This thread is great, you guys are generous for sharing your knowledge like this. I'm a character modeler by day and trying to improve my 2d skills, any feedback would be appreciated.
Yo Dude. Not too sure what you want feedback on? You are usually going to get better results if you give us something specific to focus on.
Thanks a ton for that Makkon!
I've been doing a ton of drawing trying to get past this. I get the feeling that i can actually see what my issues are now, and i can push things closer to where they need to be with iteration, bit it's going to take a hell of a lot of work to push it past that.
Dado, Totally agree with what you are saying.
I am certainly a fan of design over technical execution, Though im not entirely sure that this is really fully relevant to the conversation here. I've isolated specific issues with my work that i don't like and am seeking a way and get rid of them totally.
But that being said i do need to make sure that i am actually DESIGNING faces and characters that i find visually exciting, and am not just drawing this stuff for the hell of it. As that is a habit i have fallen into before.
So maybe the next step is to give myself keywords outside of what i normally draw and try and intentionally DESIGN faces to match, rather than blind drawing like i normally do?
Hm, Muzz, I'm not sure what you're showing in this image, but I gotta say the first image on the left is the one that feels the most comfortable and aesthetically pleasing to me.
I don't know what that says about this exercise here because I'm unsure what you're showing, but it's the reaction I had immediately. The one on the far right is also pretty nice.
Sorry, this is more food for thought/stoking the fire than actual crit or help, but I thought it was worth saying.
I think Muzz is drawing a face (there are two uniquefaces) and then from left to right addressing the habits he usually falls into (?). And I personally think they both show improvements (the left one is a bit hard to compare as her expressions change)
and muzz where are you getting these cool refs from? I did a search for kronzprinz and it gives me a ship?
Honestly BagelHero I'm not even sure. It was an attempt to try and iterativley remove problems i have, and remove silly lines i draw. I'm more concerned with breaking habits than making pretty pictures? Maybe that is silly? To me i feel like I'm hitting on a lot of the points makkon made, but it still has muzzface.
Well, getting out of bad habits is good, but sacrificing nice forms and appealing structure for it (when it might not even be that harmful) isn't.
When you do that clean-up version, you need to nail the proportions, and there's no need to take out land mark forms just to clean it up, either? Most notable on the left one. Some of them your style might develop from loosing but all of them leaves it feeling flat again.
idk. Here are some quick notes, hope you don't mind. Ain't nothing super useful and perfectly on point, but my excuse is that I'm still at work (and not at Makkons level yet lol)
I flipped it and marked some stuff:
Like, the reason this one jumps out at me is because I have a mad case of floating facial features in my paintings, personally, now that I'm looking at it. I also honestly think the clean-up version looks more like it has so-called "muzz-face" than the one you drew first. The hair in the second one has more form/volume, which is awesome, and the eyes just look more deatiled/cleaned up which is fine.
Just be careful of messing up the basics because you're too busy concentrating on technical aspects, I guess is what I'm saying.
Also Zberry, that's not bad. I think the face is getting skewed a bit to the left and losing the perspective that is being implied by the top of the head and other features. I also think your nose needs some work, and that chin and the cheekbones could use some finesse. Here's a picture.
Damn Makkon, that really makes a lot of the issues really stand out. It really is a structure problem I've been having!
I was curious, so i tried pasting my features onto your face. To me the muzzface is instantly gone.
I watched through all the Proko videos and a few things stood out to me.
*I know this information, but I'm just not using it all. (most things anyway, jelly bean at the side of the face for example was more detailed than my understanding)
*I'm not emphasizing overlapping forms enough, i need to exaggerate soft fleshy forms and make sure they feel fleshy.
*My bony landmarks are NOT solid enough, i need to nail them down to the floor and not let them move.
*I draw the same damn hair styles over and over again, but this is besides the point, I'm going to ignore hair for the time being.
I missed looking at this thread ! Very interesting stuff again
On the subject of the Muzzface, I think there are a few things you could try.
- First of all, as Bagel mentioned it here I think you could totally keep your construction lines. We tend to think of them as temporary helpers, to be erased when shading is applied ; but you could also see them as very faint core shadows, reduced to their bare minimum. Seen that way, there is no reason to ged rid of them ! Like here :
- Another thing about structure : many drawing guides give proportional formulas, like the Loomis head division that Makkon illustrated on the previous page. These are useful and accurate tools, but I feel like they tend to make us forget that the structure of a face actually comes from below the surface : the skull lying underneath. A face formula can be applied to skulls just as well as it can be applied to faces ; but skulls are much, much easier to draw (there is no pressure to make them pretty !) yet still provide a fantastic foundation to build upon.
I personally find myself much more at ease when I start a head drawing with a roughly defined skull shape with suggested eye sockets, than when I attempt to draw "from the outline in". Knowing where you are coming from I feel like this approach might work for you too.
These days I am working on a lineup of portraits that I am hoping to sculpt in 3D later. I think they illustrate what I just mentioned ; for instance you can tell that the eye sockets are there but these marks are not too distracting. I am also making a conscious attempt at being as minimalist as possible with mark making. These are about 1.5x2 inches, ballpoint on newsprint.
