The World's Most Photorealistic Vector Art


If I didn't know it already, I wouldn't discern that the gallery below is made up of drawings. Yes! They are NOT photographs. Vector drawings using gradient mesh to be specific. Except for Bert Monroy, all of the vector art displayed here are 100% made from Adobe Illustrator.

Whether for challenge, or for pushing the boundaries of what the Illustrator can do, or just for the sheer pleasure of creating, these brilliant artists have dazzled, wowed, and amazed me with the pyrotechnic showcasing of their technical mastery.


Male, Canada, Adobe Illustrator


Male, Algeria, Adobe Illustrator


Male, USA, Adobe Illustrator


Male, Japan, Adobe Illustrator


Male, Japan, Adobe Illustrator


Female, Thailand, Adobe Illustrator


Male, Japan, Adobe Illustrator


Male, USA, Adobe Illustrator/Photoshop


Male, Japan, Adobe Illustrator


Male, Sweden, Adobe Illustrator


Female, USA, Adobe Illustrator




  1. Anonymous (29 July, 2006 22:17)


    Anonymous (29 July, 2006 22:26)

    There must be a semi-automatic tool to help this guys do this. If not, i think that is a TON of mouse dragging involved.

    Anonymous (29 July, 2006 22:42)

    I've been doing vector art for a long while.

    Tablets are for drawing, not vector art. It's actually harder to do vector art with a tablet than a mouse since it's so precise.

    Anonymous (29 July, 2006 22:55)

    I agree with jaw dropping. Can't think of anything else to say because it's just impressive.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 00:02)

    do a nude knightley!

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 01:08)

    With the "nude Knightley", yeah, this could go down a a bad direction of false tabloids & such.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 03:48)

    You guys obviously don't understand the benefits of having a vector image over a raster image. If you don't know what the differences are then you should shut up.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 05:52)

    Point worth emphasizing: these are great draftsmen. Not artists.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 06:19)

    Vector art is very useful to me. Not only can it be made to any size without interpolation, it also has other features important to photo manipulation.

    Sometimes painting and cloning only go so far, manipulation vectors however, most people don't notice because of the acurate shading and so on.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 14:24)

    Those were simply beautiful.

    There is just one question. WHY? If you are only copying a pucture why not use the picture?

    Now if that was used for motion pictures or original art, that would be wonderful. It is jaw-dropping that they are all computer generated but do something original.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 14:30)

    wow, its kinda of cool but sad at the same time

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 15:50)

    all I can say is WOW!

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 16:02)

    Digital illustration capabilities have certainly improved since the early days of Genigraphics and Freehand, etc.

    As technically impressive as this work is, it does not have the depth, radiance, warmth or transparency of a 17th century Dutch still-life painting, let alone an excellent photograph.

    It's good commercial art.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 16:25)

    I wonder how long it will be untill the porn industry get a hold of this.

    Anonymous (30 July, 2006 18:19)

    Impressive, but as impressive as a craft can be.

    And the question is whether the advantage of having a vector graphic from a photo is worth 100 hours spent at making it.

    Anonymous (31 July, 2006 06:24)

    new technology creates artistic freedom wich is only limited by the vision and imagination of the artist

    it's just fucking amazing. keep up the good work guys

    Anonymous (31 July, 2006 19:24)

    Why won't they post the illustrator native files?

    Anonymous (01 August, 2006 01:57)

    I can not see how this is any different as to how painters work, they use an example for their work to, a photograph or standing right in front of their subject the effect is the same, they create an copy of what they see.

    I find this very impressive work, and I can imagine the amount of time it takes to create work like this.

    Anonymous (01 August, 2006 02:07)

    These are really good pieces of work.

    These guys could easily get a good job as graphical designers for marketing-business.

    As I've seen somebody say, vector art is extremely useful for various printing-uses. If you have a regular photograph, you can only enlarge it this much until the picture becomes far too pixelized.

    With vector-art, you can print this stuff on a billboard as big as the house you live in, and it would look as sharp as the same image at regular photo-size.

    This is an amazing field of work, which requires quite some skill and time. I would love to be able to do what these guys do.

    Anonymous (01 August, 2006 05:59)

    If producting vector representations in such detail is simply copy work through simple clicking and dragging of primitives to reshape them, etc., then I suppose that we can say the same about any artist...

    "A painting, you say? Why all you need is to blend your red, yellow, and blue in varying amounts, with a little white or black for shading, and drag it around on a canvas with a brush. Voila, Van Gogh, Picasso, and Manet all at once. Throw in Escher, da Vinci, and Michaelangelo, too. Sculpting? Simply reshaping that medium, or making a mold in which to cast..."

    Does working from a photo degrade the quality of the work, too? Does this actually differ from painting a vista in person, or other still life? Ahh...there's always Dali...but he dragged a brush around, too.

    Anonymous (01 August, 2006 08:04)

    This is really cool.

    But lets be honest. I can only see a few examples where this would be effecient enough to actually use.

    WHY? because an advertising agency is surely not going to pay a graphic artist 10 hours of work for something a photographer can do in 3. I know you can interpolate to huge ass sizez, but remember 2 things:

    Reason #1:

    You can print a 16 mp from a canon 1ds mark 2 and hang it on a building and nobody can tell the difference because they are all like hundreds of feet away from it.. its only useful for like something as big as a small wall that people can get right up to..... not too many oppurtunities for it actually... you can have a 100 dpi print and its a 20 ft x 30 ft banner, from the street itll look crystal clear...

    Reason #2:

    Blow on of these up to fit a building and the gradients filling each vertice will be very apparent it will look a little weird cause the pigmented inks used frequently to print this size handle gradients and solid lines differently and then there is banding...

    honestly its not really efficient for the amount of time it takes... also a professional photog knows from hundreds of hours of expirience what angles look right and can catch the emotion of the moment , cant really re capture that so easily... just looks robotic... doesnt sell me...

    I will admit for 3d animation purposes the possibilities are limitless, just look at the graphic engine on the unreal tournament game (ut2007)thats in production right now.. thats like the cutting edge of animation real time shadows and effects and it looks pretty real... I can see this field growing leaps and bounds, using this technology to make 2D is not so smart.. but interesting still.... !!!

    Anonymous (01 August, 2006 12:07)

    Drawing a photo-realistic painting (digitally or not) is an art.

    But these are not that. Photo-realistic drawings that are traced over real photographs are a craft, not an art.

    These people are skilled, yes. But if they are artists, these works don't show that.

    Yes, they are well done. But it does not take a steady hand and a lot of imagination to do this. Just patience. You can continually tweak the curves until they exactly match the photo. And continually tweak the gradients until they match the shading of the original photo.

    I found the original photo of the Keira Knightley image and it is available on the web in extremely high resolution.

    They are great images, but no art contest in the world allows photo-realistic paintings that are painted over a real photo. And the reason is that it is considered craft and not art to do that.

    Anonymous (01 August, 2006 12:43)

    There is so much jealousy here. Unbeleivable.

    Anonymous (02 August, 2006 00:01)

    These are Awesome!

    There are way to many haters on this Blog. You people need to get a life and stop hating on someone because they are better then you at something. Find something your good at and do it.

    I really hope these kids are not professional designers that are out in the industry, I hope they are high school kids that have no clue yet of how life really is. You need to move out of your mommy's house and jump into the real world!

    Anonymous (02 August, 2006 03:57)

    There is a lot of technical skill involved in creating these images.

    But, with the exception of Bert Monroy who is truely an artistic MASTER (the image of the train station alone has something like 10,000 layers to it), they are all just tracings.

    And in most of these images what they are doing could also be called coyright infringement.

    I'd love to see they guys and gals put there skills to work on a completely original CREATIVE idea and not just copy someone else's work. It's not art, it's tracing.

    Anonymous (02 August, 2006 17:14)

    я в ахуе!!!

    Anonymous (02 August, 2006 20:13)

    This is impressive, to be sure, skillful, hell yes.

    Could I do it? hell no, but, even so, I can't help feeling it's a huge waste of time and effort.

    Anonymous (03 August, 2006 01:42)

    i am really interested to learn this can anyone teach me this pleaseeeeeeeeee!!!

    Anonymous (03 August, 2006 16:23)

    The realism description is a basic technology. Without forgetting Illustrator is a tool to draw the picture. Do not become mesh point = bit map.

    I never use the plug-in for my work. Because it is an image data processing.

    Anonymous (03 August, 2006 17:06)


    They read my books and have begun reality. But They are using C-Tools2 plug-in. They recognize this work not to be drawing a picture as I pointed out. I think that it is the problem which time solves.

    If it thinks as a tool describing a picture, the answer has come out. It is more important to take a wonderful photograph for such work.This work is not meaningful although the directions which do not know this plug-in are surprised. Please look at my latest work tape recorders Outline display.

    Whether it is a technique for drawing the picture or an image data processing is judged. I feel the doubt in the use of a high density mesh even if it is said the realistic description. It is thought that Illustrator is a tool to draw the picture. I think that the realism description is a basic technique. The equipped mesh function is wonderful from version 8. However, if the plug-in of the third party is used and the automatic color sampling isused, it becomes an image data processing. If everything was made as a mesh object, realism became easy surprisingly than before.

    I also am using the effect of shadeing off. It is used as a technique for drawing the picture.Yes The mesh object is I used as an effect of the airbrush.However, everything is not made with a high density mesh.The realism description in Illustrator is thought that the display of the drawing style or the outline is indispensable I think.

    I think that the realism description is a method of acquiring the technology that divides light into the shadow.It differs from analog painting materials and the judgment becomes difficult in digital painting materials. It is thought that it is necessary to think about Illustrator as painting materials. If the image data processing is necessary, we have Photoshop and use it.

