Its not your end result thats confusing. its the way your trying to get there =P
you are constantly switching projects, medium and techniques like a mad-man, before you even got a grasp of the previous one. there is no consistency or persistence in what your doing.
I get it, its fun and new, and you should try out new things. I think the problem lies in that you create a new thread for everything, making it sound like its a new grand project your gonna finish rather then you experimenting with something for a while.
If you made a single thread, and called it "JordanNs random projects and sketches" or something, I think you would find a lot less confused Polycounters bugging you.
Its not your end result thats confusing. its the way your trying to get there =P
you are constantly switching projects, medium and techniques like a mad-man, before you even got a grasp of the previous one. there is no consistency or most of all persistence in what your doing.
I get it, its fun and new, and you SHOULD try out new things. I think the problem lies in that you create a new thread for everything, making it sound like its a new grand project your gonna finish rather then you experimenting with something for a while.
If you made a single thread, and called it "JordanNs random projects and sketches" or something, I think you would find a lot less confused Polycounters bugging you.
In the past, I was switching projects only because at the time, I didn't know how to separate making an AAA portfolio with making my own cartoon projects.
However, because I've finally realized I don't need to mix my cartoons with that of an AAA portfolio, I no longer have to switch around projects.
Hence why I have this thread in the 2D section. I am more free to finally go after the style/art I wanted while still being able to pursue making an AAA portfolio in the 3D section.
It goes without saying that you are free to do whatever you want - no one will dictate you what kind of piece you should or should not work on.
With that in mind, here are a few tips :
- Maybe ask a moderator to rename this thread for you. Even though you attempted to clarify it a few times, any new reader coming across the thread will be confused. Why not call it "stylisation studies", or something of the sort ? I understand what you are trying to do by referencing "PBR" (basically, using a shading model simulating real life light and material behavior to deepen your understanding of, well, light and materials) - but calling your cartoon studies "PBR-based" is 100% confusing.
- Don't rush. One example : you dropped that still life study a few days ago, without context, and it was confusing since it seemed like yet another thing you decided to tackle after giving up on another. But now that you posted the reference picture, everything makes more sense ! Why not post the whole story in the first place ? By rushing things out and not giving context, you are in a way wasting your time since you won't get much constructive criticism. In short, maybe hold on a bit before posting, to make sure that every image you post comes with context and substance.
- Finish everything you start, and treat every piece as your masterpiece. I know there is a big trend for "speedpaints", "spitpaints" and "quick studies" all over forums and social media, but one really progresses when sitting through and finishing things, even if it takes time. There is no shame in spending a lot of time on something.
All that said, I do think that this greyscale still life stylization study is pretty damn good. It's just a shame that it is buried within such a confusing thread.
You need to do more research. Frankly you don't know the proper meaning of words you are using. How can you claim to use unreal engine and marmoset as reference, when they are trying to emulate real life? why are you not paying attention to anybodies advice? I've tried to give you advice but you've ignored it.
In a nutshell, stop trying to come up with an art style before you can realistically render a sphere. You're trying to do gymnastics before you can crawl. if you don't really care about criticism then don't post on a forum.
You need to do more research. Frankly you don't know the proper meaning of words you are using. How can you claim to use unreal engine and marmoset as reference, when they are trying to emulate real life?
They're not only used for real life. They can be used for anything a developer desires with it.
As for how I use it, Unreal 4 comes with a material system that can be played around with (in addition to other stuff like lights). While I don't have Marmoset, I like to cite from the official PBR documentation it has.
why are you not paying attention to anybodies advice? I've tried to give you advice but you've ignored it.
In a nutshell, stop trying to come up with an art style before you can realistically render a sphere. You're trying to do gymnastics before you can crawl. if you don't really care about criticism then don't post on a forum.
I definitely want criticism. If I didn't, there's no way this thread would even exist because as you said, why would I post it?
I've seen your advice. I should mention that not all the time I post every art that is suppose to be a response to that. What I'm hoping for is that I can improve as an artist in general and that I can post new art that eventually reaches that level.
All you're doing is making the ball have a reflection. I'm going to be blunt, your "style" isn't appealing. If you want to paint better, or become a better artist, study life.
You keep using technical terms as well, I don't think you know what they mean.
Again I think we all know what jordanN is trying to do at this point.
Which is learn how stuff works physically, but the problem is semantics and how JordanN presents it.
