It happened to me several times here on dA to not believe my eyes. But it is one thing to be amazed at the masterpieces, in front of real talent and dedication,the other is wondering why no one has cast doubt on the authenticity of the works of some artist.With a little research on google I found two very useful articles of two colleagues (admins of groups) that I propose to read:
Fake art - why care and what to look forI posted this last week for anyone looking for help to spot fake art. This is not law, if you don't care, feel free to move on. But if you do care that there are fakers out there, then maybe this could be of some use to you too. We have a serial faker on the loose on dA today so it sparked this little lot once more.
So, the questions/scenarios asked are always the same and the responses/justifications are always the same, but give them a minute to sink in before replying and insulting.
(Q1) Why do you care if someone is cheating what does it have to do with you?
(A1) Well, this is a public ART site and if people are submitting art that is not actually what they claim it to be, then they are dishonest. This will annoy some people and not others. If your passionate about your work then the chances are you'll find it insulting to the artistic community as a whole. Additionally, a lot of admins of groups HAVE to deal with fakes as a daily occure
Fake art by Natmorley!Hi my friends!
Yep, another Journal about :iconnatmorley:
This is not meant to start a witchhunt, immature harrassment on her profile won't help anything!
Regarding her latest Journal, I asked some questions.
I wonder if she'll answer any of them... Of course, she didn't answer them
So, what's the fuss about her?
Her drawings are fake, simply as that.
How could you tell?
She makes a scribbly drawing and overlays the original photo in PS to make the shading, hair etc. look better. (OR she prints out the photo and scribbles over it, whatsoever...)
You can always make out some "ghosty shadows" in her works, these are the remainings of the original photo that she just couldn't hide properly.
Is there any proof?
Here's a older drawing of her (which she already deleted ) where you can clearly
Why should I even care Like many others I've see artworks that are too much & too perfect , but fake: a source of discouragement for the new talents, which dishonors the entire community.Similar artists deceive fans and buyers (often at great expense ) their " works" . It is not always easy to distinguish the original from a fake artwork, because these users work for a lot of time doing fake work . They become better and better , but in the wrong things. They may have been driven to so by a desperate desire for fame and by the slowness in improving the technique with traditional methods. What do you think ?
I'm not writing this because I'm jealous of those who can copy photos so hyper-realistic. I admire and try to learn from those who know how to do it, but I will never dare tto put in question what they do, because in their jobs I recognize the authenticity , hours of work and a gradual improvement , things that are not seen in the gallery of some artists .
Let's try together to recognize the " masterpieces of fake !" I tell you some criteria that might help and you could you suggest artists that you think are not sincere to be assessed together in order to escape deception
- In their gallery there are works of quality highly superior to the previous ones with a short interval of time away.
- No post of WIP or livestream .
- Do not create original things , but copied from photoes or collage of photos
- If you juxtapose their work to the original picture ,it fits perfectly ( especially suspicios if hair or defects match up)
- They can not logically explain their improvement .
- Do not know how to give technical advice or describe the materials and techniques they use
- The tutorials are highly inferior quality to the work that normally charge
- They have many works that would require much more time than they put into it .
Many has already spoken of examples of cheating, but I have not seen much discussion on the case Amro0
I want to introduce as an example of an artist that could be fake.Hi has many fans and daily deviations and perhaps all of them can not be wrong, but I personally have my doubt . I wish the rest of you or maybe Amro0 rimself would clear it to me if you believe it's necessary. It's not a personal thing and I will be sad and disappointed if it was true that his talent is not entirely natural. ^ ^ '
Now let me explain by what is caused my doubt.
I met this artist a few days ago thanks to this digital drawing (or so it is claimed), which immediately became famous (thanks also to the presence in as many as 20 different groups).
My first instinct impression was to see a photo-manipulation with filters and smudge. Therefore I thought that just got wrong choosing the category. Intrigued, I went to take a look at his gallery and I found three other works uploaded more or less at the same time work with the same technique. I wanted to see some tutorials, but I found that the only drawing (and not foto-correction/manipulation) were these, which areclearly differ from the quality of the designs that is posting.
Also I bought the journal in which he published this
poor tutorial (NO VIDEOS/LIVESTREEM FOUND)
Also while brousing past works I've only found photomanipulation amro0.deviantart.com/gallery/?…
these two not digital paintings that you can judge by yourself ^_^''''''':
He himself explains like this
I do not understand yet how it went to change from a photomanipulation to real digital drawings. He explains it this way:"This my new technique.. now I can do paintings and even photomiupulation as well...
I hope my latest artworks you like them all" (quote from one of comments below this artwork)
To me it seemed justa mockery,more then new technique.
To see how much can be plausible my theory, I tried to change myself the original photos which he usedabove
It only took me 5 minutes, a couple of filters, selective variation of the individual colors and brush fading ..
Then there was this one, which made me suspicious with the soft edge right where you would see as he should draw a single hair (which most likely would fit too perfectly with the original)This
is how I elaborated it with a few moves in a quarter of an hour and with little effort. If you have time and desire with a tiny fade brush e you can adjust all the hair ...
Finally I got one of those paintings that seem too identical to the original with that regards the proportions and details (hair, clothes decorations , etc. . ), BUT at the same time there are mistakes flaws as unexplained patches of green / purple there are in the source photo and exactly where whey are in the photo, and not blurred or pixelated areas too contrary to the details that he cares so much in other areas , evidence of use of contrasts / burns / remove saturation ect. I'm not so expert and I'm not as used to do it like Amro0 ( he has done 658 drawings. yeah, so many .. must work day and night , huh ? :/ ), but I can say that it is impossible to obtain exactly superimposed images pixel by pixel if not by only tracing or drawing over the original. Do you agree ?
Here's the painting I'm talking about: Here
I've found the original photo. This
is how it appearsif you correct light and colours a bit.Here is how it comes out after working it with blur and with additional hair.
Note that (apart from the fact that he often responds with the same copy / pasted sentence )he do not want the others to know who are the women,where the photos are took from, so we don't make comparisons with the original photo.Screenshot of the comments here
With this painting has not had similar problems since it portrays a private photo. In fact, he doesn't blur the area where you see the individual hairs.
If you think I'm wrong or if you have other evidence in my favor, you are free to comment.
I hope Amro0 will soon respond with a plausible video tutorial or even better a livestream. = )