- I also agree with what Dado is hinting at - after all, even study sketches can be full of life ! One can think of a third layer, which is the one of pure visual expression. A drawing can be simplified/exaggerated/enhanced in order to become a graphic design element in and of itself. It goes further than just "style", it can become a ongoing research started anew with each sketch. Like here :
I really just want to chime in and say pior has some great notes on face building. There have been plenty of times in the past where I jump in from silhouette -> drawing inside facial features, but so often do I find myself having it not look quite right, and I wind up going the skull route. To me, the skull is king of facial structure baselines. Eye sockets help me out a lot - often times drawing them I don't think of them as sockets but as the shadows cast by the brow, they wind up being the same thing. Real common for me to start with the nasal bone/cavity especially from more of a side or 3/4ths view to help me dive into that a bit, also, or a rough/sloppy line for teeth that I'll build lips off of later.
I think these marks often add to the meat of the piece later on if they're not too overbearing, and can help a lot with perspective in a quick, comfortable manner.
More detail has been added, going to consider colour now. Open to any suggestions or tips
Hey! It's hard to know where to start with your picture here, as there are a few issues. Something that really stands out to me is that you're using line to define the curvature of surfaces, sacrificing accurate lighting and values which would fully describe forms.
May I suggest reading through the PSG Art Tutorial, and checking out Ctrl+Paint's Video Library? They'll really help with understanding how to approach things when painting digitally.
I'm going to leave it a while while i try and drill myself on this stuff before i post up again.
Pior, i think the bone structure thing is definitely helpful, I'm trying to placed landmarks based more around the skull and i think it's helping.
I think that this is all really hitting on something core that has been holding me back as an artist. I just draw, and i don't think i am really searching for that amazing design or graphic element. I go through the paces of trying to make good technical illustrations, but without that drive to design i just end up making shitty pieces, and because i have a massive stigma about copying others (i need to get over that) i end up just drawing really boring things without any soul.
I don't tend to think that i have the same problems when i am working on projects, like whenever I'm working on an actual project that i am enthusiastic about i think i am a hell of a lot better than normal. (Just look at my Treasure star stuff). But i think i need to get this going with all of my work .
I've been thinking about the discussion regarding linework. And a lot of it has helped, but I still feel that disconnect between traditional and digital and I think I've found another reason why. Though this may vary between peeple. It's the thickness of the wacom pen.
Here is a comparison between two pencils and wacom pen. (sorry for blurry images)
So essentially the width of the wacom pen changes how you grip it and is possibly one of the reasons for that disconnect feeling. And also for me it changes how I make my strokes.
edit:....well I just looked back and saw the image pior posted of the comic artist. He was using a wide marker so this could be entirely wrong
And here is something i've been working on hoping I could get an opinion on it
Which one is more interesting? I'm trying to work on my story telling. Personally I find C and D. Is that because it create more questions for the audience? Or maybe it's because The question is more direct.
Oh and just for fun I found out I could make this when putting the above image together. gifs are so fun :poly142:
I'd say the disconnect how we all experience it is entirely personal.
In terms of which one is best. Honestly they are all much of a muchness. Instead i would invite you to go for a more natural pose. Arching your back like that only happens when you are intentionally posing for a photo.
I would have her bend forward and actually engage with the lizard, holding the bird away so the lizard doesn't try and snap for it.
Yeah they are just a just a few minor tweaks. Mainly because it started off as a sketch painting with no forward planning. But as I kept painting I was wondering...why, So I asked myself how I could make it more interesting but it was harder than I thought.
engage with the lizard, holding the bird away so the lizard doesn't try and snap for it.
This is essentially what I want to try and achieve but don't really know how. I want to have the audience come up with different narratives.
If she is touching the "dragon" that establishes that she is comfortable around it. However if there is no physical contact that creates a question? Maybe she is comfortable around it or maybe she is not. it makes me wonder if putting in more "questions" makes the image more interesting. Or perhaps it makes it confusing, or maybe there should be a restriction of questions depending on the purpose of the image.
....Sorry i'm rambling and the more I write, the more I see how silly it is. I'm trying to create multiple narratives when people already naturally interpret things differently.
As for the back, personally I like it even if it's not natural but i'll have a go at your suggestion later in the week.
My main qualm is actually the arm. In every one of these poses, the arm not holding the bird is really just... not dynamic at all. The back is contrived, but at least it's dynamic. You want the arm to continue that rhythm.
I'm trying to find the page or a scan of it at least, but I was sure Walt Stanchfield had some notes in Drawn to Life about gestures looking uninteresting and static because the pose is somewhat mirrored habitually. And, if I may...
The core gesture of each of these poses, and you can see that they all fall to this problem.
C is the least prone to this, but I don't think it's the strongest either. It's got giving off a strong feeling towards what could be happening here. A is the most prone, but personally, for a simply appealing image it has the most promise. B the best idea, and after reading your explanations has a bit of a "tut tut" feel about it, but I feel you'd have to change the pose entirely if you wanted that to really be sold, and D is really... not good. looks like you hid the arm because you didn't know where else to put it.
I dunno. This is a paint over of an idea, probably where I might have taken it knowing nothing of the setting and characters. You should probably make a habit of painting/sketching in both arms at the same time, as one mass, making sure they flow nicely, rather than just painting one in however and then trying to get the other to match. Also, make sure she's actually making eye contact with the lizard-- right now she's kind of looking under it. A little bit more of an expression might be nice, too, kind of hard to read it right now.
Another idea I had while painting this was more like
Ech, anyway, just idea fuel. I hope this can help a little bit with pinning down things that might feel "off".