Im going to be honest here Jordan and this has been said time and time again. What you are doing is not new, it is pretty much learning how to paint.
So in conjecture with the engines why not use painting tutorials. pbr is just a term, painters/illustrators still have to know the same things.
And about the image you are referencing from. I totally agree with pior, it makes sense now that you are using the real world to help with your decision making. It also gives context to what you are making. Show more of that!
and to crit specular highlight size is based on the surface properties i.e glossiness. Is it rough or is it smooth. Specular amount is based on the specular.
And Albedo which im learning right now, its quite interesting when you put it in context of rgb and how they add. For example the face, it has different colours placed throughout blue, yellow, red. However if you slap those colours on willynilly it looks wierd and thats because you need to know how rgb desaturate sto give the impression of a colour. And then metals have no albedo because they reflect everything, so how does that work with rgb.
All you're doing is making the ball have a reflection. I'm going to be blunt, your "style" isn't appealing. If you want to paint better, or become a better artist, study life.
You keep using technical terms as well, I don't think you know what they mean.
I'm actually quite surprised (and happy!!!!) you noticed the reflection. I actually thought I would have to spend a lot of time on it just to get you to notice.
So see, I do welcome criticism in this thread. Had you said "there are no reflections on this ball" I would immediately have redone the image and post it again because I NEED reflections to make this stuff work.
But because you said "I only added reflection" I still have more work I want to show you. Because the reflection is not suppose to be the only thing there, and I do not want to paint stuff in if the viewer gets confused or doesn't see the effect I'm using.
This thread is all over the place. What does your latest lighting test have anything to do with the textures in Yogi Bear? Also, your latest sketch is so rough it's hard to tell what you even intend to do with it. Is it going to be 2D or 3D? I think you need to stop, take a breath and really think about what you're trying to achieve here. It seems like you don't want to be helped since you mostly ignore everyone's advice and when you hit a wall you just start something new and make an excuse that it's just how you work. Stay focused or remove the thread. You're just confusing people and wasting their time when they're just trying to help you.
I think you need to stop, take a breath and really think about what you're trying to achieve here. It seems like you don't want to be helped since you mostly ignore everyone's advice and when you hit a wall you just start something new and make an excuse that it's just how you work. Stay focused or remove the thread. You're just confusing people and wasting their time when they're just trying to help you.
Someone said this before already and I said I listen to all criticism. My latest light test is from the same post I made before it, so I'm trying my best this time to focus.
I have not been rude to anyone in this thread. My one wish is for everyone to be civil and respect each other.
Dude, what exactly is your goal as an artist? Your portfolio says "prop artist" but only has one sub-par asset in it. I think you need to spend less time creating threads and more time improving your work in a more focused way.
No one here is being disrespectful, just honest. Polycount has been around for a while and veteran users have seen countless threads just like this, don't write off harsh comments as rude. Years ago this thread would have been torn apart, and it's only with the intention of helping you improve.
Dude, what exactly is your goal as an artist? Your portfolio says "prop artist" but only has one sub-par asset in it. I think you need to spend less time creating threads and more time improving your work in a more focused way.
No one here is being disrespectful, just honest. Polycount has been around for a while and veteran users have seen countless threads just like this, don't write off harsh comments as rude. Years ago this thread would have been torn apart, and it's only with the intention of helping you improve.
I have no problem with the honest comments. But what I do find bothering is that's it really hard for me to have a say of my own without it being constructed back as "you don't want crits" which seems to imply I'm lying or something.
I post on polycount because I want to learn. It's why I'm obviously here. But when I'm told "you don't reply back" "you don't post art" "you're not being creative" it does become frustrating because I have no real direction of where to go.
This is why I made this thread. It was to allow me more breathing room and input, without it getting in the way of actually working on real Game industry props.
again, ask a def to rename your thread to sketches/experiments or whatever and I think a lot of this will go away.
I get that its frustrating, lol, even Im getting frustrated, and its not even my thread xD everyone mentioning the same thing over and over isn't really hat constructive. though they are correct and I agree to most points its kind of beating a dead horse at the moment, I think you got the message by now =P
it would be a shame if you leave this place or stop posting because of this, stuff like this is not what polycount is about.
keep it up!
(I really think you should rename this thread though)
again, ask a def to rename your thread to sketches/experiments or whatever and I think a lot of this will go away.
