I take hours upon hours to make realistic (Completely digitally created) images. I throw them through more programs than I care to admit and I also use far to many filters, creating the most realistic photo-like picture I can.

This is 3 of my pictures that I would be posting:
http://i.imgur.com/TecztG0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FACz0nx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4swU4XY.jpg

All of my creations take days to make, and I'm sure you can see the level of detail I try to put into it despite failing at certain times. (See the ugly joints between metal on the windows, I don't think that looks good enough but the thing took a month to make so... not willing to change that much now that it's done)

Remember please that these are all digital images, none of them have ever come in contact with a real camera or real scenery it's all created by programs on computers. I'm aiming for hyper-realism but it's not THAT good)

So I'm not sure if this it the type of art you accept here? I have a couple images stacked up ready to upload but I don't know if they will all be taken down for not being furry art or something to that extent.

Do you only accept furry/fantasy art here or are my creations allowed to be posted as well?

No way those aren't photos. That is astonishing work! I don't think those would be approved, sadly.

Holy fuckin' shit son...
That's balls-out impressive...sadly this really ain't the place for these.
But I dunno, talk to a mod or something, cuz I can totes mcgoats fap to the extreme quality of these pieces.

I would never have been able to guess any of that by looking at these photos/nonphotos(?). So I'm going to guess no, probably not the place for those. They look just like photos, and not very crisp ones at that. They also don't seem to have a real focal point, or central purpose to what they're taken of, feeling more like general landscape or random amateur photography. So while you're describing an awful lot of work, I don't think they'd probably be appreciated or understood here. But we'll see what a mod says. I don't have any say in what pictures get approved or non-approved, so I might be missing something here.

And if it's a no-go here, I'm sure you can find a lot of other places that have a more computer-generated-art focus. Whatever you're doing would probably get a better reception in a community based around some of the same art medium(s) that you're using and be better understood there. Assuming you're not just trolling.

furrypickle said:
Big paragraph.

Well it's not really supposed to have a focal point, it's just to test my ability to make detail in everything not just one small part.

Unfortunately if I give myself something to focus on. (Example being the play set in the one picture) I often focus too greatly on it, and the rest of the picture suffers. So I compensate for that by making it important to fill out the entire picture properly in order for it to look good.

And the lack of crisp detail in the pictures is from the many filters I throw it through to give it a proper photo look. At least, for most mediocre cameras it looks like that.

EOTech said:
[more information]...And the lack of crisp detail in the pictures is from the many filters I throw it through to give it a proper photo look. At least, for most mediocre cameras it looks like that.

Well my brain cannot be convinced it's not just a regular photo from a mediocre camera. Because that is exactly what it looks like to me. So I guess that could be taken as a huge compliment and sign of success on your part. I don't mean to minimise if it really takes as much effort as you're describing. I just find it hard to believe it's not just a photo.

I've also never seen anything similar to that stay on here, so I think you'll probably need to find a site that has a more computer-generated-art bend to it. They'd probably better appreciate all the work that went into it as well. Which, I'd imagine, would be more satisfying to share your hard work in places where other people have worked in the medium themselves and understand it. But that's just my two cents.

In any case, best of luck in your art! I just would not have the patience to build one picture up over a month of work using a computer like that. I'd go cross-eyed.

furrypickle said:
I've also never seen anything similar to that stay on here, so I think you'll probably need to find a site that has a more computer-generated-art bend to it. They'd probably better appreciate all the work that went into it as well. Which, I'd imagine, would be more satisfying to share your hard work in places where other people have worked in the medium themselves and understand it.

I have been on those sites before, but all they ever do is complain about one tiny thing and it annoys the hell out of me.

Plus furrys are always fun to look at.

Draw some stick figure furries doing it in a corner somewhere and you're good to go.

Halite said:
Draw some stick figure furries doing it in a corner somewhere and you're good to go.

I've been working on doing a very realistic furry picture, but I keep putting it off because I just can't get the damn fur right. It's been in the works for over 3 months so perhaps one day you'll see that. When I'm done procrastinating that is.

EOTech said:
I've been working on doing a very realistic furry picture, but I keep putting it off because I just can't get the damn fur right. It's been in the works for over 3 months so perhaps one day you'll see that. When I'm done procrastinating that is.

