View Full Version : Character: Bruce Lee

08 August 2003, 04:30 AM
Hello! Great place you have here! I've decided I would like to share my recent work. Bruce Lee was completed between Adobe Photoshop and Painter.

It is a litte messy because I intended to do a background, and planned on doing refinement at the end, however I've since had second thoughts and decided to leave the background white for simplicity. Any thoughts?

08 August 2003, 05:41 AM
Wow! Impressive! :eek:
I dont think you should keep the white background. At least make it some neutral tone, this is degrading your image.
Did you use reference?
Could you explain the technique you used?

08 August 2003, 05:59 AM
omg!!!!!!dude you're the greatest:buttrock: :buttrock:

congratulations you won the cg talk award.....hehehhehe you surely deserve one man!!! show more of your work

luved your style!!!i think the white background fits the drawing nicely (i think so)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

08 August 2003, 06:02 AM
good job...that blood look like true!!

08 August 2003, 06:08 AM
Thank you.

I started with a sketch in Painter using the pencil tool, using a still frame from the movie Enter The Dragon as reference. I then did some very very rough colouring using the pastels in Painter, then followed that up with some heavy blender brush work. I then took it into Adobe Photoshop for some refinement using the smudge brushes, and some colour/contrast adjustments

I have started a background, If it's finished tomorrow I'll show you an update picture here. I'm still not sure which I prefer yet.

I should have posted this in the WIP thread. Is there anyway to move it?

08 August 2003, 08:08 AM
Ok here's the last revision, I didn't spend too long on the background, as I planned to blur it out to add to the depth of field.

08 August 2003, 12:48 PM

I Can't believe it's painting. Looks just like picture.
Good Job.

Can U give me some tip of painting skill? I'd like know how U paint hair & Blood.



08 August 2003, 01:19 PM
NNIce :applause: :applause:

BUt one thing the "right thumb lookes strange"

BUT THIS IS SOOOO :buttrock: :buttrock:

08 August 2003, 01:28 PM
is this your reference?

the small image couldnt be clicked on google (404) so i dont have the large one. sorry.

EDIT: damn, i have to fix it. i didnt work

EDIT2: now then :)

08 August 2003, 02:00 PM
I'll go out on a limb here and say this is a touched up photo.

The work in progress stages look like a reversed engineered photo to me rather than actual stages you took to get the final result. Those lines haven't been hand drawn... they look like a 'find edges' type filter rather than the lines one would sketch. The 2nd stage image looks slightly posterised, and doesn't seem fitting with an in progress shot.

Maybe I'm wrong. I still like the final image, but I smell a rat.

08 August 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Rorschach
I'll go out on a limb here and say this is a touched up photo.

The work in progress stages look like a reversed engineered photo to me rather than actual stages you took to get the final result. Those lines haven't been hand drawn... they look like a 'find edges' type filter rather than the lines one would sketch. The 2nd stage image looks slightly posterised, and doesn't seem fitting with an in progress shot.

Maybe I'm wrong. I still like the final image, but I smell a rat.

i totaly agree the wip images make it realy smelly ..

it looks like a paint over to me sorry

08 August 2003, 02:37 PM
Hmmm...I am afraid I will have to concur. Nice smudgework though. Notice his left arm/hand and the white areas around it....layers should have helped to avoid this when creating the background. Looks like the foreground/background were seperated with a selection tool and the smudging resulted in the white aura. :rolleyes: Sorry if i'm wrong....

08 August 2003, 02:39 PM
wow, that's amazing, it's so damn real :buttrock:

08 August 2003, 02:56 PM
I thought it was a Photo! Excellent work!

08 August 2003, 03:11 PM
Have to agree on the paint-over issue... The "reference" posted by spm is, well, hmm... The background too is a perfect match, so to speak. And oddly enough, all the images of Bruce Lee at that Google image search finds have mysteriously disappeared from the server.

My humble apologies if this is a mistake somehow, but I doubt it...