I get that its frustrating, lol, even Im getting frustrated, and its not even my thread xD everyone mentioning the same thing over and over isn't really hat constructive. though they are correct and I agree to most points its kind of beating a dead horse at the moment, I think you got the message by now =P
it would be a shame if you leave this place or stop posting because of this, stuff like this is not what polycount is about.
keep it up!
(I really think you should rename this thread though)
Oh no. I'll never leave! I know these comments exist, and I sympathize why people make them.
I really don't think the thread title is the issue here, because people are still looking at my art and questioning it. I can only keep posting new stuff and show people that I'm making steps towards improving.
okey doke. I came across this thread cos i'm currently exploring piping stylized assets through Substance designer/painter, to find a speedy workflow that will give completely consistent results while retaining a 'toony' feel. So i read through all of this to see if anyone was sharing some useful nuggets. Like everyone else, i'm seriously confused by your inentions. Anyway, thats by the by, plenty of replies have discussed this already. So to the work and processes in hand (with some assumptions made as to what it seems you're after) :
that last image of yours. The first step far too vague, too sketchy, too unformed to achieve anything like what i *think you're trying to achieve. Its not a '3d volume drawing' - although i'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, i would expect it to be outlining a solid shape, with a quality of line that describes form, depth, mass. What you have is a very rough thumbnail, with sketched elements that aren't even connected together, let alone showing any real form
yet you've then used these rough sketchy lines to form a base to try and cast shadow and even describe AO? How on earth you're expecting to describe AO between non-solid objects is lost on me, there's nothing tangible to guide you and so there's no hope of doing anything remotely accurately. You may as well try to paint on a gas. And if there's nothing to guide accuracy, whats the point? The end result would be what you've ended up with - a bunch of pretty much random blobs drawn on top of another bunch of random blobs, and then combined to form some random shape, which is all it could ever hope to be. There is nothing in the final image that has benefitted from your process, because the process doesn't have a proper base.
for this to be worthwile, you really need to start with a solid shape. If you're not confident in hand-drawing that shape, maybe render something flat-shaded out of a 3d package with useful shape-describing wires/edge detect shader on it. Then use that to paint your lighting/shading passes on top of ... then again i'd also suggest to get fully confident in hand-drawing a solid shape first before thinking about painting 'accurate' light or you're seriously running before you can walk
(btw - its a 1-bit image, not 2-bit, if you're going to use terms you need to know what they mean. I've seen this raised a few times in this thread.
Also, your knack of signing/dating even rough wip tests is a bit weird and off-putting, i know its not really a biggy, but if you consider that a lot of serious talent producing world-class images would balk at the idea of doing this on stuff intended to post online, its the sort of thing that could get peoples backs up)
(btw - its a 1-bit image, not 2-bit, if you're going to use terms you need to know what they mean. I've seen this raised a few times in this thread.
I think this is being excessively harsh. I agree I need to know my terms but I am still human. I think the fact I was only 1 number off means I was close or trying to get the gist of something.
Also, your knack of signing/dating even rough wip tests is a bit weird and off-putting, i know its not really a biggy, but if you consider that a lot of serious talent producing world-class images would balk at the idea of doing this on stuff intended to post online, its the sort of thing that could get peoples backs up)
For me, the date/signature is not meant to be taken as a symbol of offensiveness. I try to use it as a way of keeping my art organized and making it easier to point out in time where I've been improving.
Note that these were the only two comments I wanted to offer discussion. I did not disagree with any of your art criticisms and I am now looking into which areas I need to focus and improve on for the next time.
I think this is being excessively harsh. I agree I need to know my terms but I am still human. I think the fact I was only 1 number off means I was close or trying to get the gist of something.
i don't think its harsh at all, technical terms are absolute, and the only way of using them in a useful capacity when talking tech (and as far as i can tell, you are talking tech) is to make sure they're used correctly. And as i say, i'm reiterating what a few people have already said
I'd like the chime in and say the thread title does make thing confusing and is a large portion of everyone's confusion of what the thread is about.
Second I think before you do these shadow experiment studies it might be better not to rush things and get the forms/volumes drawn out well first. Based on your last sketch it looks extremely rough and screwed. If you mirror your sketch you will see how all the trees bend one way among other problems, if you mirror your sketch you should be able to see it.
I don't think you can get much out of shadow studies if you don't finish the first steps to completion beforehand.