    Anonymous (03 August, 2006 18:25)

    To all the artists, men and women, who are mentioned here, who took the time from their various schedules to answer via emails:

    "Thank you for sharing with us, for having the bravado to open up discussions, and for all those wonderful wonderful creations."

    Anonymous (05 August, 2006 07:29)

    Art has an intellectual component irrespective of the medium - computer, pencil, crayon, or dung!

    Even if a person uses paint in the traditional manner and copies from a photo does not make it art, illustration, graphic design - craft, but not art.

    Does not lessen the skill in any way, and some graphic design fluxes between art and design

    I use to lecture art theory at university, this is a common topic that arises.

    Anonymous (06 August, 2006 02:42)

    I am fascinated by vectors. I am searching on which tools to use to be able to make my vectors.

    Anonymous (09 August, 2006 05:08)

    I love vector art, and really respect a few of the artists above.

    But, I got four things to say...

    1. There are two pieces by two different artists that contain the same body. One by Wayne Forrest has the same body as a piece from Ussa Wethawittayakul... Look at the pose, shoes, and feet...

    2. Many 3D programs allow for flattened illustrator output on any perspective. I've used commercially created CAD renderings to produce 2D Illustrator comps.

    3. I question some of the pieces because I've used gradient mesh, and the more detailed you get, the more the outline view looks like solid black areas. Some of these pieces seem like too over simplified mesh grids to produce the image given.

    4. Taking a photograph and “vectorizing” is a violation of copyright and sometimes trademark (I'm not being a hater, just stating the truth and obvious fact). I'm not attacking technical talent, but doesn't copying also show a lack of creativity?

    Anyone who questions the usefulness of any kind of vector has no idea of how graphic design, marketing, printing, or other areas work in the real world.

    Anonymous (09 August, 2006 13:31)

    Amazing Stuff. The dedication and determination to complete something like that is amazing.

    Everyone has there own opinion. But once you work with illustrator and realize how difficult it is to create an image that photorealistic, you'll understand what is so incredible about it.

    Anonymous (09 August, 2006 22:14)

    The smoking woman from Wayne Forrest looks a lot like Echo Johnson out of Playboy (Jan '93)

    Anonymous (10 August, 2006 00:07)

    I've been to one of Bert Monroy's workshops and he is amazing. His stuff is straight out of his imagination.

    The file sizes are hundreds of gigs. He says he buys a new HD for every project. Could you imagine his filing cabinet?

    Anonymous (10 August, 2006 11:02)

    I agree with what TooL said!

    I would love to hear how some of you describe piano playing - "uh it's just one hand hitting a bunch of keys while another hand hits different keys! Dur, I can get better music from the radio!"

    Anonymous (10 August, 2006 17:22)

    I don't buy it. It's a trick.

    All these guys are using the mesh tool to trace a mesh from a photo, then claiming the source photo to be the finished artwork. Not the other way around!

    Until I see a vector file posted, instead of a jpg that somebody says is a vector image - then I don't buy it.

    Anonymous (11 August, 2006 02:07)

    I wonder how long it will be till this level or better of vectorization is done in-camera? 3D wire for motion vids -- EPS vectors for stills... Wee...

    Anonymous (11 August, 2006 03:21)

    To everyone that believe such kind of realistic image can't be done manual-digitally using software then see

    There's a step by step making “ultra realistic digital painting” using Photoshop. A bit out of topic indeed (it's a bitmap) – actually i ever saw another photo realistic wire-meshing artwork but i forgot the address.

    But thats not the point, i had tried this tutorial for months, until now, I never got results those amazing... for note, i am a profesional designer – u should try it yourself.

    Whats the point? It simply shows that talent will bring something wonderful and not everyone have it.

    And anyone says the images made by automatic raster to vector software, find one then use it to a bitmap. U'll see that the result is different, not as smooth as these images that's made by manual wire-meshing not tracing – they show different result.

    Then why artists wasting hours or even days to make the images? I agree with The pleasure of creating something by your own hand, no matter if that useless to others. The pleasure to impress others by making something that impossible for them. If u dont have sense of art u'll never understand. Sorry for u.

    Anonymous (12 August, 2006 12:00)

    Everything is hobby.

    Anonymous (13 August, 2006 00:54)

    This is some amazing stuff.

    I think the talent to weild Illustrator in this manner is what really makes it impressive to me. Not so much the 'artistic' talent being displayed.

    That said, I believe the Nagra has a mistake. The first magnetic head appear to be overlapped by the first reel. I wouldn't think this is possible?

    Anonymous (13 August, 2006 09:01)

    I'll throw in some art history to add some persepective to the "is this art or just imitation discussion."

    Many of the great painters employed apprentice engravers to make prints for them—to essentially copy their paintings for larger distribution. These men were initially "assistants" rather than artists, they had such tremendous skil that they often became artists in later years.

    Anthony Van Dyck is a good example—one of Rubens engravers in the 1600s who then became quite famous in his own right and was appointed painter to the king.

    So whether or not you call this "art" at this very moment, it seems obvious to me that it has great potential.

    Anonymous (13 August, 2006 15:15)

    An analog is also a technique with fundamental reality depiction.

    However, there is a special situation in digital one.The method of sampling a color automatically exists.

    What is the purpose changed into a mesh point from a bit map? Since reality depiction is carried out by Illustrator, it is not uncanny. Expressing reality depiction by Illustrator anew has a meaning. It is for mastering the basic technology for drawing a picture.

    I never use the plug-in for my work.

    Anonymous (13 August, 2006 19:04)

    To those who criticize the art produced in this way: People learn tricks from style which they then can use in other more complex or different projects - does that lessen the impact and skill displayed here? I think not.

    I have a mate who is a wonder at producing life like drawings. These days, however he likes using Poser to produce pictures. Does that in anyway detract from his skill? No.

    You use the tools that are available to produce what you want, I would like anyone who has a negative to say to say that is not true - especially as they themselves in one way or the other use something.

    I will be starting a project to produce a graphic novel with my mate. And one thing I will be doing is using whatever tricks I can find to shorten the timescale to producing it in the style that I want it in.

    Art is in the eye of the beholder - I myself hate Picassos stuff (or the new wave of stuff produced here in the UK). Like a shark in a tank I ask my friends: how is that art? Now it is a contradiction that I question it as being art, but if other people call it art, how am I to say no it isn't? Because my statement is my own personal opinion - no more no less.

    Should anyone justify that amount of time , if the end product stands up to inspection by those who matter - the vast majority of people who will see it? Once again I think not. In the end, that is not the most important criteria.

    Anonymous (14 August, 2006 06:37)

    Nice work

    Anonymous (14 August, 2006 07:36)

    eso no es nada yo hice cosas mejores

    Anonymous (14 August, 2006 22:18)

    Just wanted to add my two cents. Some of you here asked what was the point of such "art", when its takes so much time and we have all the modern digital cameras.

    Do you really think, that such an illustration is the SAME as the photogaph? Its not the SAME at all, if you take a closer look. It has very subtle nuances, what make it more clear, crisp - make it to hyper-realism. You cant buy a camera to do that for you. A camera can captivate life, but it cant idealise it the way hyper-realists do.

    Anonymous (15 August, 2006 09:11)

    The meaning which reproduces a photograph picture by Illustrator.

    For example, please look at this example. Most meshes are not used. This work is the subject taken out with my books as practice of reality depiction.

    You can understand that reality depiction is fully carried out.In this way, the thing for which the technology expressing light and a shadow is studied. In fact, the picture which cannot be seen can be expressed.

    Of course, creating using 3D is possible.However, many time and labors are needed. Please consider why it creates by 2D. It is more efficient to use not only Illustrator but Photoshop, when such a Image like this and that.

    I recommend you to study to Mr. Kevin Hulsey's site. It is for a reconstruction meaning mastering reality technology for photograph by Illustrator. When creating such a picture, I do not use Illustrator.

    However, copying the wonderful picture of an analog has a big meaning.

    Anonymous (15 August, 2006 11:53)

    See, nice taching Mr. Miyamoto, and from the theoretical part it is ok. However, from the practical side, even using Illustrator or Photoshop is, on my humble opinion, going on the "Long and Winding Road".

    You see,using a CAD with 3D capabilities to create a mesh, and a minimum understanding of 3D topography and georeferencing, you can get amazing results (check any 3D sample file from a CAD program like AutoCAD. The adventage of creating a true vectorial 3D mesh is that you can later create "movement" and "animate" the subject, to later render it and here we go...

    We have create several 3D landscapes from satellite imagery, and later creating "airplane" paths and views (we used ERDAS program). Look for thir site pages for examples.

    But once, we did experiment tranferring those principles to a picture of a human subject, using photogrametry techiques, and the results were trully amazing.

    And about shadowing to create 3D illusions, you can check the page of the GOES Science Project to see amazing results.

    I am NOT diminishing your work. Your "wonderful picture" proves that you are an artist, far from any doubt, what I am wondering is if the method you are using is not really too cmplex, and can take away beginners that want to explore that field.

    Unfortunatelly, I am already retired, and have no copies of those works. But I guess it won't be too much difficult to look on the home pages of theproducts that I mentioned, or similar, using your favorite web searcher.

    Best regards

    Anonymous (15 August, 2006 15:52)

    To Mr. Justme: thank you for polite advice.

    The technical illustration is still needed. Saying that it is effective selection also understands use 3D. 3D was used at work of construction in 1989.

    This is a component and a whole figure. Although 3D software is used even now, it is difficult to obtain an income as work.