My name is Dan and I am currently working on some pieces based off a book called The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson. I still have a long way to go in terms of skill but I was hoping for some definitive feedback, especially on the foreshortening of the two characters and folds in the clothing . This is the sketch (minus the characters weapons and background) before I draw the final line art:
So to be blunt about what's happening in the scene is the character in the air is using a power called lashing to jump over the armoured dudes swing and is now coming in for a counter attack. I used both a real life still of two of my peers and my own intuition for the perspective. Any pointers on an easy way for working out foreshortening would be great!
Trying to improve this painting of a Thark caravan from the John Carter books, but I have no idea where to start. My background is in portraiture in traditional media, and I've generally avoided wide vistas and such. I've been trying to break out of my comfort zone, but the results have been less than stellar so far.
Ok guys, I just want to say some words on posting in here when you literally only have two posts on polycount.
I welcome your enthusiasm, and while I'll say some words about your works, I would rather if you tried to help out other people as well as just looking for feedback while doing this. Forums run on good karma, if you help other people, people are more willing to invest time into you.
I'd say set yourself a goal of getting up 30 substantial posts, posting art, and discussing things, and helping others. You don't really get a taste for a community till you actually try and contribute.
Anyhow onto the art.
Kaonluong:
I'd say it's a pretty solid piece, but there is certainly things to work on.
I'd say anatomy is your first port of call. You have a lot of the major forms down, but there is a lot of sloppy anatomy, and the finer forms of muscles are missing entirely, and things are pronounced in weird ways.
Now FEET FEET FEET. Look at them. Print out the feet and paste them on the wall with a big red cross through them. They look like they were drawn by a 5 year old.
Lighting wise, work out exactly where your light source is, and be more bold with it. It's a dynamic shot but there is a lot of diffuse lighting, and odd lighting placement.
Dan:
Use an image host to post images.
You need to nail the construction. Break the pose down into basic shapes, and it will be easier
Spear:
You need to start thinking about the actual forms of the ground and environment. It can't be a mushy mess. I would suggest practicing drawing environments just in lines for a while, it will force you to think about the actual forms and contours of the ground. How cliffs jut out of the ground and how boulders rest.
If your goal is to get good at backgrounds you should drop out the characters for a while as they are just a distraction to that goal.
Yeah they are just a just a few minor tweaks. Mainly because it started off as a sketch painting with no forward planning. But as I kept painting I was wondering...why, So I asked myself how I could make it more interesting but it was harder than I thought.
Stop polishing sketches then!
If your goal is to do good story telling, once you have a sketch you like, you need to work out if how you drew it is actually the best way to do it before you commit to a render.
You are going to improve faster if you are more methodical and think about what you are doing rather than leaving it up to chance!
I welcome your enthusiasm, and while I'll say some words about your works, I would rather if you tried to help out other people as well as just looking for feedback while doing this.
Yeah, sorry, I don't feel proficient enough in digital art to actually critique other people's work yet.
Analyzing other peoples work, and trying to help out actually helps you out as an artist. You don't necessarily even need to give concrete technical breakdowns, but simply offering some comments about what looks good and what looks not so good can be a huge help.
It's all just part of contributing to a community .
Kaionluong: This is just a personal aesthetic thing, but that costume looks really uncomfortable - particularly that strap going through the breasts. I can't see a woman wearing it outside of a specific fetish environment. Like I said, it's not a mistake per se, but I feel semi-functional costumes are an important design factor.
Daew : you bet ! This is my ugly duckling of a Wacom pen :
Still, I feel like the claw grip doesnt come only from the shape of the stylus but mostly from the extra steadiness required to hold the cursor in place. I see two factors contributing to this : the fact that the surface of tablets/Cintiqs is very slippery, making it impossible for the tip of the stylus to bite the surface on its own ; and on top of that, the lack of precision of the device itself adds to the issue.
Now one might think that regular tablets are just as accurate as a mouse, but they really aren't ; if they were, Cintiqs wouldn't require any calibration (and I am not talking about just parallax calibration here).
It's supposed to be a futuristic space racer based in the year 2064, the styling of the background is trying to convey a sense of speed as well as trying to look like those old grand prix posters from the 1960's
@fentoturbol : just give it more time and work on the design , because i think you are using some real photos of an airplane or something . the perspective is fine . the values are right but i think there is a problem with the colors . and the forms are not symmetrical , is that a part of the design or something ? . hope that help a little
Bagelhero - Thanks man! I never realized my figure was mirroring and thats something I will keep in mind in the future. And sorry I haven't produced anything showing me taking in the feedback. I'm trying to limit the amount of projects I have :<.
(sorry this is quite hard for me to explain so it may become an incoherent mess.)
Thanks for the paintovers. However that's what i've been wondering about, not so much the image itself, but the story. The narrative for the two paint overs is pretty straight forward and I was wondering if it would be more interesting to have the audience question the motives and reasons in the image.
Honestly I've come to the realization that what's really happening is I'm bouncing story ideas in my head and thinking that it's adding more dimension to it but in reality It's always one dimension.
For example, In the first paintover she is happy, the dragon is happy and she is holding a bird. The narrative is pretty straightforward. So then I would think, ok, how about if I add a dagger instead of a bird but the two are still happy. Surely then that would give the image more mystery. Not really...
With the woman holding the bird and they are both happy I assumed it was straightforward. but there are still questions. Were they hunting or is she feeding the dragon. So what have I learn't? Well it should of been obvious but whatever. Focus on the story and not the audience. When they look at an image they will come up with their own stories.
