather than painted.

    You could easily separate out the highlights and pin-head-sized details and simply reveal them as you remove the masks, little by little. Even doing that would take some talent, but I don't understand what the point would be. I've worked with Photoshop for years and there's a variety of ways to mimic "painting" this photo. The point here must be notoriety instead of showing actual talent.

    Skill = doing a task extremely well, near perfect

    Talent = skill directed towards creating something unique and new.

    Posted by: johnny | Dec 4, 2013 9:38:33 AM

  4. Still skeptical.

    Posted by: Merv | Dec 4, 2013 9:42:50 AM

  5. Yeah, that looked simple to me...NOT!

    Posted by: kenneth | Dec 4, 2013 9:50:23 AM

  6. I see it more as a technical achievement rather than an artistic one (as noted above, it is basically an exact reproduction of an existing photograph).

    But it is a stunning achievement nonetheless.

    Posted by: Lars | Dec 4, 2013 9:54:11 AM

  7. Umm, that was amazing. Unbelievable that commenters either 1) criticize it as "non-art" or 2) conspiricy theorize that it is a fake. First of all, of course this is meant to be a display of technical achievement: who the f*** wants to hang a pic/painting of morgan freeman in a museum? Secondly, sure it COULD be a fake, but why read any news at all if you are such an unbeliever. Maybe its all fake!

    Posted by: Dave | Dec 4, 2013 10:03:26 AM

  8. The bitter queen commenters who know everything strike again!

    Posted by: WOLF | Dec 4, 2013 10:23:05 AM

  9. Sorry, not bitter here, (how could one be bitter about this? LOL) but I don't like people faking things and then calling them "original art" when they're clearly fakes.

    As a commercial artist who has been working with digital software for nearly two decades and having done 100's of digital retouch jobs on photos... I can tell you with zero doubt that the final image is an exact duplicate, down to each and every pore, mole and hair and their placement. That's simply not possible to do freehand.

    Yes, it's a technical achievement (of sorts) but that's about it.

    Posted by: johnny | Dec 4, 2013 11:13:06 AM

  10. Interesting that this thing just went whooooooooosh right over everybody's head!

    Posted by: jamal49 | Dec 4, 2013 11:41:57 AM

  11. Hear ye, hear ye JAMAL is the only one who gets it! As a low brow he was right in the trajectory.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Dec 4, 2013 11:59:34 AM

  12. What this system might be very useful for is copying images of museum or art gallery objects which may be "protected" - i.e. unavailable for reproduction. You can publish your own renderings of objects, but often not the official photo of same. No longer, perhaps, must you write for permission to use, or pay for same.
    It frees up visual information.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Dec 4, 2013 12:06:44 PM

  13. UFFDA, that's not how copywrite laws work.

    Posted by: Pablo | Dec 4, 2013 12:26:23 PM

  14. PABLO - tell me more. I am putting a book together of specific objects from museum collections and need some guidance.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Dec 4, 2013 2:07:00 PM

  15. I'm reminded of the old cover for Corel Draw. For those who don't know, it's a vector-based drawing program and thus, is more geared toward mathematically-based drawings (lines, circles, gradients, etc.)

    Well, Corel had a contest for artists to show off their stuff. Someone submitted an image of Hedy Lamarr, done completely as a vector image. It's photo-realistic and it impressed Corel so much, they used it as the cover for the software, displacing their iconic hot-air balloon.

    Posted by: Rrhain | Dec 4, 2013 3:39:18 PM

  16. Wow, the guy has really small fingers.

    Posted by: SAYTHETRUHT | Dec 5, 2013 2:04:44 AM

  17. It still looks strangely cold, like Apple's corporate heart.

    Posted by: BrokebackBob | Dec 5, 2013 4:08:53 AM

Post a comment


« «Activist Peter Tatchell Talks to BBC About Tom Daley's Coming Out, Hits the IOC While Doing So: VIDEO« «