

Ralph Goings, Photorealist - ilovecomputers
http://www.ralphlgoings.com/

======
jemka
It's interesting to see his work improve over the years. I imagine the
improvement is in part from the advancements in photography equipment.

What I don't understand is how anyone can draw/paint anything that realistic.
Especially his most recent work. I doubt I would even be able to tell had I
not know that wasn't a photo.

~~~
barrkel
As to technique: I expect he's using a modern version of camera obscura or
similar, using e.g. a projector slide (i.e. non-negative negative) for a base.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lucida>

etc.

~~~
jacquesm
according to this pdf:

<http://www.ralphlgoings.com/downloads/j_parks_article.pdf>

Your 'expectation' is dead on. In a way that's a pity! That way 'painting'
gets reduced to painting over a projection.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism>

It's a strange use of the word 'painting', which to me does not bring an
association with projecting an image on to the canvas with it.

~~~
indigoshift
There's still a lot of talent there. It's not easy to coax that level of
realism out of oils, but it can be done.

However, he's doing a lot of those in watercolors, and getting watercolors to
do that convincingly is (in my experience, anyway) quite a feat.

With that said, I'm usually more partial to more expressive artists--I'm not
fond of the "human Xerox machine" approach to art.

But when the artist does it with this level of technical skill...oh, man.

~~~
jnovek
Agreed 100%. I'm also not a fan of photorealism, but I believe that other
posters in this thread are underestimating the skill of the artist. Especially
now that I realize that he is working in watercolor, which doesn't easily
allow the kind of layering that you can do in acrylic or oil.

------
cpach
It would be interesting to see some of his works in greater detail, eg. using
Gigapan zoom (see <http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=27105> for a
photographic example).

------
volodia
It's a shame that he doesn't paint something more compelling than ketchup.
Photographers can create truly astonishing work based only on what they get
through a lens. With his technique he could produce even more impressive and
thought-provoking images, and that would be worth much more artistically, IMO.

------
dc2k08
My high-school art teacher once questioned painters like these: "why not just
take a photo?"

~~~
asdlfj2sd33
My college art teacher told me these are done by taking a photo, making a
slide out of it, and projecting that slide onto the canvas.

Apparently some of the old master painter used a camera obscura and one might
have even nudged his in the middle of a painting thus moving one of the ears
way out whack in the final painting.

I can't be bothered to google it right now.

And I'm not accusing this guy of doing it that way, but how would you know?

~~~
anigbrowl
That, or projecting it next to the canvas and copying. I don't object to this
technique (in fact, I'm learning towards doing something similar for an art
project I have in mind), but my first reaction to the work of this artist is
that it's banal and suggests a refusal or fear of engaging with the subject in
any meaningful way.

I'm a shy person myself and can relate to not wanting to snap a photo or
sketch overtly, but 'here's what some people look like when they don't know
you're staring' isn't revealing very much of anything.

If you like the hyper-realitic painterly technique but (like me) prefer a more
provocative application of it, you may share my enjoyment of Istvan Sandorfi:
<http://www.fosaw.com/> I can't afford any of his art, but I have spent a few
hundred bucks on buying the catalogs.

------
jacoblyles
It's like someone took a 17th century Dutchman and brought him to 20th century
America.

------
capablanca
He really likes Heinz ketchup

~~~
reginaldo
Can't blame him for that... It's really awesome, isn't it?