Detailed fur is crazy hard, that's why most artists just do shaded skin instead.
If you get it right though people love it.

Halite said:
Detailed fur is crazy hard, that's why most artists just do shaded skin instead.
If you get it right though people love it.

That's why I'm taking my time.

Well these are quite nice. =^.^=

Wow @3

You should make an entirely faked UFO photo

They aren't bad but this site isn't the proper place for them.

Try imgur.com though, they probably like those, especially if you throw in some wips to show them that they are renders and not photographs.

NotMeNotYou said:
They aren't bad but this site isn't the proper place for them.

Try imgur.com though, they probably like those, especially if you throw in some wips to show them that they are renders and not photographs.

I'm assuming posting the furry picture I'm working on will be fine however?

I would make these more often, but it's so time consuming.

Quite obviously photos.

EOTech said:
I'm assuming posting the furry picture I'm working on will be fine however?

I would make these more often, but it's so time consuming.

Sure, those would be fine. Also, if you want fur have a look at pixar, they know what they're doing with fur and may even have made something useful in this direction for you.

NotMeNotYou said:
Try imgur.com though, they probably like those, especially if you throw in some wips to show them that they are renders and not photographs.

Can I second this idea? I have to admit, seeing some WIP shots for one of those would be really interesting. I've always found the behind-the-scenes side of things fascinating, getting a glimpse of what goes into something, seeing how it evolves as it's built into the finished project, etc. So I think seeing some WIP shots of something like this would be really cool.

NotMeNotYou said:
Sure, those would be fine. Also, if you want fur have a look at pixar, they know what they're doing with fur and may even have made something useful in this direction for you.

Yea no kidding Pixar constantly goes all out on fur.

furrypickle said:
Can I second this idea? I have to admit, seeing some WIP shots for one of those would be really interesting. I've always found the behind-the-scenes side of things fascinating, getting a glimpse of what goes into something, seeing how it evolves as it's built into the finished project, etc. So I think seeing some WIP shots of something like this would be really cool.

Most of the time my projects are split up. An hour here, 10 minutes there. 6 straight hours here, another 7 straight hours the next day then all of the sudden no activity for 2-3 days then back to half an hour or so. Which makes recording the process rather difficult.

I was intending to do it with the glass door post that's linked above, but I kept forgetting to record each step. My intention was to create a time-lapse of it but I'm apparently very forgetful.

You can find plenty of people who do actually dedicate the time to recording all of it, but for now I don't have one as I just haven't organized myself properly.

If someone with a strange fetish for really good art sees this, tissues will be required.

Man you guys are gullible.

Wyvrn said:
Man you guys are gullible.

Or, are you?

Halite said:
Or, are you?

Or, are they? Are we? Or do we?

These are made in 3d rendering programs, not painter programs.

They could be photos but I doubt it since the light, refractions, and translucence of things are happening in subtly-impossible ways.

The thing about these images is that, you might as well have just taken a photograph since there isn't anything unusual or original happening in the picture. But pretending like you made this in a painter program and that you have the same abilities as a master painter/drawer is misleading at best.

This is a CIA plot to discredit users

Those are photos

Ozelot said:
These are made in 3d rendering programs, not painter programs.

They could be photos but I doubt it since the light, refractions, and translucence of things are happening in subtly-impossible ways.

Yes, 3D rendering takes a big part of it, but most of it is done with an endless list of painter programs. Literally 1/4 of my harddrive is freaking art programs ranging from the simple "Sketchbook Express" which is basically useless, to Photoshop CS6.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
If someone with a strange fetish for really good art sees this, tissues will be required.

Can't say I've met anyone like that. But I'm sure someone out there would do it.

could you give work in progress shots because i find it really difficult to believe that these are not photos

Mutisija said:
could you give work in progress shots because i find it really difficult to believe that these are not photos

I'll be releasing a full time lapse of the entire process soon, I'll make sure to link it here once it's done so you can see. However the timelapse tho sped up will still be close to 40 minutes if not longer due to how long it takes to make these. I expect the timelapse to reach an hour.

Time lapses are pointless drivel that tell you nothing.

Ozelot said:
Time lapses are pointless drivel that tell you nothing.