But then does this image have a story? I enjoy it but I can't seem to find the story apart from a life figure painting. Is story not that important?
Muzz - heh well the problem was I was doing the sketch before thinking about story telling.
And to add what Muzz is saying (However I don't mind if you don't have many posts)
Personally I'm weary when someone plops an image down with nothing but "please critique". It is a lot easier for everyone, if you identify things you think want to improve.
Pior - Oh my, what have you done to your pen XD. and yep! I put paper under my tablet and tried the pencil grip and it helped. I never considered the friction from the paper to help with support. With that said, I hear it's a nib killer so might have to stick with my claw.
There is not much in the way of design here, you have some flashy shapes rendered with bright colours with exaggerated perspective, but the actual design elements are missing.
I can't tell the function of anything, and the forms that are there aren't communicating a purpose.
If this is a concept piece then design and readability are your main goals.
If it is a marketing shot, then it needs more polish and again it needs a better design, but that is better explored in sketches rather than in an image like this.
Muzz - heh well the problem was I was doing the sketch before thinking about story telling.
That's the point! Sketching is coming up with ideas. Once you have a sketch you like, an idea, it's worth pursing it properly.
(However I don't mind if you don't have many posts)
My problem isn't that they have a lack of posts, but the expectation that we provide feedback from hard won experience for nothing in return. In lieu of payment, all most of us ask is you help out others and help us make an enjoyable community!
- About Adam Hugues using a marker with a wide body : even though at first glance the shape of a wacom stylus with rubber grib is very similar to that of a Copic marker, the actual feel of these tools is totally different. No matter how wide the body of the marker is, the positioning of its tip on paper is extremely precise, and an order of magnitude more accurate than the Wacom digitizer panel will ever be.
And then other problems pile up : the interferences caused by the display panel of Cintiqs, the hand/eye disconnect in regular tablets, the underwhelming pressure sensitivity, and the fact that screens are so bright that there is no way to work "up close" like one would do on paper. These factors force people to use the claw grip you described, or, force artists to zoom in like crazy. Working on paper for a while makes it all very obvious
- As for your composition sketches of the lady stroking the dragon : I'd vote for A, simply because I find it to be stronger from a graphic design perspective. The eye flows around it very easily.
- Also, a note about this piece (unrelated to the storytelling question) :
This to me stresses the weakness of digital art. This painting shows is a great richness of surface qualities, with translucent layers playing beautifully with the more opaque strokes, both affected by the grain of the canvas/paper ... and it all comes naturally as it is part of the media itself. But all of this needs to be 100% simulated in digital art, by relying on dozens of fancy brushes and tricks, and I personally find this process to be exhausting and kind of pointless ...
Now of course such digital paintings sure "look cool", and people love saying that something "looks just like a painting" similarly to how people used to say that a painting looks "just like a photograph". But for some reason I cannot help but think that there is something a bit pointless about all this, as if we were forcing ourselves to impress viewers instead of embracing our medium for what it is. What do you guys think ?
From pior:
"Now of course such digital paintings sure "look cool", and people love saying that something "looks just like a painting" similarly to how people used to say that a painting looks "just like a photograph". But for some reason I cannot help but think that there is something a bit pointless about all this, as if we were forcing ourselves to impress viewers instead of embracing our medium for what it is. What do you guys think ?"
I absolutely agree. I kinda never try to hide the digital art it is in my artworks. Its just that. I paint plain and tidy artworks without much grain or bullshit. Mostly only one brush. I don't try to mimic any traditional art. I'd do that if someone pays me for it, but for my own stuff I don't see a reason to mimic any traditional feel.
Its useless anyway. It would never be like the original. You can't fake the feel of an oil painting. It will always only be a photo of a traditional painting. And thats not worth very much. Its still not 'the original'. There is no way to reproduce the roughness of a surface and big, loaded strokes of paint in digital art. You will never get the depth of real paint on Canvas. The small and minor parallaxing of builds of paint. It'll always be a flat photograph. If you want a traditional look, better paint traditional.
I've been having a hard time trying to answer this and I'm not sure I fully understand.
I have been having trouble discerning the difference between trying to get a traditional look or adding texture to break up the perfection we get from digital. If it is the latter then it's not pointless because it is imitating the real world? Maybe I need more clarification
I understand the pointless part of a medium trying to be something it's not. Like why use cg when you can use real life.
And every time I argue for digital (trying to be tradional) against traditional painting the answers are usually superficial.
What would your opinion be on a piece like this? It still doesn't have a fully traditional feel and as stated before it will never have it. But I think the ground has the cool sense of traditional painted brush strokes that really add to the piece.
I've been having a hard time trying to answer this and I'm not sure I fully understand.
I have been having trouble discerning the difference between trying to get a traditional look or adding texture to break up the perfection we get from digital. If it is the latter then it's not pointless because it is imitating the real world? Maybe I need more clarification
I understand the pointless part of a medium trying to be something it's not. Like why use cg when you can use real life.
And every time I argue for digital (trying to be tradional) against traditional painting the answers are usually superficial.
What would your opinion be on a piece like this? It still doesn't have a fully traditional feel and as stated before it will never have it. But I think the ground has the cool sense of traditional painted brush strokes that really add to the piece.
