Comments on: 15 Unbelievable Photo-realistic Vector Illustrations

By: Maquetador wordpress

Maquetador wordpress — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:14:11 +0000

Really nice photos

By: Arts Stock

Arts Stock — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:10:51 +0000

Here you can find Photo-realistic Vector Drawings – http://vector.artsstock.com/page/search/tags/photo-realistic

By: Vectips Monthly Roundup - August | Vectips

Vectips Monthly Roundup - August | Vectips — Fri, 21 May 2010 18:30:10 +0000

[...] 15 Unbelievable Photo-realistic Vector Illustrations [...]

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:47:52 +0000

Tracing a photograph is not all that incredibly exciting. Great, they can copy photos with Illustrator. Why not just snap the photo and be done with it.

These guys go to a lot of trouble just to get the photo they started out with. I fail to see what is amazing.

Anyone can trace something, the real artists are the ones that can draw things without tracing and come up with something totally new vs. copying what is already there.

By: Tom - Website Design Bristol

Tom - Website Design Bristol — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:19:56 +0000

WOW, I don’t often say this but these are truly breathe taking! I do a bit of illustration myself and can see the effort these must of taken. Illustrators don’t get the respect they deserve!

By: D.A.T

D.A.T — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:10:16 +0000

WOW! impressive work Seth.

By: Seth

Seth — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:17:17 +0000

this is the blog post that inspired me to do my own. I owe my original interest to Nielsen and his motorcycle illustrations.

here is my own vector photorealism (@60hrs) http://blog.sethteeters.net/post/285219223/vector-photorealism-by-seth-teeters

By: Nicola Connolly

Nicola Connolly — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:34:14 +0000

Absolutely amazing work! It’s an inspiration to see such high quality photo-realistic illustration. I would be really interested to know how long each of these images took the artist/designer to complete. Are most of them based on photographs? If so, it would be brilliant to see the illustration next to the original photograph to compare and contrast the atmospheric qualities/reveal the techniques used. Fantastic collection, thanks for sharing.

By: shadhe

shadhe — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:44:32 +0000

You’re twisting my words.
i did NOT say they were not art,
i said they were NOT photo-realistic!

Also, you are an idiot, the only time i said the word NEED was when i said you don’t need to cal them photo-realistic for them to be quality work. DO YOU EVEN READ BEFORE REPLYING?!

By: Great art, eye popping

Great art, eye popping — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:54:38 +0000

Wow wonderful, awesome. hard to believe.

Shadhe give some not so sensible arguments. True art does not need to be realistic to be called art but that argument does not support anything you said. After all there are a lot of art that is realistic.

If they are too perfect that is because of how the artist portray them and don’t take them to “creating headache if they are real” imagine how more headache we would get if abstract arts is the real thing. If they would be if they are real, you don’t need to cause they are not.

“Take a photo quicker and easier” and ugly. First since they are not photo it gives the artist more freedom. Real photos would not be able to achieve some effects this art have especially the very clean surfaces.

“But was it necessary” n,o but same thing could be said to other arts. Is it necessary to do it abstractly? Is it necessary to have supper heroes in comics? Is it necessary to have this overly decorated Louis XI chair? NO! But then we want to express ourselves. If all art is just abstract… it would be plain dull. Please don’t look at this in practical terms for they don’t need to be practical, look at them in artistic terms, as a work of art.

So in this argument they are masters. They had poured their time and attention to perfect their skills, just like real masters do. They don’t try to fit to others ideas and ideals. They have they’re own and stick to it. Its important for artist to have their own identity.