It's hard to say Cons as the elements of the picture are probably sketched and painted and the photos are just overlaid to give it texture (much like texturing in 3d).

It would best fit a "matte painting" tag really.

Wade, would the photomanipulation tag be accurate here?

What menace said!

A lot of scanned material here, but I've seen some of this guy's tutorials and he admits to using photos as textures, so he's not trying to pass off his work as scratch painted.

Check out 'Cosmic girl' by Citadel (http://artcity.bitfellas.org/index.php?a=show&id=21202)

Looks scanned with some areas smoothed and blurred out. Hard to say if it's meant to be a photomanip or if the artist tried to pass it off as painted.

background city is a plain copy/scan of a Boris oil painting.

A bit odd that both grafx2 and promotion were used, I wonder why..

he quite bad scan

not bad

This won Function 2006 in Handdrawn.

Since the clouds seem to be taken from another photo i guess this is only a simple combination of a few separate objects.

To avoid sorrow, anger, despair and all these things, let's assume that, here on artcity :

If tag no copy = 0 then it is a redraw
If tag no copy = 1 then it is _probably_ not a redraw.

mmhh shit, i'm so disappointed, don't tell me that most pictures by Mirage are "just" pictures (well) recolored

You can now

Each time I see this one from a medium distance, I'm tricked (for a few seconds then the effect disappear).

That changes my rating then. It's a fairly decent photo and the retouching looks good, but nothing particularly impressive.

Just found some information about the picture and filled it into the description. You assumed right.

I higly doubt anyone could paint the billion tiny lights and pores on this skin.