As far as doing it digitally goes, what you gain is time and cost efficiency. Time is money, and paint + canvases + brushes + primer + turpentine + drying agents all cost money. Once you have the software, anything you create thereafter is virtually free. The only thing you lose at the end of the day is a tangible product at the end of the project in the form of an oil on board painting, but if you're only going to distribute digital versions of it, you've lost nothing. Aesthetically it's not pointless - use whatever tools you have to get the results you want.
Also, I'm curious - there was a painting very similar to this, but I'm not sure if it's from the same artist, of an extreme low angle shot with siege elephants in the background. Ork still riding a massive boar, but I can't remember much more than that. Anyone know the piece I'm talking about?
"use whatever tools you have to get the results you want."
I think what pior and acapulco were trying to say was that there was little sense in trying to achieve a traditional painting look using a digital medium. For example the paint buildup and the texture from the canvas. Why digitally imitate that when you already get it for free with traditional painting. My arguments fell short when I tried to answer this. (this depends on the setting, I chose, painting for paintings sake and not for production)
Speed - Trying to imitate traditional is always going to be slower than the medium itself. And an experienced traditional painter could pump out anything faster than I ever could.
Easier to share - This is a reasonable argument but may be superficial. Is the goal when painting to get everyone to like the image or is it to make an interesting image. ( I have suffered from this and still do, the product is usually hollow and devoid of personality.)
Easier - Again while digital artists are comfortable using textures. etc to imitate traditional paintings, getting the traditional feel will always be easier when using a traditional medium.
With all that said I don't think it is pointless trying to imitate traditional paintings. The end product will never look fully traditional but if someone can use the traditional look to their advantage, why not?
Imitating 100% is probably pointless, but transferring the useful qualities over to digital from traditional to digital isn't in my opinion. One of the qualities I like about traditional is the unpredictability when mixing pigments - when it dries it's not usually the same value or hue as it was when the paint was wet, sometimes the brush has residual paint in it that mucks up your mixing ratios just a tad. A tiny amount of mud is nice, which is why I sometimes turn on Hue jitter on my brushes.
But replicating a traditional look 100%? Perhaps pointless if that's your goal, but it seldom ever is.
Replies
Here's some practice I've done recently:
Thanks a ton for that Makkon!
I've been doing a ton of drawing trying to get past this. I get the feeling that i can actually see what my issues are now, and i can push things closer to where they need to be with iteration, bit it's going to take a hell of a lot of work to push it past that.
Dado, Totally agree with what you are saying.
I am certainly a fan of design over technical execution, Though im not entirely sure that this is really fully relevant to the conversation here. I've isolated specific issues with my work that i don't like and am seeking a way and get rid of them totally.
But that being said i do need to make sure that i am actually DESIGNING faces and characters that i find visually exciting, and am not just drawing this stuff for the hell of it. As that is a habit i have fallen into before.
So maybe the next step is to give myself keywords outside of what i normally draw and try and intentionally DESIGN faces to match, rather than blind drawing like i normally do?
I don't know what that says about this exercise here because I'm unsure what you're showing, but it's the reaction I had immediately. The one on the far right is also pretty nice.
Sorry, this is more food for thought/stoking the fire than actual crit or help, but I thought it was worth saying.
and muzz where are you getting these cool refs from? I did a search for kronzprinz and it gives me a ship?
Daew
http://kr0npr1nz.deviantart.com/
http://kilartdev.deviantart.com/
When you do that clean-up version, you need to nail the proportions, and there's no need to take out land mark forms just to clean it up, either? Most notable on the left one. Some of them your style might develop from loosing but all of them leaves it feeling flat again.
idk. Here are some quick notes, hope you don't mind. Ain't nothing super useful and perfectly on point, but my excuse is that I'm still at work (and not at Makkons level yet lol)
I flipped it and marked some stuff:
Like, the reason this one jumps out at me is because I have a mad case of floating facial features in my paintings, personally, now that I'm looking at it. I also honestly think the clean-up version looks more like it has so-called "muzz-face" than the one you drew first. The hair in the second one has more form/volume, which is awesome, and the eyes just look more deatiled/cleaned up which is fine.
Just be careful of messing up the basics because you're too busy concentrating on technical aspects, I guess is what I'm saying.
Here's some videos that helped me a ton
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
I was curious, so i tried pasting my features onto your face. To me the muzzface is instantly gone.
I watched through all the Proko videos and a few things stood out to me.
*I know this information, but I'm just not using it all. (most things anyway, jelly bean at the side of the face for example was more detailed than my understanding)
*I'm not emphasizing overlapping forms enough, i need to exaggerate soft fleshy forms and make sure they feel fleshy.
*My bony landmarks are NOT solid enough, i need to nail them down to the floor and not let them move.
*I draw the same damn hair styles over and over again, but this is besides the point, I'm going to ignore hair for the time being.
Back to Photoshop to apply!!!
It's not finished yet, more detail will be added and eventually colour. Any suggestions will be welcome
On the subject of the Muzzface, I think there are a few things you could try.
- First of all, as Bagel mentioned it here I think you could totally keep your construction lines. We tend to think of them as temporary helpers, to be erased when shading is applied ; but you could also see them as very faint core shadows, reduced to their bare minimum. Seen that way, there is no reason to ged rid of them ! Like here :
- Another thing about structure : many drawing guides give proportional formulas, like the Loomis head division that Makkon illustrated on the previous page. These are useful and accurate tools, but I feel like they tend to make us forget that the structure of a face actually comes from below the surface : the skull lying underneath. A face formula can be applied to skulls just as well as it can be applied to faces ; but skulls are much, much easier to draw (there is no pressure to make them pretty !) yet still provide a fantastic foundation to build upon.