It will show you from start to finish the entire process of making it. How does that tell you nothing?

EOTech said:
It will show you from start to finish the entire process of making it. How does that tell you nothing?

Or you can take the easy route of just showing us a couple of unfinished pics

TheHuskyK9 said:
Or you can take the easy route of just showing us a couple of unfinished pics

Alight here is the water post before I fixed up the shoreline in the background and the rest of the water effects.

http://i.imgur.com/8l2RNR7.jpg

The shoreline changed by the time I had finished the picture, this is also before I finished the water ripples at the top left and the bottom right. (That ugly orange glint)

Looks like images edited from photos. You may or may not have made them from scratch, but you're not going to convince me unless I personally see one made sometime.

If you did as you say, congrats. If you didn't, boo.

That's all I'll say on the subject since the original question was answered some time ago.

The fact that not all of you have seen this obvious bluff for what it is yet have me doubting the E6 community as a whole.

Not buying it.

Those are photographs.

EOTech said:
It will show you from start to finish the entire process of making it. How does that tell you nothing?

Because time lapses move so fast you can't see anything?

I don't understand how people think that something that takes many hours can be compressed into a single hour, and that you'll be able to see everything when it's moving at 100000x fps. The majority of what is happening gets removed between the frames of the video.

EOTech said:
Alight here is the water post before I fixed up the shoreline in the background and the rest of the water effects.

http://i.imgur.com/8l2RNR7.jpg

The shoreline changed by the time I had finished the picture, this is also before I finished the water ripples at the top left and the bottom right. (That ugly orange glint)

I meant noticeable unfinished work (line art, sketches, rough drafts, etc.) Something that can make you more credible

Nyteshade said:
Looks like images edited from photos. You may or may not have made them from scratch, but you're not going to convince me unless I personally see one made sometime.

As I said the time lapse will show you the entire process so I'll make sure to link that here as soon as I'm done it.

Ozelot said:
Because time lapses move so fast you can't see anything?

I don't understand how people think that something that takes many hours can be compressed into a single hour

Yes it will have to be moving incredibly fast, I'm probably going to do another water-based one because otherwise the project could take me more time to complete then would be realistic to put in a time lapse. The lapse may well be over an hour it may be over 2 hours I don't know yet.

Again, I will post a link here as soon as I'm done it. But as of yet I have not even begun work on it. Do not expect any new updates on a time lapse creation for probably a week or more.

Peekaboo said:
The fact that not all of you have seen this obvious bluff for what it is yet have me doubting the E6 community as a whole.

I have seen some 3d art that looks photorealistic like this. It's very cutting edge stuff, but to my knowledge no 2d painter programs are involved in the making of it.

OP's general vagueness and unsubstantiated claims really call it into question.

Ozelot said:
I have seen some 3d art that looks photorealistic like this. It's very cutting edge stuff, but to my knowledge no 2d painter programs are involved in the making of it.

OP's general vagueness and unsubstantiated claims really call it into question.

As for the other photorealistic artists, you can take some look at the people who do the same stuff I do on paper or with regular paint.

My general vagueness is because in my experience giving details never really helps peoples doubts. People always have doubts everywhere I go with this stuff. And it sucks they do but it's no longer become a concern of mine. Hence my lack of reaction to all the comments above that say. "Obviously photos"

But if you really want at least some detail.

I create the scenes in 3D render programs first that already look incredibly realistic on their own. At which point I take a picture of it and I move it to my various other programs where I paint over the things that don't look real enough to me. That means removing unrealistic shine from things and blurring lines that are too sharp.

It would be so easy to be skeptical, because it's unlikely and no matter what the truth turns out to be, by taking the skeptical route I still wouldn't look like a fool. But on the other hand it's an area I know almost zilch about, so I wouldn't know either way. And I like giving people the benefit of the doubt. This makes me conflicted, polite but skeptical, unsure what to even say. I suspect that goes for a lot of people on this thread. It's easier to assume troll, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

At this point, all I can say for sure is 1, these look convincingly like low-quality photos. If you actually put an obscene of amount of work into making them look that way, then congratulations. You've definitely succeeded. And that is impressive.

