Any theory that involves a work of an artist is not really tenable. As I’ve argued in my summary argument, there are many points against it being any type of artwork. If any imaging technique that is proposed that involves the work of an artist, my summary argument must be refuted.
I’ve also addressed the following artistic replication attempts:
The 1978 STURP team has been the only group of scientists that have done the most hands-on study of the shroud. Their goal was to find out how the image formed. After all their study, the final conclusion was:
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist.
Barrie Schwortz, who was on the 1978 STURP team, rarely claims their findings has proven anything. But one thing he has stated that they have proved is it is not a work of art.
But science itself has PROVEN (and I don’t use that word lightly), that the Shroud is not an art work of any kind. Our team went to Turin to answer a single question: How is the image on the Shroud formed? The conventional wisdom in 1978 was that it was either some form of painting, scorch or photograph, so our tests included experiments to explore all of those possibilities. Using very sensitive spectral and chemical analyses, along with microscopic and photographic examination, we searched for any traces of paints or pigments on the cloth. In fact, we had with us a complete catalog of the spectral characteristics of every paint and pigment used by man from medieval to modern times. In the end we determined that no paints or pigments were responsible for the image. Thus, we proved scientifically that the Shroud image is not a painting.
All artistic methods are thus ruled out, including: