He lied about 1 tiny thing, I would've done the same. He likes to boast and if any of us did anything near that quality we'd be boasting aswell. The progress pictures was legit and he did explain it well so he did work on it and throughly knew what he was talking about. I never had respect for him, nor did I know that he was good a GFX, infact I hate his guts, but this picture is excellent and this is rate-a-pic so I will.
9.5/10 This almost pefrect seeming picture isn't perfect but very close. That bit on the neck doesn't quite look right and parts on the head are a bit fugly. The rest of it seems to have a bit of a more modern water painting effect. It's got depth, shining and shadowing, the background is very plain but it seems to work. If you look closely you can see parts that give away the proccess of making the picture, seems more legit, with some share of mistakes. He used a model, good choice as making one completely from scratch is very hard and ardous, a very bad choice of begginers of that side of GFX. (none of this is based on him working off another picture and every time I see the other photo it seems more and more copy cat but I thought it would be fairer to judge it as a completely original piece of work. I should/would be giving this considering the changes and the fact that I'm assuming that it was all done without just edited a existed picture on the PC a 8/10 because the back ground and everything has been copied from another photo, at first I though he was painting that woman not copying the picture completely. Artistically this picture is great but I must take it down a bit because it lacks originality. At least he made the thread last longer with the contraversy.) Overall a very good picture, with all the critea of a good water painting.