    Anonymous (16 August, 2006 01:27)

    Thanks to you Mr. Yukio Miyamoto, as I told you, great teaching and great work!!

    And unfortunatelly, you are right, is difficult to obtain an income at work, for such a great effort.

    But keep your great work going! Remeber that even Manet, Renoir, Degas, Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gaugin, etc., had a hard time with their masterpieces!!
    Best Regards

    Anonymous (17 August, 2006 03:14)

    I hope this new technology leads us to REAL 3D visual art. Because if it does not, then, it is just like reinventing the wheel. It has been done before. A photograph from an 8x10 color negative can match any of the pictures in this gallery.

    Anonymous (17 August, 2006 17:41)

    holy shit! thats sooooo great! :o

    Anonymous (17 August, 2006 18:15)

    é realmente esse negocio e show de bola incrivel.

    Anonymous (17 August, 2006 18:32)

    na verda o wellington não vale nada e um tremendoi boiolão

    Amigo (24 August, 2006 21:39)

    The title says it all :-) Vector art.Instead of using rants or flaming. Accept that this is vector art. Go and learn what vector art is. Somebody point out a tutorial. I saw it too. And believe me, that's style. If you f*cking don't know what vector art is don't talk. So much tools out like like illustrator, inkscape. If you are comparing please try these motherf*cking softwares and see if you can do something that reach this stage.
    Respect goes to the creators.

    Anonymous (25 August, 2006 22:12)

    It's unbelievable!
    I found the link to this page on a blog of a designer - and my mouth is still open. If I wouldn't know that this are vectors, I would say it's real. A big big big compliment to all the designers of these things - you are real masters.

    PS: sorry, i know my english is not the best, but i wanted to show my admiration.

    Unknown (07 September, 2006 18:23)

    It's impressive but the skin tones are too plastic; although admittedly they're the same as any airbrushed model in a magazine. A really impressive picture is the one shown in the tutorial here:
    It's impressive, and shows you how it's done...

    Anonymous (09 October, 2006 10:39)

    Yes Sir!
    This is the best i saw!
    i just Imagine the machine to work with so many meshes!

    Anonymous (10 October, 2006 08:18)

    I only use the GMesh in Illustrator CS and Illustrator CS2. Anyone that may think that its easy by all means sit down for 40hrs and do it.
    Thks for the interesting reading.

    Im as well a photographer so Raster and Vector are of interest to me. Being able to work with them both makes it that much more enjoyable.

    WForrest aka GMesh

    Anonymous (11 October, 2006 16:55)

    el xileno dijo pa y wea asi dos punto

    y q tanta wea e color le dan lo xuxetumare y wea si ni saben que wea les escribi aki y pa y wea y q tanta wea a ver y soy shoro shileno y me los cago a los culiao y que tanta wea a ver si me traduci con un vector po xuxetumare y wea y pa y wea y pa y wea y que tanta wea po si la tengo esperandote asi pa y wea y te voy a sacate la xuxa xuxtumare y wea pa y wea pa y wea y en mi casa hay arbusto y me qleo a la maria busto... como te qeo el ojo xuxetumare y wea...?

    Joram Oudenaarde (13 October, 2006 16:53)

    This is just sheer talent!

    Anyone who doesn't understand the benefit of these kind of vector-pieces clearly don't understand the graphic industry.

    But let me explain the benefits;
    - Unlimited size
    - Unlimited adjustments possible. You can change the haircolor quite easy without having to work in pixelmess
    - Do you want a different lighting? On a different place even? No problem at all
    - The shinyness is a lot better on vectorarts because you can adjust it in a way a camera couldn't possibly do, as well as Photoshop.

    Hats of to the artists!

    Anonymous (19 October, 2006 15:35)

    Man this is a fantastic kit i love it the vectors are amazing, did no simple lines could make amazing real effecting pictures.... superb and love all the images on this page.

    Anonymous (25 October, 2006 04:44)

    for me it is all about the challenge.

    what can i mesh and what can i not?
    Yes i know the technique now but according to the pic you choose to mesh there is always a challenge, by that i mean wierd shapes, odd shadows or highlights, and to accomplish this to get it as close to realistic as possible, takes sometimes some brain-gymnastic.
    "How should i make the meshlines/points behave to get this result"?
    That is, from my point of view, the stimulating and the fun with meshing.
    OK maybe others dont think that, i respect that and i can understand that some of you just think, "WHat a waste of time"...
    Hmm..well i guess that is one thing that makes us different.
    Plain, flat colour, two color gradient vectors, with or without reference, realistic or not?
    People spend hours on "regular" vectorillustrations aswell, and they have their reason, their challenge and their way to develop their skills.
    I got mine and i never complain on their work or starts discussions however its NOT realistic.
    (I dont say you complain...that has to be said..)
    Meshtool is a tool like all the others in Illustrator.
    BUT if you can or learn how to handle it the possibilities is amazing.
    Bring more life to your vectors, cause it is still vector we talking, not pixels..
    The things i want to have photos of (pixels) i take a photo of and dont spend more time on that, and the things i want to create into vector, realistic or not, i do spend much time on cause i think its worth it and it makes me grow.

    And it is pretty interesting that this "Mesh or not mesh"-discussion is a hard-talk on almost every Graphic art forum i have been to, and many people complains about it and choose not to comment or such things.
    Yet it is still noticeable that whoever submit a meshillustration the views rises.
    I do think the fact that realistic vectors interests people somehow.
    (well this most part offcourse depends on motive also...)
    And still it inspires many to learn illustrator.
    Thats the best part..

    Thanks for the plug and the interesting reading.
    Now, post som "non realistic" vectorart and see if the discussions and the comments getting just as heavy as this. i didnt think so either...


    Anonymous (06 November, 2006 07:39)

    For all those skeptics out there, I don't know about the other artists, but Bert Monroy's work is not traced. His work is hyperrealism.. from his mind... no photos to use as a base.

    That should give you something to think about.

    Anonymous (21 November, 2006 08:54)

    Mr. Miamoto, Mr. Forrest, and other illustrators highlighted in this thread:
    Thank you SO very much for sharing your paths, your work, and your thoughts with us.
    I apologize for the rudeness of those who neither know, nor understand the value of what you do.

    I do understand vectors, graphic art, advertising and marketing, illustration, clients, photography, and business.

    I fully understand the need for such works, the value of such works, and the use of such works.

    What you (and others) do with art such as this is remarkable. It inspires and awes me, and I am honored that you also share communications with us "commoner" here.

    Again, thank you for sharing with the world, rather than keeping your "secrets" secret.

    ♪Illustrator-meiste♪ (26 November, 2006 19:39)

    Mr. M.Osborne Thank you for your comment.
    Reality depiction using Illustrator is carried out to training expressing the shade. If the seen image cannot be drawn, the considered image cannot be expressed concretely. It is only the practice.By the method using a digital camera , it does not become practice describing a picture.

    Moreover, in the Photoshop and Peinter which are raster system drawing material, deception is possible. Since a photograph was not easily [ vector data ] convertible, illustrator was employed. It is because it is quite obvious if an outline image is checked. It is regrettable that the comment which those who do not understand the difference between a Photoshop and illustrator have misunderstood is written.

    They could understand the difference, once it carries out reality depiction by illustrator. Then, importance of copying the shade should be able to be realized by digital drawing material. It turned out that many some people do not understand digital drawing material yet. However, since drawing using plug-in of a part of mesh relation becomes the hindrance of the training, I do not use. Moreover, the method made into the high-density mesh is also skeptical.

    Anonymous (29 November, 2006 06:11)

    Are there any places where I can view some of the techniques these artists use?

    Does anyone think either one of these artist can use JUST a mouse?

    I was wondering if i can achiever similar effects without a tablet.

    Anonymous (30 November, 2006 01:33)

    They use a tablet for sure. And you wouldn't have the control with a mouse as with a tablet.

    ♪Illustrator-meiste♪ (01 December, 2006 11:16)

    I do not use a mouse. When controlling a curve by Illustrator, it is because the mouse is easier. Please use Illustrator once. It is easy to understand. Many Illustrator works can be seen here. I am also exhibiting here. If you like it please join us.

    ♪Illustrator-meiste♪ (01 December, 2006 22:52)

    I am sorry, it mistook.
    I mean... I do not use a tablet.

    Keith (04 January, 2007 06:49)

    Ah... Having looked through the images I finally understand. Sadly, the thumbnails simply don't do the images justice. My humble respect to the artists

    Anonymous (22 February, 2007 21:07)

    Just how long does it take to do a piece?

    Anonymous (29 March, 2007 23:20)

    Amazing Skill !!!! But its just the skill and not much of creativity. Most of the images are recreated. Creativity is where you create something original using these skill.

    for example see

    But hats off to the guys who created this.

    Anonymous (20 May, 2007 03:50)

    Yeah, maybe it's a waste of time to recreate the same thing you could see in a photo but vector art is so much more than a photo. The model's expression could change from image to image, their poses could change, vectors can be enlarged to gigantic print sizes, the clothing he/she is wearing could be completely swapped out with something else... it's an advertiser's dream.

    Frankly, I'm amazed by what some of these extremely talented people can create. At lower resolutions (like web, video), it's becoming very, very difficult to tell the difference between what is real and what is created.

    It's hard to fake or recreate reality, I have nothing but respect for those with this kind of patience and skill.

    Anonymous (22 May, 2007 21:31)

    Amazing stuff but really, you guys have WAY to much free time on your hands.

    Anonymous (18 June, 2007 01:58)

    For what purpose would someone create a photorealistic vector? I mean... duh... Why not use the real thing instead?