And 2, by comparing them I can tell at least one of the two water pictures you've posted has been edited by some program. Maybe both have been edited. Maybe this is a bored prankster who shopped up a WIP for "proof" to keep the joke going. I really don't know. I'll probably never know.

I don't think the e621 community is stupid. I think most people just don't want to minimize what might be a legitimate achievement, but also don't want to look like fools because of a troll. As a result, we've gotten every single reaction in the book. That's just plain understandable. At this point it's hard to tell for sure what exactly is going on. And I hate giving what might be a real artist a hard time just because I don't want to think a troll might be getting one over on me. /just my two cents so far

they're still just photos

EOTech said:
As for the other photorealistic artists, you can take some look at the people who do the same stuff I do on paper or with regular paint

Nobody does perfect, undetectable photorealism on paper in traditional mediums. There are always signs of the medium that can be picked out by the trained eye.

I think the issue here has more to do with how OP is presenting this, rather than the art itself. It's like they're going out of their way to be vague and avoid giving direct details of the process that shows these things aren't fake. They then go on to make bold statements that seem unfounded like "You can do this on paper!" or "I'll just do a timelapse to show me ENTIRE process, I'll have one in a few weeks!"

All it does is make me lose interest. Photorealism in art is pretty boring any way you look at it, but when it's given a boring presentation then who cares?

furrypickle said:
And 2, by comparing them I can tell at least one of the two water pictures you've posted has been edited by some program. Maybe both have been edited. Maybe this is a bored prankster who shopped up a WIP for "proof" to keep the joke going. I really don't know. I'll probably never know.

Well it's nearly done in the image I posted, so all you really see is the rough sketch part of each small aspect. (Shoreline, top left water reflections/ripples and the bottom right water reflections/ripples.) It's nearly done, so of course it looks like that.

That being said.

Yes, you have indeed seen every reaction in the book. This is not the first image site to have 4-5+ users gang up on me, and I'm positive it won't be the last either.

I'm always skeptical going to any new site to post my stuff because half the population of any site will go after me for no good reason. There are actually occasions where I make something really really good but I can't post it because I know if I do all I'll get for it is bullshit.

I think at this point I'm done replying on this thread because after a few years of replying to people like the ones in this thread I just don't have the energy to argue any further.

I can't post my art here, so you guys don't need to see it. So I don't understand why you need to keep giving me shit about it but okay, go ahead.

EOTech said:
Well it's nearly done in the image I posted, so all you really see is the rough sketch part of each small aspect. (Shoreline, top left water reflections/ripples and the bottom right water reflections/ripples.) It's nearly done, so of course it looks like that.

That being said.

Yes, you have indeed seen every reaction in the book. This is not the first image site to have 4-5+ users gang up on me, and I'm positive it won't be the last either.

I'm always skeptical going to any new site to post my stuff because half the population of any site will go after me for no good reason. There are actually occasions where I make something really really good but I can't post it because I know if I do all I'll get for it is bullshit.

I think at this point I'm done replying on this thread because after a few years of replying to people like the ones in this thread I just don't have the energy to argue any further.

I can't post my art here, so you guys don't need to see it. So I don't understand why you need to keep giving me shit about it but okay, go ahead.

??

As far as I've seen, we can't believe you because they look like real photos. Maybe you're doing an excellent work, investing your time and effort with every one. Like TheHuskyK9 said: maybe some insights that show how you do, say your current project, might change our minds.

Just chill, dude. We aren't attacking you...

Xch3l said:
Just chill, dude. We aren't attacking you...

I know, but I have this exact same argument happening on 2 other sites at the moment as well so I just want to get one off the list. So dismissing this thread is best.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Those are photos

Agreed. I smell attention-whoring.

EOTech said:
I know, but I have this exact same argument happening on 2 other sites at the moment as well so I just want to get one off the list. So dismissing this thread is best.

No one is arguing here, we just want to know how do you make stuff like that with proof

Slapping a grainy filter over a few photographs you took with a camera does not equal art. You can even see where you tried to blur out the camera info in the corner. Attention-whoring, bullshitting, whatever it is, we're over it.

Okay, okay. I think we've all made our point.

EOTech, your question was answered within the first few responses. Feel free to post progress pics in the meantime, but non-furry-centric art doesn't really have a place on e621 at this time.