I personally find myself much more at ease when I start a head drawing with a roughly defined skull shape with suggested eye sockets, than when I attempt to draw "from the outline in". Knowing where you are coming from I feel like this approach might work for you too.
These days I am working on a lineup of portraits that I am hoping to sculpt in 3D later. I think they illustrate what I just mentioned ; for instance you can tell that the eye sockets are there but these marks are not too distracting. I am also making a conscious attempt at being as minimalist as possible with mark making. These are about 1.5x2 inches, ballpoint on newsprint.
- I also agree with what Dado is hinting at - after all, even study sketches can be full of life ! One can think of a third layer, which is the one of pure visual expression. A drawing can be simplified/exaggerated/enhanced in order to become a graphic design element in and of itself. It goes further than just "style", it can become a ongoing research started anew with each sketch. Like here :
Ed Hodgkinson
I hope this helps !
I think these marks often add to the meat of the piece later on if they're not too overbearing, and can help a lot with perspective in a quick, comfortable manner.
Hey! It's hard to know where to start with your picture here, as there are a few issues. Something that really stands out to me is that you're using line to define the curvature of surfaces, sacrificing accurate lighting and values which would fully describe forms.
May I suggest reading through the PSG Art Tutorial, and checking out Ctrl+Paint's Video Library?
I'm going to leave it a while while i try and drill myself on this stuff before i post up again.
Pior, i think the bone structure thing is definitely helpful, I'm trying to placed landmarks based more around the skull and i think it's helping.
I think that this is all really hitting on something core that has been holding me back as an artist. I just draw, and i don't think i am really searching for that amazing design or graphic element. I go through the paces of trying to make good technical illustrations, but without that drive to design i just end up making shitty pieces, and because i have a massive stigma about copying others (i need to get over that) i end up just drawing really boring things without any soul.
I don't tend to think that i have the same problems when i am working on projects, like whenever I'm working on an actual project that i am enthusiastic about i think i am a hell of a lot better than normal. (Just look at my Treasure star stuff). But i think i need to get this going with all of my work
Anyhow back to sketching!
For construction I've actually been lightly sketching a skull and it's really been helping.
I feel like I'm on the right track now. Thanks guys! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
(sorry about the presentation... uh laziness and i need to buy a scanner)
I've been thinking about the discussion regarding linework. And a lot of it has helped, but I still feel that disconnect between traditional and digital and I think I've found another reason why. Though this may vary between peeple. It's the thickness of the wacom pen.
Here is a comparison between two pencils and wacom pen. (sorry for blurry images)
So essentially the width of the wacom pen changes how you grip it and is possibly one of the reasons for that disconnect feeling. And also for me it changes how I make my strokes.
edit:....well I just looked back and saw the image pior posted of the comic artist. He was using a wide marker so this could be entirely wrong
And here is something i've been working on hoping I could get an opinion on it
Which one is more interesting? I'm trying to work on my story telling. Personally I find C and D. Is that because it create more questions for the audience? Or maybe it's because The question is more direct.
Oh and just for fun I found out I could make this when putting the above image together. gifs are so fun :poly142:
In terms of which one is best. Honestly they are all much of a muchness. Instead i would invite you to go for a more natural pose. Arching your back like that only happens when you are intentionally posing for a photo.
I would have her bend forward and actually engage with the lizard, holding the bird away so the lizard doesn't try and snap for it.
Yeah they are just a just a few minor tweaks. Mainly because it started off as a sketch painting with no forward planning. But as I kept painting I was wondering...why, So I asked myself how I could make it more interesting but it was harder than I thought.
This is essentially what I want to try and achieve but don't really know how. I want to have the audience come up with different narratives.
If she is touching the "dragon" that establishes that she is comfortable around it. However if there is no physical contact that creates a question? Maybe she is comfortable around it or maybe she is not. it makes me wonder if putting in more "questions" makes the image more interesting. Or perhaps it makes it confusing, or maybe there should be a restriction of questions depending on the purpose of the image.
....Sorry i'm rambling and the more I write, the more I see how silly it is. I'm trying to create multiple narratives when people already naturally interpret things differently.
As for the back, personally I like it even if it's not natural but i'll have a go at your suggestion later in the week.
I'm trying to find the page or a scan of it at least, but I was sure Walt Stanchfield had some notes in Drawn to Life about gestures looking uninteresting and static because the pose is somewhat mirrored habitually. And, if I may...
The core gesture of each of these poses, and you can see that they all fall to this problem.
C is the least prone to this, but I don't think it's the strongest either. It's got giving off a strong feeling towards what could be happening here. A is the most prone, but personally, for a simply appealing image it has the most promise. B the best idea, and after reading your explanations has a bit of a "tut tut" feel about it, but I feel you'd have to change the pose entirely if you wanted that to really be sold, and D is really... not good. looks like you hid the arm because you didn't know where else to put it.
I dunno. This is a paint over of an idea, probably where I might have taken it knowing nothing of the setting and characters. You should probably make a habit of painting/sketching in both arms at the same time, as one mass, making sure they flow nicely, rather than just painting one in however and then trying to get the other to match. Also, make sure she's actually making eye contact with the lizard-- right now she's kind of looking under it. A little bit more of an expression might be nice, too, kind of hard to read it right now.
Another idea I had while painting this was more like
Ech, anyway, just idea fuel. I hope this can help a little bit with pinning down things that might feel "off".