    Anonymous (04 July, 2007 04:26)

    i am pretty amused by the discussion going on here... just because just taking a photograph is quicker does not mean these vector artists are wasting time...

    it's just like training. why sprint when you can go even faster by car ?
    Can you haters imagine our good these guys can become in illustrator ? i am sure they know every single shortcut and have seen quite a lot about AI.

    As Eric Jordan said, creativity has to do with opportunities. just knowing a,b leaves you with ab,ba.
    having a,b,c - means a lot more possibilites to be creativity - you do the math.

    have fun.


    venusenvie (11 July, 2007 09:38)

    Interesting conversation here. These artists are very talented. They are able to take what they could do with paints or charcoal and emulate it via a computer. It's another medium for artists. To say this is not amazing, is just another topic for debate. I absolutely think it is amazing. I have spent hours trying to illlustrate using these tools. The traditional method would be to hand illustrate, scan it in, change the raster to vector manually. Illustrating directly via computer eliminates scanning and recreating it. Check out this artist's website and you will be amazed at what can be done. Life In Vector She has done work for many brands. You may use a tracing tool, but some really do it all manually with the pen tool, gradient mesh tool, and an incredible eye for color and design. You can really tell the difference. Stop hating!

    Anonymous (01 September, 2007 12:38)

    the potentials in the apparel industry are enormous. Let's just say virtual dressing room. Yes, and it is fucking amazing. video games, movies, commercial ads, music videos, cartoons! give me some cartoons! yes yes yes

    asim (09 October, 2007 15:35)

    hi everybody!
    I love to use gmesh tool also. U can visit my gallery for gmesh art at
    hope u like it.

    Anonymous (13 October, 2007 19:25)

    oh this is amesome. I love vector art.

    Anonymous (27 October, 2007 09:22)

    OMG, what can I say, I just love those pictures, good work!

    Anonymous (31 October, 2007 16:29)

    Hmmm , guess not many of you have used a newer version of AI.

    There is a new tool in illustrator called "Live Trace" it will "Automatically" break down a raster image , based on the variables you tell it to calculate on , then trace the image with LOADS of little curves (just like the Gollum image shows) and assign the closest colour it can, to that which appears in the traced area of original picture.

    so basically all you have left to do is blend the colours a little better ... peice of cake .... seriously ... try it . you'll be amazed how easy it is .

    Anonymous (18 November, 2007 02:12)

    I've done similar things

    what do you think? do I have a place in this list?


    Wyv (30 November, 2007 11:15)

    I love g-mesh to death! I found this page and have since gone on a quest to be as good (only I stupidly chose a Wedge-tailed eagle for my first attempt, and thus it looks great, but hardly photo-realistic). But some of you are right - it really does have no point. If you have a good enough photo to use with this technique, you'd use the photo. So why do we do it? Mostly, because they can. Because the wow factor blows away anyone who understands vector. It proves that the creator knows Illustrator inside out. It proves that simpler g-meshes can be quickly and skillfully pumped out for viable use.

    And right now people need photos to work from. But they may not later. One day, people might create such gorgeous things straight from their heads. The technique is still new, needs to be learned and built upon; just like painting and photography and every other artistic or illustrative technique. Really, it's very exciting to witness the birth of what one day may be a very celebrated art style!

    Pigumon (20 December, 2007 04:38)

    Really Odd Comments

    First of all yes maybe some are ONLY skilled craftsmen, but more likely they are all artists who like to try many different things.

    Since when is graphic design not an art?

    Also, those that we consider the MASTERS of art, da vinci... were attempting to do photorealistic paintings, that's what the RENAISSANCE was all about!

    as for the comments about Bert Monroy, did he ever say those aren't real places? I doubt it, because I've driven by 3 of the places in the drawings here, that particular Pic and Pac is on the corner of San Pablo and Gilman in Berkeley CA. right down from 924 where Green Day, AFI, No Doubt, and other crappy fake punk bay area bands used to play before they were famous.

    Another thing,m these are definitely MOUSE drawings NOT TABLET. a mouse is a billion times more precise than a tablet. Tablets are for RASTER images where pressure sensitivity and flowing hand gestures are needed.

    Anonymous (05 January, 2008 17:41)

    Nice tracing. A true artist.

    Pigumon (05 January, 2008 17:59)

    as opposed to some loser who puts a Toilet in an art gallery and calls it "a comment on modern social blah blah blah..." and everyone nods in agreement so as not to look dull.

    It takes some amount of talent to do this this well.

    Anonymous (11 January, 2008 06:04)

    Dropping by...

    Agreed that this takes a lot of talent and experience with the tools to make.

    Hair looks fake on most of those though so yeah it seems to be a weakness of meshes.

    Creativity wise one really can't say unless the author admits of using photograph of someone else.

    Personally I don't think any attacks are justified if the artist has his own original artistic vision (ie. shot his own photograph and then traced it over), since that's how the old artists do it. As long as the "vision" is original then it definitely has artistic merits and the method in which the art is created is mere technique (which non-the-less is still very important).

    But if the "vision" is not original, ie. someone else's photo then yes I would say the result would show a lot of talent, a lot of technique but no creativity.

    Anonymous (14 January, 2008 15:10)

    Exelent space for all artist

    We create digital magazine for digital arts 600 pages

    download our magazine


    Anonymous (29 January, 2008 22:15)

    I understand the hard work behind these pieces but I don't understand the point behind it all. I can say this of many types and styles of art which I feel are a waste of time since I consider art to be a expression of imagination/vision, not just 'work hard for no reason'. Fact is you can get this same quality much easier with more traditional digital tools. This is kind of like recreating the Mona Lisa by doing pixel art...impressive but pointless in the end.

    Williams Rodriguez (09 February, 2008 14:42)

    Looks good!

    Anonymous (10 February, 2008 12:01)

    A photo-realistic illustration can be used to portray the interior and the exterior of an object simultaneously, something a photo will not do.

    An illustration can also highlight important parts of an object. It can completely isolate an object from the background.

    Once an object is drawn, esp. in cad, the object can be EXPLODED to show the parts in space, and in relation to each other.

    Just look at your product manual to see why illustrations are used instead of photography!

    Anonymous (24 April, 2008 06:09)

    To everyone saying that spending hours vectoring is useless given the fact that we have photographers- you are just brimming with ignorance.

    Unless they create 100000MP cameras, raster images are no match for vector images.

    Please do your research before making such foolish comments i.e. francisbacon, henrylai et al.

    Anonymous (28 April, 2008 05:36)

    It's about taking a challenge and taking Illustrator to the next level. It's about pushing Illustrator to it's potential and seeing the results.

    I never understood the argument that these are just copies. It's art as they have to recreate the entire object/scene. The amount of detail that is required is just mind blowing.

    These artists have spent countless hours creating their images. It's not time wasted, it's the journey taken to accomplish the final product, not the final product itself. The final product comes from the process.

    So give these artist the respect that they deserve.


    Anonymous (28 April, 2008 14:46)

    For the love of god if youre willing to go thru that much trouble to vectorize a photograph with gradient meshes then just make the extra effort to model those bitches in 3d. And guess what! You can render them out in any resolution!and please dont start ranting about your printer not having enough rip for that 600dpi wall sized print... oh and i almost forgot you can even alter the lighting in 3d. ooooOOOOOoooooo.

    Anonymous (13 June, 2008 19:59)

    People, the best way to make vectors like rasters is to get rid of meshes at all. Each time, when wise boys from Adobe The Great offer create gradient mesh, I do know, that programmers cannot make gradient fills without meshes and reload their own problems to poor users. Visit my homepage , where at gallery you may find some vector images converted to raster and corresponding progs as well.
    Andrey M.

    John Oliver (31 July, 2008 19:22)

    I am a graphic design student and found that I am quite good at gradient mesh/vector art, I find the skills required are actually similar to traditional painting.
    Gradient mesh can also be used from memory not just a photo. I've used it in many different applications, its such a great tool.
    Some people from my class are good at gradient mesh & others arent, same as some people can paint/draw realistically & others cant, I believe you need a certain eye for detail to get it right.
    Vector art has its place, the files are way smaller than high res photos & can be blown up to fit the size of a 20 story building if necessary, try that with your photo or emailing large photo files, not so easy.

    Whitee Noisee (13 August, 2008 01:32)

    tangina! tagal ko hinanap si bert monroy, taon binilang ko kasi nakalimutan ko ung name nya, kaya inisa-isa ko mga realistic graphic artist... thanks a lot i found him here! thanks to your site! and rest are wow, im gonna keep this site!

    foolofsoul (17 September, 2008 11:46)

    I believe that vectoring does take skill, but at the same time doesn't. There isn't any skill in tracing and copying colors with a eyedropper tool. It does take skill to make all the meshes. Its really hard to see it used professionally though. It does like awesome and its fun to do. Its also not as creative as an original or copying from life. Copying from life takes a lot more skill than tracing because of proportion and lighting. But those were some pretty cool vectors, never seen anything like it before. The photorealism takes a little away from the artistic feeling.

    Anonymous (03 October, 2008 08:49)

    Hi, I don´t do illustration work commercially myself but i teach classes in Adobe Illustrator, so I know the software and the theories about vector graphics, so here´s my input:

    The objects are more impressive than the humans. That´s because a human face will look cold and robotic without imperfections.

    It´s very impressive work though, and I know how much time it must have taken to do this.

    To you who don´t understand the use of vector drawings, here´s an explanation:

    Vector drawings of objects "pop" in a way a photograph can never do. Look at any commercial image in an ad of a new car model, for instance, and I guarantee you its an illustration or a 3D-object, not a photograph.