08 August 2003, 03:19 PM
I'm glad people are finally speaking up about this. I've seen a great many "paintings" that are posted on here that scream doctored photo but I never make the comment myself. I usually just keep going and leave karma to catch up with them. This one immediately did it because the brushstrokes are too even and controlled. It was done to keep the color close to where it was in the original photo to retain the image presentation. Give him time he may trace out the photo to give you a pencil sketch like I've seen others do to give the look of WIP. Just my 2 cents.


08 August 2003, 03:23 PM
bruce lee ! wow but.. theres fiew mistakes.

08 August 2003, 03:33 PM
i love the image

2 things there are 50,000 plus members on cgtalk heaps are the worlds foremost artists and digital artists. Before accusing someone of having faked there work give them the benifit of the doubt. It is highly possible that the person is very skilled its not OUT of the question i've seen some pretty amazing stuff.

On the second note
lol 50,000 members if the worlds foremost artists think a works a fake it probably is but if you aren't qualified to judge you just think its to good to be true then don't say anything i'm giving the artist the benifit of the doubt and saying good job its amazing

*having refence material doesn't mean its a forge it means the artist is doing there research and google images has alot of pictures sites on there always go down now and then*

08 August 2003, 03:49 PM
elmO - lol and if you are accusing someone of being lol less qualified then you should at least have the guts to speak up about who you are referring to. Particularly if you are trying to insinuate that someone is stupid enough not to realise that everything found by google isn't always available.

Capt. Ney
08 August 2003, 05:05 PM
nice filter work :rolleyes:

08 August 2003, 06:46 PM
huummm, looks like your mind is already made up then.

Eitherway, the painting was done by first using a speckled brush, laying down two toned colours very very roughly, then using a blender to blend them through each other. The background is very very messy, however it was going to be blurred out, so I didnt have to worry too much about details like the relfection in the mirror.

The quality of the images attached may not be good because I wanted to to be actual size, so I had to take the quality right down.

08 August 2003, 06:59 PM
there is clearly some jpg distortion behind the much clearer strokes. or is it smudge? this is not due to the image quality.

my tip is that this is a photo manipulation. take a small pic, enlarge it and smudge it out and roughly fill in some small details.

prove me wrong and i will truly apologize.

08 August 2003, 07:45 PM
first is the filtered version of one of his paintings i did, marked with "FILTERED", then comes the supposed sketch (which was obviously also filtered), marked with "SKETCH"

08 August 2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by spm
prove me wrong and i will truly apologize


08 August 2003, 10:23 PM
LOL, bad idea posting the detail.

Everyone knows what jpeg compression looks like at 300% magnification. Putting the strokes over it doesn't help conceal that fact, and in the places where you did a lot of "painting," the image is blurry. Maybe you should've just left the "spekcles," and don't a 33% size reduction to "tighten" it up :shame:

08 August 2003, 10:59 PM
Firstly, lets not turn this into another witch hunt!

If I'm honest It looks like photo doctoring to me too, it doesn't have that 'hand painted' look, and the progress stages which are shown don't look authentic at all. I agree that the sketch image looks distinctly 'filter' based, and that the large images you've posted appear to have paint stokes over a pixelated (enlarged/over compressed) image.

Perhaps PoseidonLee would post his reference photo. I'd expect to see significant variations in tonal range between the photo and the painting, as well as slight proportion errors on a hand/eye copied image. Perhaps some larger work in progress pictures of the sketching, or that 2nd stage picture. Perhaps you have some other work we can see?

I'm playing devils advocate here a little, but as a whole the people here don't mind how work is created, they just rather the creators were honest about that. Strike being the most obvious example of this going a little too far recently.

At the end of the day no one died, it doesn't really matter, but people on this board are meticulous about this sort of stuff especially with newcomers when things don't quite add up...


08 August 2003, 11:26 PM
Look, let's be honest, tracing/painting over a photo isn't art. By posting it here, it is insulting to every member, from the paid pro, to the 15 year old posting his first sketch which he is so proud of and wants feedback on.