My name is Dan and I am currently working on some pieces based off a book called The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson. I still have a long way to go in terms of skill but I was hoping for some definitive feedback, especially on the foreshortening of the two characters and folds in the clothing
So to be blunt about what's happening in the scene is the character in the air is using a power called lashing to jump over the armoured dudes swing and is now coming in for a counter attack. I used both a real life still of two of my peers and my own intuition for the perspective. Any pointers on an easy way for working out foreshortening would be great!
Here is the reference photo:
Trying to improve this painting of a Thark caravan from the John Carter books, but I have no idea where to start. My background is in portraiture in traditional media, and I've generally avoided wide vistas and such. I've been trying to break out of my comfort zone, but the results have been less than stellar so far.
I welcome your enthusiasm, and while I'll say some words about your works, I would rather if you tried to help out other people as well as just looking for feedback while doing this. Forums run on good karma, if you help other people, people are more willing to invest time into you.
I'd say set yourself a goal of getting up 30 substantial posts, posting art, and discussing things, and helping others. You don't really get a taste for a community till you actually try and contribute.
Anyhow onto the art.
Kaonluong:
I'd say it's a pretty solid piece, but there is certainly things to work on.
I'd say anatomy is your first port of call. You have a lot of the major forms down, but there is a lot of sloppy anatomy, and the finer forms of muscles are missing entirely, and things are pronounced in weird ways.
Now FEET FEET FEET. Look at them. Print out the feet and paste them on the wall with a big red cross through them. They look like they were drawn by a 5 year old.
Lighting wise, work out exactly where your light source is, and be more bold with it. It's a dynamic shot but there is a lot of diffuse lighting, and odd lighting placement.
Dan:
Use an image host to post images.
You need to nail the construction. Break the pose down into basic shapes, and it will be easier
Spear:
You need to start thinking about the actual forms of the ground and environment. It can't be a mushy mess. I would suggest practicing drawing environments just in lines for a while, it will force you to think about the actual forms and contours of the ground. How cliffs jut out of the ground and how boulders rest.
If your goal is to get good at backgrounds you should drop out the characters for a while as they are just a distraction to that goal.
Stop polishing sketches then!
If your goal is to do good story telling, once you have a sketch you like, you need to work out if how you drew it is actually the best way to do it before you commit to a render.
You are going to improve faster if you are more methodical and think about what you are doing rather than leaving it up to chance!
Yeah, sorry, I don't feel proficient enough in digital art to actually critique other people's work yet.
It's all just part of contributing to a community
Kaionluong: This is just a personal aesthetic thing, but that costume looks really uncomfortable - particularly that strap going through the breasts. I can't see a woman wearing it outside of a specific fetish environment. Like I said, it's not a mistake per se, but I feel semi-functional costumes are an important design factor.
Could you guys critique mine?
Still, I feel like the claw grip doesnt come only from the shape of the stylus but mostly from the extra steadiness required to hold the cursor in place. I see two factors contributing to this : the fact that the surface of tablets/Cintiqs is very slippery, making it impossible for the tip of the stylus to bite the surface on its own ; and on top of that, the lack of precision of the device itself adds to the issue.
Now one might think that regular tablets are just as accurate as a mouse, but they really aren't ; if they were, Cintiqs wouldn't require any calibration (and I am not talking about just parallax calibration here).
This is the image, but you didn't link it in the right way to make it work.
That being said, i have no idea what feedback to give you.
I have no idea what your goal is. Care to give some insight what you want feedback on.
It's supposed to be a futuristic space racer based in the year 2064, the styling of the background is trying to convey a sense of speed as well as trying to look like those old grand prix posters from the 1960's
(sorry this is quite hard for me to explain so it may become an incoherent mess.)
Thanks for the paintovers. However that's what i've been wondering about, not so much the image itself, but the story. The narrative for the two paint overs is pretty straight forward and I was wondering if it would be more interesting to have the audience question the motives and reasons in the image.
Honestly I've come to the realization that what's really happening is I'm bouncing story ideas in my head and thinking that it's adding more dimension to it but in reality It's always one dimension.
For example, In the first paintover she is happy, the dragon is happy and she is holding a bird. The narrative is pretty straightforward. So then I would think, ok, how about if I add a dagger instead of a bird but the two are still happy. Surely then that would give the image more mystery. Not really...
With the woman holding the bird and they are both happy I assumed it was straightforward. but there are still questions. Were they hunting or is she feeding the dragon. So what have I learn't? Well it should of been obvious but whatever. Focus on the story and not the audience. When they look at an image they will come up with their own stories.
But then does this image have a story? I enjoy it but I can't seem to find the story apart from a life figure painting. Is story not that important?
Muzz - heh well the problem was I was doing the sketch before thinking about story telling.
And to add what Muzz is saying (However I don't mind if you don't have many posts)
Personally I'm weary when someone plops an image down with nothing but "please critique". It is a lot easier for everyone, if you identify things you think want to improve.
Pior - Oh my, what have you done to your pen XD. and yep! I put paper under my tablet and tried the pencil grip and it helped. I never considered the friction from the paper to help with support. With that said, I hear it's a nib killer so might have to stick with my claw.
Ganondork -
Hope some of this might help.
Wooosh long post :poly122:
edit: hahah....."it's harder done than said"
Pretty much what Ayoub44 said.
But i'll add on.