    A photograph can never get that sharp, and will always contain a certain ammount of noise, no matter what camera and lens you use.

    Another thing is that reflections are extremely hard to handle in photography. With an illustration, reflections and shadows are easy to perfect. That´s why illustrations like this are used daily in printed ads. (ask the artist highside that did the baseball glove, and I bet you he will tell you he has been payed a lot of money from Rawlings to do that particular illustration)

    The "blowing up on a building"-part is irrelevant. As someone above has already said, posters that big are always made to be watched from a distance, so the imperfections of an interpolated pixel image will dissappear.

    In fact, many pictures benefit from a large raster. Too fine details, and the image will seem fuzzy from a distance. For some images you could not even use a high resolution photographic print for that. Sometimes you have to use huge raster points to make it work from a distance. It all depends on the details in the image of course.

    If you blow up vector images too much, imperfections will start to show up there too, like banding effects and anchorpoints and paths that don´t align perfectly, originally in a nanometer scale and invisible, but scaled up, quite visible, so that is not an argument for vector graphics.

    Sure it´s an advantage up to a certain scale, and it can sometimes make filesizes smaller, but if you make the image too complex, like some of the images above, the filesize will be larger than for a similar photograph, and it will be slow as molasses to print, when the billions of vectors have to be calculated by a RIP for output on a printing press.

    So to recap. For images of live things, like people and animals, photographs will generally look the best, since you need the imperfections to make them look alive.
    (unless it´s an image of a corpse :-)
    For images of objects, like cars, bikes, electronics, or even some live things like some vegetables and plants, vector graphics is best. They make objects "pop" in an impressive way (and actually in an unrealistic way when you think of it).

    Still, some of these images of humans are awsome, and very impressive, and even if they never get used for commercial purposes, they are still beautiful, so keep it up!

    P.S. The baseballglove from highside is the most impressive of the objects, and it will take a lot of looking to notice that it is an illustration. I use it as an example, to show people that "the sky is the limit", when i teach my classes in Adobe Illustrator.

    Anonymous (14 October, 2008 11:23)

    For those who are still in doubt these are illustrations, try and google for the feature in illustrator called "gradient mesh". I have been using illustrator for quite some time now and certainly gradient meshes are very handy tools. Try it out and find out that these illustrations are indeed doable but will take some time to get the hang of.

    And just to point it out, these are magnificent arts. No arguements :D

    Anonymous (14 October, 2008 12:47)

    Extreamly good use of the mesh tool. It takes many hours of experimentation to find all of the unique ways to apply and create these increadible gradiations. I also use multiple transparent layers to create interesting highlights and reflective-like images. I can see arguments for applicability but there can certainly be no argument that these people are highly skilled and wonderfully talented folks. I develop vector illustrations using Adobe Illustrator for a living... these artistic imagas take a lot of time... and a lot of talent. If I were to illustrate an M-16 rifle I would not generate the artwork to the level of photo-realim that these artist do because I have time constraints. I need to have an image finished within 8 to 10 hours, although last week I did a vehicle that took about 16 hours.
    Whew! I am quite sure that illustrations like the ones found on this site take a boat-load of time to generate and a boat-load of talent to boot. Kudos guys, since you have these kinds of skills, what will be the next genre... -the next form of art? -tk

    Anonymous (21 October, 2008 22:50)

    the horn and the dalmation are too real to of the lot here imo =)

    Anonymous (28 October, 2008 03:17)

    I am sure a great artist could use that technology to do something decent rather than painstakingly copy ugly photographs.

    Anonymous (14 November, 2008 07:55)


    Supermark (24 November, 2008 00:11)

    ...two of the artists have almost identical pictures:

    Anonymous (27 November, 2008 19:53)

    A MUST SEE!!!!!!

    Anonymous (08 December, 2008 00:26)

    thank you

    Anonymous (10 December, 2008 11:32)


    Anonymous (17 December, 2008 07:11)

    Making a copy of an existing photo...I can do this as well in about 2 seconds:

    CTRL+C, CTRL+V ;)

    Nevertheless nobody calls me an artist.

    It surely is impressive how much effort these pictures take, but I'm wondering how good these "artists" are drawing when they don't have a sample to trace unspiritualy.

    Are there Illustrator-Users who can draw something that doesn't already lay before them, too? That would be interesting.

    f4k (18 December, 2008 22:55)

    "Making a copy of an existing photo...I can do this as well in about 2 seconds:

    CTRL+C, CTRL+V ;)

    Nevertheless nobody calls me an artist.

    It surely is impressive how much effort these pictures take, but I'm wondering how good these "artists" are drawing when they don't have a sample to trace unspiritualy.

    Are there Illustrator-Users who can draw something that doesn't already lay before them, too? That would be interesting."

    Totally agree. There's no use in copying 100%. Take a picture, it's the same.

    This ain't artistic work. It's mechanical work.

    Anonymous (19 December, 2008 00:56)

    illustrator plugin Vector Studio 2

    Anonymous (25 December, 2008 00:59)

    I think some people are insecure about the mastery of these ARTISTS. ....

    To everyone saying that spending hours vectoring is useless given the fact that we have photographers- you are just brimming with ignorance.

    Unless they create 100000MP cameras, raster images are no match for vector images.

    Please do your research before making such foolish comments i.e. francisbacon, henrylai et al.


    Anonymous (04 January, 2009 01:12)

    I like my art to look as if a person did it. I think there is something to be said of imperfections. Imperfections are either planned or are accidents or are the artist's shortness.

    On the other end of the scale, some are driven by mastering the media or perfection, to make the immaterial to appear like the material. To most artist though, the process is as extraordinary as the outcome.

    Think, the same software used to make a cartoonish icon can be used to make these photo-realistic pictures.

    The viewer of art always questions "is it art?" But all you see is the curtain call, you weren't there for the performance!

    שר לב (05 January, 2009 18:59)




    U R MY GOD! :)

    Anonymous (09 January, 2009 03:07)

    WOW!!! I didn't know Ai could do such things! I use Ai for my vector art and never got in to 3d with it yet. I haven't been formally trained either, I'm learning on my own. What are some great books to learn how to do this?

    Anonymous (09 January, 2009 11:53)

    Anyone that can even criticize any of the above works, needs a reality check. Not only are these works extremely difficult to pull off, but these artists are doing things that could be a precursor to future art forms. I have dabbled in vector art for almost 2 decades and I am astonished at the level of accuracy and talent these people have, not to mention the patience. So, if you can do it better, let's see. If not, shut the fuck up!

    Anonymous (10 January, 2009 00:58)

    I just took a dump behind the couch.

    Anonymous (17 January, 2009 06:03)

    this is crazy. i like this stuff alot. i think i see the smudge tool on jolie.

    Anonymous (28 January, 2009 07:01)

    People always hate what they're incapable of understanding.

    Brilliant process and amazing results.

    Don't get discouraged - not everyone grasps innovation until it becomes commonplace.

    Take the 17th century painter comment ... 17th century artists were amazingly innovative ... during the 17th century. I'm sure there were many in that time that didn't understand them, and apparently we still have members of our society struggling to catch up to 400 years of evolution.

    Anonymous (04 February, 2009 09:08)

    Wow! Really nice work! I also do vectors!

    Anonymous (16 February, 2009 06:53)

    Monet painted from photos as soon as photography was invented; did he not create art?

    Anonymous (17 February, 2009 12:55)

    I find many of these images to have a "technical drawing" aspect to them while others are simply vector files of the original photograph.

    To the illustrators who made choices based on what they wanted out of the image I say hats off to you. To those who simply reproduced the original photograph and made no such decisions and dare I say alterations I say shame on you lazy.

    You are not doing anything new by simply reproducing another image. Its all form and no concept, like a pinup. But even most pinups are not slavish copies of photographs and the strongest pin up artists were the ones who fused their own personal style into the image.

    I can respect your skill thats for sure, these skills are hard earned no doubt but you are simply a draftsman if you don't take the image further by introducing a concept.

    This vector skill has its place in illustration no doubt, but as far as the fine arts it will take more than just image reproduction to cut it.

    If you have a specific concept that you can fully articulate in meaningful conversation than kudos to you, if you do not then you are just "visually masturbating" and you need to wake up.

    I can accept many of these images for illustration as they serve that purpose much better than fine art where these images fall flat conceptually.

    I am sure monet would agree with me. He used photographs as a tool to help him reinvent reality not to simple copy it.

    Anonymous (17 February, 2009 20:52)

    Problem is copyright law states you can't sell any of this unless you took the photo yourself.
    So Angelina and the likes are a complete waste of time.

    Anonymous (01 March, 2009 08:43)

    Mar4 said it....

    It's no different than using a camera-it's not really art.

    That's my only criticism every time someone oohs and ahs over photorealism-I'm just sitting there going.."and..?"

    Other than that-incredible-I'd love to zoom in on a few of them...hehe.

    Anonymous (11 March, 2009 02:28)

    я в шоке,просто обалдеть

    Anonymous (18 March, 2009 23:52)


    Theo (03 April, 2009 21:56)

    To YukioMayamoo

    Shut up, your work is worse than these here, so stop telling everyone to do.


    In terms of whether this is arrt or not?
    Yes, it is.
    Is it skilled?
    Yes, it is
    Does it entertain us?
    Yes, it does

    So stop complaining. It's Art. These people disciplined themselves to learn something incredibly difficult, whether they can refine it and kep dragging until it is perfect, it doesn't matter, that just shows that thye have decided a better medium to 'paint' with than traditional art. After all, what is art? God! that's such a hard question! The better one is, what does art do? It entertains us, it may give us a passion, it gives us a way of life, i gives culture.
    These pictures also do that, so, yes this is art.
    Get over yourselves, and stop complaining simply because you can't achieve what these people can

    Theo (03 April, 2009 22:01)

    Continued from above...