And I think this shows with the 3d volume drawing you showed in your shading step which doesn't seem to read very well on what the actual 3d volume is for different shapes. What makes it more confusing to me is why you left out that top bit of hair from the 3d volume study and the shading study,
It seems all over the place to me. The whole thing so far just has an appearance of being rushed.
Are you using any sort of books or online resources for these exercises? It could be good to post links to those when you do these to avoid confusion.
Unfortunately, I cannot reply to all your points. I feel the post would be too long and I'm in the process of cleaning up/reworking the scene from above.
Edit: Honestly, I just want to start moving through this stuff now. I feel like I finally have an idea on how to render this now and so I don't need to show any further tests.
Let me say, I want to apologize to the people on page 3.
Yesterday was not a good day for me. I had weird encounters at work, I came home to even more weird events, and I went to bed without eating dinner. I was not in a good mood at all. If my comments kinda "jumped at you", I'm sorry.
On a positive note, I'm feeling much more better today. I did finally get to eat and I'm given more time to rest. This puts me in a much better mood to make art, which is what I value most.
I'll also get ripped for this but the "leaking colors/lineart" was done on purpose. It's based on looking at the raw animation cels where artists would sometimes go a bit off model. It's an imperfection I thought was charming.
Or maybe I'm just being lazy and don't want to hold a pen down for 10 hours. :poly121:
So you're going to apply 3D lighting principles to forms that cannot possibly exist in 3D? Okay, good luck with that
Seriously, clean it up, make it solid, get a physical and visible connection between every element, every material, or you are totally wasting your time here.
So you're going to apply 3D lighting principles to forms that cannot possibly exist in 3D? Okay, good luck with that
Seriously, clean it up, make it solid, get a physical and visible connection between every element, every material, or you are totally wasting your time here.
It was not my intention to make everything 3D. You are still looking at an image that is drawn in complete perspective, and there are elements which still require 3 dimensions. But I have also left elements that are flat and will not receive the same lighting treatment.
If you're wondering "why didn't you just draw everything in 3D?" it's because:
1. I could but it takes too much time to make everything 3D in a modeling program and then trace over it. For this drawing, I drew all the 3D by hand and I can now paint more faster with it. Last time, I went all 3D first and it took too long to draw/color it.
2. Cartoons themselves have always played folly to this logic, featuring both 2D drawn elements and 3D as a style.
This is where the 3D in the thread title came from. It's an allusion to the idea I'm using the more effort based approach of drawing out volume/perspective by hand and playing around with them.
If you're still confused, just keep watching. I've said I'm going to keep posting art.
Yeah, I'm not confused by a 2d drawing that uses perspective, or one that mixes the depth up (either by a stylistic choice or plain misjudgement)
I'm confused by all the posts and tests that go on about material reflectivity, shadow, bounced light, ao, etc etc ... And then you provide a 'fully coloured diffuse' that's so scruffy that it would be impossible to apply any of those notions to. Have you given up on that direction already? If not, fill in the holes in the redheads hair fercrissakes
I'm curious on roughly how long it took you to color your latest image.
Reading this thread has given me all kinds of emotions but at this point I'm just super interested to see what you're going to further do with your latest image.
I'm not very enlightened on a mass of painting and rendering techniques, but umm... OP, this is a flatly colored, heavily distorted, cartoony pic. Which is fine in and of itself, cuz there are cartoon styles like that - however, how does it relate to the theme of the project and your studies?
What is the general idea - that you'll have standard flat-lined cartoon, and then render the surfaces in a realistic style inside those lines?
Mostly 2 days. But it can take longer if I'm not satisfied.
wow, thats long. The vast majority of artists with a decent working knowledge of photoshop and some experience painting would be knocking that out well under an hour.
Now, does that matter, in terms of the finished image? Its not in a production environment, and you're doing it at your leisure as part of a learning experience, so its easy to say no, it doesn't matter
however, 2 days to produce something so simple is also symptomatic of something fundamental thats missing in your process. Whether thats knowledge of the software, or comfort/confidence drawing, or lack of concentration - only you can answer that (do you think you know?) but i'd say you'd need to solve it before tackling anything more complex. Again, walking before running.
wow, thats long. The vast majority of artists with a decent working knowledge of photoshop and some experience painting would be knocking that out well under an hour.
Now, does that matter, in terms of the finished image? Its not in a production environment, and you're doing it at your leisure as part of a learning experience, so its easy to say no, it doesn't matter
however, 2 days to produce something so simple is also symptomatic of something fundamental thats missing in your process. Whether thats knowledge of the software, or comfort/confidence drawing, or lack of concentration - only you can answer that (do you think you know?) but i'd say you'd need to solve it before tackling anything more complex. Again, walking before running.
Tbh, I only gave that answer because I didn't want to be seen as unresponsive in this thread. I imagined any answer would have either outcomes "you're taking too long" or "you're rushing it".
Here's where I now give an explanation. When I say 2 days, I don't mean I'm literally staring at a screen going "durrrr, what comes after yellow?". I did color the actual image in much shorter time.
But, it took 2 days because I WANTED to have more time to tweak the colors so it appears right in my eyes.
Coming up with colors is HARD (as opposed to painting it) in my opinion.
For example, every color in that scene is meant to have a purpose. I wanted there to be a pattern for people to pick up on.
The girl in the blue dress was specifically created so she stands out the most. Nothing else in that scene has the same vividness and contrasty look as her blue dress and yellow hair.
The girl on the right was created with the opposite in mind. I wanted her to blend in with the environment. If you look at the top of the page, you'll notice I changed her dress from a light blue-green to a darker green. I did this so she matches the trees and grass. Her red hair and glasses are also meant to compliment the red roofs in the background.
You mention this is not for a production environment, and I'll say that's mostly the point of the thread. I'll do something because I really love art.
Considering all the previous posts and most particularly this last one with the colored picture of the two girls, I think you simply need to practice working from life more - and by that I mean real life drawing classes, not just photo studies.
What I am getting at is that you seem to be tackling the "animator's style" from the outside in, reproducing (admittedly cool) visual effects and tricks seen in cartoon productions. However, things like extreme squash a stretch, perspective stylization and gesture depiction are better grasped from real, live models rather than looking at the end product of animation. Even line weight effects have a root in real life observation.
Now it is also true that some artists manage to develop a certain style by memorizing many "line tricks" (there are countless videos on youtube on "how to draw X character from X movie") but at least in my experience I find this approach to be very limiting. Developing an understanding of the structure of things is much more helpful, and this knowledge then trickles down to lighting, shading, and so on.
Also, work on paper more. You will be surprised how much faster it is than digital for that kind of stuff.
Coming up with colors is HARD (as opposed to painting it) in my opinion.
right well, there's a fundamental right there to work on so its not hard. Basic colour theory, its important to get this pretty much instinctive and not a slog. I fear you'll get seriously bogged down in the more advanced stuff you're planning without this feeling more natural to you
Also important to get your working document set up so its fast and easy to tweak. You're at block values and colours, so at this stage it should be each element on its own layer, and then at a basic level the Variations dialog, or the levels and HSL sliders (though less intuitive to the beginner). Study, tweak layer, sit back, squint, tweak again. On your first image with the blue dress girl and the photoshop ui on it, it looked liked you're going one layer flat colour for the whole character - not easy for tweaking bits.
I just want to say something important (not directed at anyone).
I know people are looking at this and are likely going "how is this Yogi Bear/Looney Tunes etc".
Just remember that those people have YEARS more experience drawing cartoons than I did.
I've only started doing this 3 or 4 months ago. People like Chuck Jones or Hanna-Barbera lived to be in their 80's and 90's and made a complete living off it.
This is not excusing any current quality issues. It's actually why I keep saying "I'll post more art". I need the time to get better and practice.
I think the reason why this thread is getting so much bewilderment from people is exactly for that reason. You are posting a ton of this theory stuff and over thinking things that are honestly minor problems compared to learning good fundamentals like structure and line.
You are trying to build a carriage before you have a horse to pull it.
You should be very grateful that people are giving you tons of amazing feedback It would be a shame to dismiss them just because they do not seem to connect with what you are doing (even though they are).
That said, I have a serious question about what your goal is. Do you plan to make a living out of doing thisn?
That said, I have a serious question about what your goal is. Do you plan to make a living out of doing thisn?
I have thought about this.
If the opportunity ever arises, I definitely would want to make a living drawing cartoons. But money has never been the main reason why I'm doing this.
Hey JordanN, I'm not as qualified as the people posting here but I empathise with your level of skill.
If I were in your position I'd stop posting intermediary steps, since I'm still practising, and only when I've obtained a result that's close to what I'm after is when I'd share it around and explain what I've learned in detail (and then people can give feedback on the final version of the piece, not the temporary, intermediate steps).
Where is the light source in this image? The shadows on the 2 characters seem inconsistent with each other and the shadows under the character seem inconsistent with everything else as well.
Where is the light source in this image? The shadows on the 2 characters seem inconsistent with each other and the shadows under the character seem inconsistent with everything else as well.
It's a bit hard to chart it out, but the sun is suppose to be directly on top of them.
Edit: I see a problem now and there's a mistake on the right girl's skirt. I will fix this tomorrow.
Thanks for help noticing. :thumbup:
Replies
I know I want to make cartoon art that fits under a specific style. That style is mentioned in the thread title (PBR + 3D).
To help people understand, I'll do my best to keep practicing and posting new art in this thread that conveys this.
you are constantly switching projects, medium and techniques like a mad-man, before you even got a grasp of the previous one. there is no consistency or persistence in what your doing.
I get it, its fun and new, and you should try out new things. I think the problem lies in that you create a new thread for everything, making it sound like its a new grand project your gonna finish rather then you experimenting with something for a while.
If you made a single thread, and called it "JordanNs random projects and sketches" or something, I think you would find a lot less confused Polycounters bugging you.
However, because I've finally realized I don't need to mix my cartoons with that of an AAA portfolio, I no longer have to switch around projects.
Hence why I have this thread in the 2D section. I am more free to finally go after the style/art I wanted while still being able to pursue making an AAA portfolio in the 3D section.
I'll admit the scene is rushed. It's suppose to be a plant scene I put together.
With that in mind, here are a few tips :
- Maybe ask a moderator to rename this thread for you. Even though you attempted to clarify it a few times, any new reader coming across the thread will be confused. Why not call it "stylisation studies", or something of the sort ? I understand what you are trying to do by referencing "PBR" (basically, using a shading model simulating real life light and material behavior to deepen your understanding of, well, light and materials) - but calling your cartoon studies "PBR-based" is 100% confusing.
- Don't rush. One example : you dropped that still life study a few days ago, without context, and it was confusing since it seemed like yet another thing you decided to tackle after giving up on another. But now that you posted the reference picture, everything makes more sense ! Why not post the whole story in the first place ? By rushing things out and not giving context, you are in a way wasting your time since you won't get much constructive criticism. In short, maybe hold on a bit before posting, to make sure that every image you post comes with context and substance.
- Finish everything you start, and treat every piece as your masterpiece. I know there is a big trend for "speedpaints", "spitpaints" and "quick studies" all over forums and social media, but one really progresses when sitting through and finishing things, even if it takes time. There is no shame in spending a lot of time on something.
All that said, I do think that this greyscale still life stylization study is pretty damn good. It's just a shame that it is buried within such a confusing thread.
I hope that made sense.
In a nutshell, stop trying to come up with an art style before you can realistically render a sphere. You're trying to do gymnastics before you can crawl. if you don't really care about criticism then don't post on a forum.
As for how I use it, Unreal 4 comes with a material system that can be played around with (in addition to other stuff like lights). While I don't have Marmoset, I like to cite from the official PBR documentation it has.
I definitely want criticism. If I didn't, there's no way this thread would even exist because as you said, why would I post it?
I've seen your advice. I should mention that not all the time I post every art that is suppose to be a response to that. What I'm hoping for is that I can improve as an artist in general and that I can post new art that eventually reaches that level.
You keep using technical terms as well, I don't think you know what they mean.
Again I think we all know what jordanN is trying to do at this point.
Which is learn how stuff works physically, but the problem is semantics and how JordanN presents it.
Im going to be honest here Jordan and this has been said time and time again. What you are doing is not new, it is pretty much learning how to paint.
So in conjecture with the engines why not use painting tutorials. pbr is just a term, painters/illustrators still have to know the same things.
And about the image you are referencing from. I totally agree with pior, it makes sense now that you are using the real world to help with your decision making. It also gives context to what you are making. Show more of that!
Even if you ignore everything I say please read this
http://androidarts.com/art_tut.htm
and to crit specular highlight size is based on the surface properties i.e glossiness. Is it rough or is it smooth. Specular amount is based on the specular.