There is not much in the way of design here, you have some flashy shapes rendered with bright colours with exaggerated perspective, but the actual design elements are missing.
I can't tell the function of anything, and the forms that are there aren't communicating a purpose.
If this is a concept piece then design and readability are your main goals.
If it is a marketing shot, then it needs more polish and again it needs a better design, but that is better explored in sketches rather than in an image like this.
My problem isn't that they have a lack of posts, but the expectation that we provide feedback from hard won experience for nothing in return. In lieu of payment, all most of us ask is you help out others and help us make an enjoyable community!
- About Adam Hugues using a marker with a wide body : even though at first glance the shape of a wacom stylus with rubber grib is very similar to that of a Copic marker, the actual feel of these tools is totally different. No matter how wide the body of the marker is, the positioning of its tip on paper is extremely precise, and an order of magnitude more accurate than the Wacom digitizer panel will ever be.
And then other problems pile up : the interferences caused by the display panel of Cintiqs, the hand/eye disconnect in regular tablets, the underwhelming pressure sensitivity, and the fact that screens are so bright that there is no way to work "up close" like one would do on paper. These factors force people to use the claw grip you described, or, force artists to zoom in like crazy. Working on paper for a while makes it all very obvious
- As for your composition sketches of the lady stroking the dragon : I'd vote for A, simply because I find it to be stronger from a graphic design perspective. The eye flows around it very easily.
- Also, a note about this piece (unrelated to the storytelling question) :
This to me stresses the weakness of digital art. This painting shows is a great richness of surface qualities, with translucent layers playing beautifully with the more opaque strokes, both affected by the grain of the canvas/paper ... and it all comes naturally as it is part of the media itself. But all of this needs to be 100% simulated in digital art, by relying on dozens of fancy brushes and tricks, and I personally find this process to be exhausting and kind of pointless ...
Now of course such digital paintings sure "look cool", and people love saying that something "looks just like a painting" similarly to how people used to say that a painting looks "just like a photograph". But for some reason I cannot help but think that there is something a bit pointless about all this, as if we were forcing ourselves to impress viewers instead of embracing our medium for what it is. What do you guys think ?
(all this makes me want to try Artrage again ...)
"Now of course such digital paintings sure "look cool", and people love saying that something "looks just like a painting" similarly to how people used to say that a painting looks "just like a photograph". But for some reason I cannot help but think that there is something a bit pointless about all this, as if we were forcing ourselves to impress viewers instead of embracing our medium for what it is. What do you guys think ?"
I absolutely agree. I kinda never try to hide the digital art it is in my artworks. Its just that. I paint plain and tidy artworks without much grain or bullshit. Mostly only one brush. I don't try to mimic any traditional art. I'd do that if someone pays me for it, but for my own stuff I don't see a reason to mimic any traditional feel.
Its useless anyway. It would never be like the original. You can't fake the feel of an oil painting. It will always only be a photo of a traditional painting. And thats not worth very much. Its still not 'the original'. There is no way to reproduce the roughness of a surface and big, loaded strokes of paint in digital art. You will never get the depth of real paint on Canvas. The small and minor parallaxing of builds of paint. It'll always be a flat photograph. If you want a traditional look, better paint traditional.
I have been having trouble discerning the difference between trying to get a traditional look or adding texture to break up the perfection we get from digital. If it is the latter then it's not pointless because it is imitating the real world? Maybe I need more clarification
I understand the pointless part of a medium trying to be something it's not. Like why use cg when you can use real life.
And every time I argue for digital (trying to be tradional) against traditional painting the answers are usually superficial.
What would your opinion be on a piece like this? It still doesn't have a fully traditional feel and as stated before it will never have it. But I think the ground has the cool sense of traditional painted brush strokes that really add to the piece.
As far as doing it digitally goes, what you gain is time and cost efficiency. Time is money, and paint + canvases + brushes + primer + turpentine + drying agents all cost money. Once you have the software, anything you create thereafter is virtually free. The only thing you lose at the end of the day is a tangible product at the end of the project in the form of an oil on board painting, but if you're only going to distribute digital versions of it, you've lost nothing. Aesthetically it's not pointless - use whatever tools you have to get the results you want.
Also, I'm curious - there was a painting very similar to this, but I'm not sure if it's from the same artist, of an extreme low angle shot with siege elephants in the background. Ork still riding a massive boar, but I can't remember much more than that. Anyone know the piece I'm talking about?
I think what pior and acapulco were trying to say was that there was little sense in trying to achieve a traditional painting look using a digital medium. For example the paint buildup and the texture from the canvas. Why digitally imitate that when you already get it for free with traditional painting. My arguments fell short when I tried to answer this. (this depends on the setting, I chose, painting for paintings sake and not for production)
Speed - Trying to imitate traditional is always going to be slower than the medium itself. And an experienced traditional painter could pump out anything faster than I ever could.
Easier to share - This is a reasonable argument but may be superficial. Is the goal when painting to get everyone to like the image or is it to make an interesting image. ( I have suffered from this and still do, the product is usually hollow and devoid of personality.)
Easier - Again while digital artists are comfortable using textures. etc to imitate traditional paintings, getting the traditional feel will always be easier when using a traditional medium.
With all that said I don't think it is pointless trying to imitate traditional paintings. The end product will never look fully traditional but if someone can use the traditional look to their advantage, why not?
But replicating a traditional look 100%? Perhaps pointless if that's your goal, but it seldom ever is.
grateful for any feedback!