    Take Dadaism for example, Duchamp got a toilet seat, labelled it Fountain, wrote R. Mutt on it, and said 'this is art'
    An object is art if the artist calls it so

    RoseDragon (01 July, 2009 19:40)

    There is nothing wrong in tracing, even Leonardo DaVinci traced landscapes: DaVinci went outdoors and placed a sheet of glass across two easels and traced landscapes to study perspective. It wasn't cheating; it was part of his lifelong search for science, truth and accuracy in his art. Here, he was studying perspective.

    Craft isn't an art? You are ridiculous, everything in our life is art.

    I can't imagine how hard to make those, I had done traditional paintings and photoshop paintings, but I only touched a little area of vector art-- what I'm sure is even making the correct shapes and gradients are frustrating to me.

    Anonymous (13 July, 2009 07:44)

    To Jason:

    I do vector art, including gradient mesh and it is far, far easier with a tablet. A mouse is just too heavy and imprecise. :)

    Vince G (17 July, 2009 22:28)

    Simply amazing how realistic vector art can look. I still cant believe some of them are vectors! Just wow

    Vinit Rai (21 July, 2009 00:25)

    Way to go Vector-artists. ^^

    @RoseDragon and others:
    Nobody is doubting the talent, hard work and patience involved in this. But this is not art.

    Ex: Try vectoring "XP" logo, and the font exactly, with and without tracing from a source.

    Using a source is easier and much more accurate. It's not cheating. That would be if you just watermarked your name in the source, and told the world that you made it.

    But who make things without using any source even if not this perfect, deserve equal respect (if not more).

    Using a source makes it different from art.. in terms.

    Anonymous (27 July, 2009 20:19)

    glorified tracing, unimpressive, and anyone can do it with the same software so its not that unique. its like playing connect the dots. as nice as some of these look they still look fake and cartoonish and unless you plan on printing something in huge proportions that people will see from only a few feet away its completely a waste of time. there are a few uses for vector art, and one i have personally used it for was restoring the side art on my old pac man arcade cabinet, can make nice big printable graphics from small source photos. but still the uses are limited to a few things.

    MYO HAN HTUN (13 August, 2009 17:44)

    If you have a will .. please add my pure Illustrator works too.

    1. The Portrait of Korean Actress "HAN GA IN"

    2. The Portrait of Korean Actress "SONG HYE KYO"

    3. Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 (2009) Illustrator

    I hope you will reply back to me

    thanks and best regards


    Rahul (13 August, 2009 22:09)

    The vector art look just too realistic. Picture perfect.

    Unknown (02 September, 2009 22:08)

    This is very impressive.

    Question to authors: What is the ratio (in percent) between the work done automatically and manually?

    Anonymous (05 September, 2009 14:37)

    Some looks like 3d modelling to me, with photo-realistic renderer like vray or brazil. The first image show wireframe as one of features in 3d prgram.

    Anonymous (13 September, 2009 05:41)

    These drawings are just amazing. So photorealistic! Still, if you look closely at the drawings, they are just too perfect to be real. Can you really do this in Illustrator? Do you need any plugins? Are there any good books on how to do this kind of stuff?

    Anonymous (13 September, 2009 16:11)

    Another realistic piece of work but done in 3d program :

    Ardi Kule (29 September, 2009 08:52)

    This is the longest discussion i have ever seen. :)

    ianvox (26 October, 2009 14:04)

    ang galing!!! great works :)

    if you have time, please check out my illustrator works too:

    Anonymous (31 October, 2009 09:25)

    To two cents,

    The credit should go to the programer, not to the adobe operator. Because without the program the operator is nothing but a guy with a mouse or keyboard. While Rembrandt uses brushes without any format, or pattern, more so a program! A few training in vector and he can even do better than you. But you definitely cannat but him without the program.

    Anonymous (07 November, 2009 06:15)

    блин а че маленькие такие.....давайте большие посмотрим!!!

    Luigi (30 November, 2009 15:25)

    Alright, so here are my thoughts.
    Not to diminish anyone's work, they all look fantastic, but, I have never liked Gradient Mesh that much because it's nothing but a tool to sample a photo. The challenging part is to make the right grid, which is not that hard after a few trials, the rest is all Select point(A), Eyedropper (i) for the next few hours.
    When I first saw these life-like vectors I thought, "Damn I want to try that too!" And I did. Look at my DeviantArt link and check out the Timberland shoes. Not too bad for my FIRST attempt.
    It only shows that it doesn't take a lot of skills, but rather, a lot of time in your hands.

    Again, I wasn't trying to put down's people work with my comment, but mainly stating how over rated the Gradient Mesh tool is.


    webdesign (02 January, 2010 03:52)

    it's so realistic

    Naz (16 March, 2010 01:13)

    I luv these photorealistic images being vector based and although it takes so much longer to do and even if it could be considered a craft rather that an art. Vector based images take up so much less processing power etc. compared with raster images. I am developing a website which needs a photoreastic image and was being told that raster images would slow down the website........ but horray these vector based images should solve the issue. Now all i need to find is someone that could make me this vector based photorealistic image for my website.


    Anonymous (17 March, 2010 02:50)

    Me parece que los trabajos tienen algo de falsedad y si no es asi pues que lo demuestra el autor, a mi me parecen que son vectores que son muy dificiles de conseguir.
    El mismo resultado lo puedo optener yo manipulando una fotografia con el photoshop y el illustrator a la vez.
    Comprueva que esos trabajos son realmente realizados en su totalidad en vectores.

    Anonymous (17 March, 2010 11:19)

    These were to present the capabilities of Adobe as well and not just to judge whether it is useful, to some of you saying. Also, it's not just about copying photos, but this also shows that if someone wanted to create an image that doesn't exist at all, but make it look like a photograph, they can use Adobe. What's cool about Illustrator, and what people may criticize is that high detail skill is not entirely necessary since it helps anyone create neatly-executed work. But, that doesn't mean you don't use your creativity---you still have to find clever ways to present the shadows so that it looks natural, proportions may change because of unnatural shadin--I know...Because I suck. But anyway it really helps those with great ideas actually do just what they want. But that being said, design is another thing, and those with the minds of designers should take a look at this program. I use the program for class, and it IS time-consuming even to create much more simple work, takes a good eye and/or close studying--my work sucks so bad compared to these heh--I think I'm awful at designing. Anyway, truly amazing examples

    Anonymous (18 March, 2010 11:07)

    all are amazing but i was hoping to see a Pinoy in your lists. :D

    Anonymous (30 April, 2010 04:49)

    I suppose gradient meshes are also good for concept art. I notice gradient meshes in quite a few magazines now, or at least I believe they are because there IS a certain look about them, extremely crisp and sharp for even a regular photo, or the lighting is smoother. Anyway, a few years ago prior to the release of the PS3--I found an online forum of fans posting their own designs for the next Playstation console; the photos looked so real I couldn't figure out how they did it. I had guessed the artists used a 3D modeling program of some sort, but I was still perplexed because there is a certain look that 3D models have as well, and then I thought they were hand-painted in Photoshop. But now that I've seen these, I guess the mystery is solved!

    Anonymous (18 May, 2010 11:01)

    wow! a 4 year discussion! great job!

    Anonymous (24 May, 2010 13:51)

    I could tell anyone reading this I am a traditional and digital artist. I have worked in most media.
    Vector is extremely limiting (unlike bitmap painting), and requires extreme patients, as well as some critical thinking skills. I was around before computers and used to listen to some people grumble about photo realism, whether with brushes or with airbrush. Photo realism (realism, hyper realism), itself is extremely demanding, because the artist puts all their rendering ability, and decision making on the line. All mistakes show. In this respect, looser styles are easier.
    Because of the limiting factors of vector, it is much like air brush art. The artwork done in either medium usually has a distinct look.

    MYO HAN HTUN - nice work!

    Anonymous (02 June, 2010 23:41)

    Extraordinaire travail ! Mais je reste perplexe : il s'agit quand même dans tous les cas de figures d'une copie de photo. Oui, on peut la redimensionner sans perte de qualité (avantage du vectoriel), mais si cela demande des centaines d'heures de boulot...Quoiqu'il en soit, je pense qu'il est révélateur qu'une majorité d'artistes asiatiques se soient intéressés au Vector Art, car cela correspond particulièrement bien à leur grande aptitude à copier et à leur patience surhumaine.

