I preface this comment by saying that I haven’t viewed any of this artists works live, or viewed the artbook in question, but is it really correct to call these photo-realist? To me, just judging from the images presented here, the works seem to embrace their painted-ness, rather than seeking to erase it in favor something else (a self-aware effort at mimicing photography). So, they seem less intent on problematizing naturalistic tendencies in painted art as embracing those tendencies. In other words, the images above seem to me to be obviously paintings, and happily so, rather than “photographs” but really paintings and critically so.

Again, this is really commenting in ignorance on my part, just judging from the examples you’ve posted above.

This artbook should be called, “Women Have Breasts.” Lol.
I still haven’t found a nude male art book that isn’t pornographic or for gay people 🙁

You’ll let me know if you find any, won’t you?