It's insulting to us, and insulting to the person posting it. I guess part of reaching 50,000 members is the sad fact that we will have more of this crap polluting the boards. :thumbsdow

09 September 2003, 12:04 AM
i just think its sad people still make these copy's when they know they will be spotted in 5 min ..

09 September 2003, 12:53 AM
I don't know if this is a touched up photo or not.

If it was, and the artist said so, it would still be art, just a different kind of art.

Remember, Warhol made a million $'s that way :)

09 September 2003, 01:15 AM
Are you comparing the conceptual work of Warhol to a paint over of a Bruce Lee photo?

The greatness of Andy Warhol may be debatable if you aren't into that kind of thing, but seriously, come on :)

09 September 2003, 01:25 AM
i don't see what's this all for..i mean is it abvious that it's a paint over..well i don't think's not there's no need to acuse him when u guys not sure..
the brushes looks like it's made from scratch especially after the close up he showed..
and i've seen many many good just because propotions are good and it looks real that doesn't mean it's paint over..

i might be worng..but i won't start calling it crap when i'm not even sure..

i would say,please post your reference photo..a bigger picture than the one SPM posted of course..

09 September 2003, 02:02 AM
Come on people. You scared the guy away. Click this link and relax. ( you'll need earphones) (

09 September 2003, 12:07 PM
Nice work.
But my only crit' is that the dark brushes under his nose,made me believe in a first time that he had a "I don't know the word in english".
Something that all men have under the nose, if not shaving very often...
Hands are not perfect.
But the head :thumbsup: .
Another one ?

09 September 2003, 05:52 PM
Hmm... :)

Warhol is not my favorite artist. Getting into a debate about his talents would be silly.

All I'm saying is that I see a lot of artisitic snobbery here at CGTalk sometimes. If someone took a photo and touched it up and modified it heavily, then that is an art form. Regardless of what more "pure" artists may think. It is just a different kind.

Of course doing this and then claiming instead to have drawn everything by hand is as mis-leading as creating a 3D image that uses someone elses model and claiming it was yours. You may have done a great job in lighting, composition, and texturing and ended up with a kick-ass image, but you only created the final image, not the initial model. You must give credit to everyone involved.

09 September 2003, 01:08 AM
I jus cant believe what all can people do jus to get a little fame.This is clearly a paintover...And then He has this brilliant idea to post the detail shots which goes one step further in Cementing the doubts.
I mean hello! There are 50000...(Oh I mean,100,000) eyes watching you here and many are the masters of the trade...If you think you can carry it off... Its like walking with strap on explosives into JFK international terminal and expecting to go through successfully!

09 September 2003, 02:10 AM, theres a lotta heat in this thread.:rolleyes: i guess how ppl regard art or wats original is very subjective...The dude may not have been right to claim it as original stuff, but i guess, hey, he's new, so c'mon...just chill n have a bud! Cheers all! :beer:

09 September 2003, 02:46 AM
The pose and context for the pic isn't original, but the art is. You all yell on about how it's "obviously" a paint over when you have absolutely no proof. You think it's a paint over? Prove it!

I've seen alot of work like this. Some of it IS paint over, but some of it isn't. I personally believe that this one is NOT a paint over. Using a reference pic and painting a picture like this isn't a new concept. I have a friend over a DeviantArt who does work like this. I've even seen all his WIP pics. Check it out: deviantART: adonihs (

What this guy probably did was take a picture or movie screenshot, and trace a skeleton or outline of the great Mr. Lee and just just filled in the rest himself, as his WIP picture shows.

This community has frequent witch hunts. It's actually kinda sad.

09 September 2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by soatari

This community has frequent witch hunts. It's actually kinda sad.

Not only that, it scares the artist off without a chance to explain his/her procedures, because they most likely feel timid after being accused without fact, I'm currently thinking of a way to bring this to a minimum. Sorry for this PoseidonLee I don't blame you for staying away. I'm closing this thread until further notice. PoseidonLee don't let this stop you from posting more works, just make sure next time you show more than just your finished piece if it's off this nature.