    Anonymous (21 June, 2010 21:19)

    I was looking at a photo from a magazine I sell products from (clothing makeup and such), and the model had the same exact pose, a mirrored effect. I wondered how can that be, the model is wearing different clothes? My son just finished taking two years of 3D graphic art, and the work, yes, is laboring, starting from the mesh to the bone structure. However once the model is done you can move the model. Companies can advertise all their clothing on one vector model. And set up a great layout. that's why things like video-games can take years to be released. A single model can take months, advantage; once it's finished, changing the dress and pose of the model, and even changing color of makeup and general features of the individual can be done rather rapidly, it just takes, again, months of work to arrive at that stage. Why, the company is not advertising the model rather the products on the model!

    ronald eggy (10 July, 2010 08:29)

    galing :) ns opis aq... haha

    Anonymous (15 July, 2010 13:58)

    Modestly I must agree with all people who think that creating a replica of a photo using vectorial tools is craft, skills, patience, and a great waist of time, anything but art creative work, if one thinks about it in a logical way, but, I must say too, I´m a 41 old guy, I draw and paint since forever, airbrush included, and as a craft job, for who likes it, is a real challenge, and each step of the process a goal and an achievement itself. It´s something that you feel, or like, or don´t. Can´t be explained. Another issue to consider is the theoretical discussion inthe present art field about what is and what isn´t art. Creating images, 2d, 3d, using digital or traditional tools, might be very far of what art conception is today in elitist art circle today. Just that. Thanks. Congratulations to Illustrator masters. And for the guy who thinks those are tricks, and wants to see and illustrator file to believe, tell you friend that you'll find them in the web if you really want to see them, I myself have downloaded .ai files more than once, not only vectorial files, but also 3d editable meshes, just got to search. Thanks again

    Cody Jones (28 July, 2010 22:19)

    This is just simply amazing, and I must be missing something, don't get me wrong, i've only been designing Digital art for a little while (fresh out of school) but as far as I know there is no way in hell that with my current skill set I could get the Meshes to cooperate that magnificently.. unless they made the basic shapes first, created the meshes, then adjusted the shape itself w/ the meshes already locked in?

    gah i'm confused.. any input from ACTUAL DESIGNERS as to the workflow that is used for realistic vectors? (my best realistic is a bell pepper.. don't you judge me!)

    input is appreciated!

    -Cody Jones

    Anonymous (04 August, 2010 15:27)

    wow!!! that' great! aaand... how can do this??

    ps.: sorry, my englis is not the best..sooo just easy. please :$ xD
    Thanks so much!!

    Anonymous (06 August, 2010 10:43)


    Anonymous (11 September, 2010 03:40)

    Wow. Amazing. Lots of work put into all of these works of art. I wish I was at that level in Illustrator!

    Anonymous (15 October, 2010 09:27)

    The process is long and may seem purposeless considering you do get the same image you began with but if you over look this, you really see a talented technician. Creatively, there is none here but if used in a different context, then you will have something incredibly spectacular. You can't say it's time wasting. Look at history, there is a long list of artists who famously painted/drew photo-realistic artwork. What about trompe d'oeil? Chuck Close's portraits? He might as just photograph himself then paint on a 10 feet tall canvas to save time.

    Otterkins2 (27 October, 2010 04:27)

    I have been using Illustrator now for 5 years. I aam self taught in it. To date, I have never been able to do more with colour than flood fills because I know of no one who can teach me. These people are nothing short of sheer geniuses and I have nothing but the utmost respect for them.

    Anonymous (16 November, 2010 09:07)

    the reason you do a vector, photo realistic or not is for scalability. if you're designing art for billboards, magazines, banners, sides of buildings etc. the ability to blow it up with out loss of quality is priceless. not to mention it's just damn cool to create art that looks like a photograph!

    Anonymous (31 December, 2010 12:56)

    Scalability has nothing to do with it. A negative film from a photo is also somethng you can blow it up to the size of a high rising the same way a vector would.
    The reason someone create an illustartion with vectors is --"because they can".

    Anonymous (12 April, 2011 04:42)

    I've done a few simple gradient mesh works myself and I can tell you those guys at the top put in the hours to get that level of detail and they deserve to be congratulated.

    Still, in my opinion, copying a photo is just that, no matter how you do it, you really aren't creating. Gradient mesh work is very much like tracing. I would imagine these folks laid an image on their workspace and traced it. Now if they didn't, and they simply eyeballed the photo from a magazine or come up with the entire image from their head...well, that would be truly amazing.

    I'm more interested in seeing photorealistic vectors without using gradient mesh. In my experience, that's way more difficult to accomplish.

    Anonymous (13 April, 2011 10:13)

    To Anonymous at 12 Apr 2011 04:42.
    (Part 1. I can't fit all my reply into one post so there will be a Part 2, maybe even a Part 3.)

    Whether these vector artists traced the images or did it all completely freehand - it's still amazing, and it's still creative.

    Not everyone who begins an image by tracing it, whether we're talking about traditional media or digital media, ends up with a quality piece.

    I've seen people (both children and adults) trace over a photo, and while their proportions were correct (obviously) their final product still looked terrible never- the- less because they have no clue how to shade and high light properly.

    Some who trace over photos are so artistically ignorant or unskilled they do not even realize they need to add value variation to their traced work at all.

    Therefore, their final drawing looks very "flat" and unconvincing, and that was not their intention (these are people who usually want a hyper realistic, 3-d quality to the work).

    Tracing when done by someone with no talent or skill is not a guarantee that a drawing will turn out well.

    I did all my traditional media work totally freehand throughout childhood, in college art courses, and beyond.

    In my digital art courses while in university, however, I was taught by different digital media instructors that tracing on top of a photo template was normal, natural, and mostly how the software was *intended* to be used.

    Books by professional graphic designers and illustrators even advise other professional artists to use photo layers as templates to trace upon.

    Tracing is a widespread, accepted industry practice.

    One such author regularly releases a new collection of vector art by various artists about once every two to three years (to showcase whatever newest version of Illustrator is on the market), and many of the professional vector artists in her book trace over photos (whether their own photos, someone else's, or over pencil sketches they drew themselves and scanned in).

    Manual tracing with the pen tool in Adobe Illustrator (as opposed to using "Live Trace") is not always wrong, unethical, uncreative, or cheating.

    Even many professional artists who work in traditional media (such as artists who paint or draw covers for books) begin their work by lightly tracing over a photo first by using projectors, because it cuts down on time, which is especially important since they are often on a deadline.

    Anonymous (13 April, 2011 10:14)

    Part 2:
    An artist working for a client does not always have the luxury to devote several hours (or days) to nailing down exact proportions on a human figure, or whatever they're drawing.

    I already mastered drawing by "free hand" (that is, absolutely no tracing at all) by the time I was a college art student, so it ceased to be a challenge.

    The preliminary work, (which usually mostly consists of getting proportions correct), became an absolute bore, and I grew to hate it.

    I am more interested in drawing detail work, such as hair, reflections on eyes, shiny parts on jewelry, etc., than I am on the boring, tedious chore of trying to get facial proportions correct.

    To answer one other question I've seen posed on this blog by other readers:

    The reason some of us who work in Illustrator choose to make highly realistic vector pieces like the ones on this page is that it's simply fun for us. We enjoy it.

    I also regard it as an interesting challenge to see if I can replicate certain textures using vector software.

    I get so sick and tired of seeing what comes across as the condescending, smug, arrogant view from many people (and sadly, I even see this from other artists) that the only "true" form of art is for an artist to come up with a work that is totally, 100% from their own imagination with zero photo references used.

    Almost all artists (even the most famous ones from the Renaissance to the Impressionists) copy from something, whether it be a photo, live model, or a bowl of fruit in front of them.

    Anonymous at 12 Apr 2011 04:42, you said,

    "I'm more interested in seeing photorealistic vectors without using gradient mesh. In my experience, that's way more difficult to accomplish."

    Being "more difficult" really means, in part, "more unnecessarily time consuming," which means foregoing the use of the Gradient Mesh tool and using only blends or regular gradients.

    The Gradient Mesh tool was not introduced into Adobe Illustrator until around version ten of Illustrator several years years ago.

    I began using Illustrator years before version ten, back when one had *no choice* but to use blends and the like to achieve photo realism.

    When I first got my copy of Illustrator version ten years ago, I did not even bother using Gradient Mesh for a long time, because I was not really sure what it was and didn't want to take the time to learn it back then.

    After I took the time to finally learn the Gradient Mesh tool when I purchased a newer copy of Illustrator about two years ago, I've enjoyed it a lot.

    I still occasionally make a vector drawing the "old fashioned" way (that is, without the gradient mesh tool), but please, let's not be all sanctimonious about it and make it sound like using the blend tool is the only "proper" or truly creative way of using Illustrator. It is not.

    If your personal preference is to never, ever use photo references, to never, ever trace over a photo, and/or to use only the blend tool in Illustrator, that's fine.

    However, I get so sick and tired of people insulting those of us artists who choose to, or who prefer to, work differently.

    Anonymous (13 April, 2011 10:30)

    DCs, you said,
    "Anyone that can even criticize any of the above works, needs a reality check. Not only are these works extremely difficult to pull off...
    I have dabbled in vector art for almost 2 decades and I am astonished at the level of accuracy and talent these people have, not to mention the patience. So, if you can do it better, let's see..."


    Most people, *even if* they trace over a photo using Illustrator's pen tool still cannot achieve the high quality results we see in most of the vector images on display here.

    And if they can do so, I can guarantee you they would totally object to anyone telling them (after they spent hours, days, or weeks on a detailed vector drawing) that "it takes no talent, skill, or creativity" to have made it.

    Anonymous (13 April, 2011 12:46)

    whoom said,
    "And anyone says the images made by automatic raster to vector software, find one then use it to a bitmap. U'll see that the result is different, not as smooth as these images that's made by manual wire-meshing not tracing – they show different result."

    I agree. One can usually tell if the artist used "Live trace" on a photo or not.

    Sometimes it is hard to tell (depending on the settings the artist used with the Live Trace dialog box), but you usually can.

    For those of you who do not know, there is a feature in Adobe Illustrator called "Live Trace" which will automatically convert a photograph into a vector.

    @Soham who said,

    "Amazing Skill !!!! But its just the skill and not much of creativity. Most of the images are recreated. Creativity is where you create something original using these skill."

    And @Douglas who said much the same thing as Soham and several others:

    "Point worth emphasizing: these are great draftsmen. Not artists."

    Who says they're not artists?

    All artists copy off something. Leonardo Da Vinci used live models, so I guess the Mona Lisa is not "real art"?

    What's the difference between Leonardo using live models for his paintings and contemporary artists using a photo for their digital files, regardless of who took the photo?

    What difference does it make if one uses oil paints, pencils, or the computer to create an image?

    I was trained in traditional media; that is my background.

    Using traditional media, I sometimes created totally original works (characters I alone developed), I sometimes worked from still lifes or live models, and I sometimes used photos taken by myself, or by others, as references.

    I then moved on to digital medial, creating vector pieces that are very similar to the ones you see on this page.

    So to recap, I'm educated in, and more than competent at, traditional media and decided years ago to work in digital media.

    Therefore, to say that I'm merely a "draftsman" and not "an artist" is untrue, inaccurate, insulting, and offensive. And incredibly condescending.

    Anonymous (13 April, 2011 12:48)

    To "Mar4" who wrote,
    "It is jaw-dropping that they are all computer generated but do something original."

    Who says it's not original (you're also implying it's not truly art)?

    Most artists use references most of the time, whether it be a live model, a bowl of fruit on the table before them, or sitting an easel up in a meadow and painting an image of the scenery around them.

    How is using a live model, natural scenery, etc., any more "original" than what these vectors artists have done?

    @francisbacon, who said,
    "And the question is whether the advantage of having a vector graphic from a photo is worth 100 hours spent at making it."

    Yes, it's worth it to me. I find it fun. I do it for enjoyment.

    @TwoCents who said,
    "Does working from a photo degrade the quality of the work, too? Does this actually differ from painting a vista in person, or other still life? Ahh...there's always Dali...but he dragged a brush around, too."

    Excellent points, TwoCents.

    @thedue who said,
    "WHY? because an advertising agency is surely not going to pay a graphic artist 10 hours of work for something a photographer can do in 3."

    Because some clients want an artsy look in a drawing format.

    I had to work on projects before for clients who wanted a very realistic image in vector format.

    No matter how realistic it looks, highly realistic vector drawings usually still retain a slightly different look than a photograph.

    On a personal basis, I create these kind of pictures for enjoyment. It's kind of a hobby. Not everyone creates photo realistic vectors on the job for bosses or clients.

    Anonymous (13 April, 2011 12:49)

    daverj said,
    "But these are not that. Photo-realistic drawings that are traced over real photographs are a craft, not an art. These people are skilled, yes. But if they are artists, these works don't show that."

    There are some vector artists who do work completely "freehand." That is, not all vector artists trace over photographs.

    It takes talent to create a realistic vector (whether traced or done 'freehand'), it's still art, and these people are still artists.

    daverj said,
    "You can continually tweak the curves until they exactly match the photo."

    The same can be said for the art student who keeps erasing his pencil sketch lines on his paper tablet until his lines match the live model before him exactly.

    And how is that any more valid or artistic than vector artists who use a photo template?

    Many art masters (the guys we had to study in art history) began their oil paintings by sketching a basic outline in charcoal or pencil first, before touching oil paint to canvas.

    (Some of these masters from hundreds of years ago also traced, by the way - they set up glasses and mirrors to reflect scenery on to their paper or canvas and traced the outlines).

    If you look at books of photos of the work of artists that are considered masters, you can see where these guys made mistakes.

    They had to sketch the same area over and over before "getting it right," because they didn't always get their images right the first time.

    Why would you accept that behavior from a traditional artist but reject the equivalent behavior when carried out by a digital artist?

    daverj said,
    "And the reason is that it is considered craft and not art to do that."

    And that is your opinion only.

    I for one consider it art.

    Tracing has been pretty wide spread among professional artists for decades now, even (or especially, I should say) among artists who make drawings or paintings in *traditional* media for posters and book covers.

    Many professional artists who work in traditional media under deadlines use light boxes and projectors to trace over photos.

    I think a lot of us digital artists started out in traditional media (I did), because computers and graphic design software were not really wide spread when we were in high school and college.

    I began drawing in pencil, India ink, and charcoal, later moved on to water colors, acrylics and oil, and I did so totally free hand with no tracing, and I mastered it.

    @weeman who said,
    "There is so much jealousy here. Unbeleivable."

    I agree.

    Even if the motive of those posting these nit picking, critical comments does not stem from jealousy, there are still facets of art snobbery going on.

    @Idaho who said,
    "But, with the exception of Bert Monroy who is truely an artistic MASTER (the image of the train station alone has something like 10,000 layers to it), they are all just tracings."

    Well, some of my highly realistic Illustrator drawings end up with hundreds and hundreds of layers.

    I don't understand using the number of final layers as criteria for whether or not a piece is truly "artistic." (That is an idiotic criteria, to put it bluntly.)

    Just because someone traces a photo is not a guarantee that the final image will turn out wonderfully.

    I've seen people trace in digital and traditional media, and their final piece still ended up looking horrid because they have no talent to begin with and have no clue how to add tonal range.

    Tracing outlines is not enough; one has to understand value variation and such too.

    Anonymous (13 April, 2011 12:52)

    @Idaho, who said,
    "And in most of these images what they are doing could also be called coyright infringement."

    Technically you might be correct, but if they don't attempt to mass produce, sell, and profit off the work, it doesn't matter, in that they are likely not going to be sued over it.

    But I will remind you that there is a market for highly realistic drawings based off photos.

    Many companies (who make T-shirts, posters, key chains, coffee mugs) hire artists who TRACE over photos by other people (that they have gotten permission to use) to make oil paintings, pencil drawings, and they reproduce these traced/highly realistic artworks on posters, mugs, key chains, etc.

    Idaho said,
    "I'd love to see they guys and gals put there skills to work on a completely original CREATIVE idea and not just copy someone else's work. It's not art, it's tracing."

    Tracing is a step in creating art, Idaho.

    Some of the art masters of the past traced.

    Professional artists of the last several decades who churn out paintings for book covers have been using light boxes and projectors to trace their work.

    Using a live model or a bowl of fruit from which to base a drawing is no different than using a photo as a reference. So yes, it's still art.

    @YukioMiyamoto said,
    "Without forgetting Illustrator is a tool to draw the picture. Do not become mesh point = bit map."

    I don't know if I understand your point completely, because no matter how you draw something in Illustrator...

    Whether you send it out as a PDF to be printed or have to convert it to a .gif or .jpg format for the internet, it's going to be turned into a bit map at some stage of the process.

    ArtTheory said,
    "Even if a person uses paint in the traditional manner and copies from a photo does not make it art, illustration, graphic design - craft, but not art."

    So if someone uses a reference (regardless of type), the thing they create is not "art?"

    That's strange, because many people consider Andy Warhol's silk screened images of other people's photos of Elvis and Liz Taylor "art."

    @voice of reason who said,
    "I don't buy it. It's a trick."

    I work in Illustrator a lot.

    It is possible to get very realistic components to a drawing in Illustrator without using Live Trace.

    But a few of the drawings on this page do make me wonder if the artist combined photoshopped/ 3d type images with vector work.

    Which is fine if they did (I have nothing against mixed media), unless they are passing off such work as being 100% vector (Illustrator) and it is not.

    uro said,
    "It has been done before. A photograph from an 8x10 color negative can match any of the pictures in this gallery."

    I'm guessing you have zero experience using Illustrator, or are not capable of creating beautiful, competent works with it.

    poemorella said,
    "Monroy's work is not traced. His work is hyperrealism.. from his mind... no photos to use as a base."

    And even if he had used photos (traced or not), that's fine. It would not have diminished his work at all.

    Anonymous said,
    "They use a tablet for sure. And you wouldn't have the control with a mouse as with a tablet."

    I create Adobe Illustrator pieces very much like the ones you see on this page, and I do not use a tablet. I use a mouse, always have.

    Anonymous (10 May, 2011 00:15)

    Amazing artwork. These people are freaks to have talent like that!

    Anonymous (29 July, 2011 01:55)

    If you want this, take a picture. It's not art.

    Anonymous (27 October, 2011 03:44)

    Anyone can do this using a free program called Inkscape.

    Anonymous (16 November, 2011 01:46)

    No automated program can create work of this quality. There are no artifacts in these images. It's all about understanding how to band the vectors and color them correctly. Also note that many of these artists don't work from photos at all. There are a number of applications for art like this.

    Anonymous (16 March, 2012 09:51)

    To all the people saying these images aren't art because they were traced from photographs are showing a severe lack of knowledge of art history. Tracing images from real life has been done since the Renaissance. The camera obscura produced projections of natural objects and figures. Painters who we recognize as some of the greatest artists of history like DaVinci and Michelangelo used the camera obscura to trace, yes trace, images projected by the camera obscura. If we were to discredit all the great artworks traced from camera obscuras and photographs, we wouldn't be left with much artwork. (The more you know.)

    Anonymous (11 May, 2012 23:53)

    These are not meant to be works of art. The image is vectorised so that it can be used on a massive scale without worrying about copyright.

    Anonymous (04 September, 2012 05:40)

    fadlfja kfdafd
    af naldjksa

    sorry,just wiping my keyboard

    Holy Cows!! I just got done jacking off to those female vector images. They looked so damm real that I had to fap to them. Nice work vector image graphic designers. Thnx

    Vectorpile (13 September, 2012 03:40)

    This must have taken ages to create. Kudos to the designer who had the patience and time.

    saint blater (24 November, 2012 22:19)

    Top Vectors (03 June, 2013 01:32)

    I would need at least a month to recreate this. Sorry, ain't nobody got time for that!

Post a Comment