And Albedo which im learning right now, its quite interesting when you put it in context of rgb and how they add. For example the face, it has different colours placed throughout blue, yellow, red. However if you slap those colours on willynilly it looks wierd and thats because you need to know how rgb desaturate sto give the impression of a colour. And then metals have no albedo because they reflect everything, so how does that work with rgb.
find out more here, its all very pbr
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/148355-translation-LINRAN-s-Light-and-Colour-Tutorial-Mini-tut-BIG-download!
keep pushing!
I'm actually quite surprised (and happy!!!!) you noticed the reflection. I actually thought I would have to spend a lot of time on it just to get you to notice.
So see, I do welcome criticism in this thread. Had you said "there are no reflections on this ball" I would immediately have redone the image and post it again because I NEED reflections to make this stuff work.
But because you said "I only added reflection" I still have more work I want to show you. Because the reflection is not suppose to be the only thing there, and I do not want to paint stuff in if the viewer gets confused or doesn't see the effect I'm using.
And to address the artstyle complaints, I've been studying some old cartoons I like and learning from them.
For example, I really like the texturing the artists did for Yogi Bear.
Here is a contrast test I did. I intentionally used limited values for this.
Here's a photo reference used (light direction not meant to be 1:1).
I haven't gotten there yet.
They're 2D drawings with added perpsective and volume of 3D.
You're right that it's rough but look at the photo ref and realize it's the same thing. I intentionally wanted to compare just the contrasts.
Someone said this before already and I said I listen to all criticism. My latest light test is from the same post I made before it, so I'm trying my best this time to focus.
I have not been rude to anyone in this thread. My one wish is for everyone to be civil and respect each other.
No one here is being disrespectful, just honest. Polycount has been around for a while and veteran users have seen countless threads just like this, don't write off harsh comments as rude. Years ago this thread would have been torn apart, and it's only with the intention of helping you improve.
I have no problem with the honest comments. But what I do find bothering is that's it really hard for me to have a say of my own without it being constructed back as "you don't want crits" which seems to imply I'm lying or something.
I post on polycount because I want to learn. It's why I'm obviously here. But when I'm told "you don't reply back" "you don't post art" "you're not being creative" it does become frustrating because I have no real direction of where to go.
This is why I made this thread. It was to allow me more breathing room and input, without it getting in the way of actually working on real Game industry props.
I get that its frustrating, lol, even Im getting frustrated, and its not even my thread xD everyone mentioning the same thing over and over isn't really hat constructive. though they are correct and I agree to most points its kind of beating a dead horse at the moment, I think you got the message by now =P
it would be a shame if you leave this place or stop posting because of this, stuff like this is not what polycount is about.
keep it up!
(I really think you should rename this thread though)
Oh no. I'll never leave!
I really don't think the thread title is the issue here, because people are still looking at my art and questioning it. I can only keep posting new stuff and show people that I'm making steps towards improving.
that last image of yours. The first step far too vague, too sketchy, too unformed to achieve anything like what i *think you're trying to achieve. Its not a '3d volume drawing' - although i'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, i would expect it to be outlining a solid shape, with a quality of line that describes form, depth, mass. What you have is a very rough thumbnail, with sketched elements that aren't even connected together, let alone showing any real form
yet you've then used these rough sketchy lines to form a base to try and cast shadow and even describe AO? How on earth you're expecting to describe AO between non-solid objects is lost on me, there's nothing tangible to guide you and so there's no hope of doing anything remotely accurately. You may as well try to paint on a gas. And if there's nothing to guide accuracy, whats the point? The end result would be what you've ended up with - a bunch of pretty much random blobs drawn on top of another bunch of random blobs, and then combined to form some random shape, which is all it could ever hope to be. There is nothing in the final image that has benefitted from your process, because the process doesn't have a proper base.
for this to be worthwile, you really need to start with a solid shape. If you're not confident in hand-drawing that shape, maybe render something flat-shaded out of a 3d package with useful shape-describing wires/edge detect shader on it. Then use that to paint your lighting/shading passes on top of ... then again i'd also suggest to get fully confident in hand-drawing a solid shape first before thinking about painting 'accurate' light or you're seriously running before you can walk
(btw - its a 1-bit image, not 2-bit, if you're going to use terms you need to know what they mean. I've seen this raised a few times in this thread.
Also, your knack of signing/dating even rough wip tests is a bit weird and off-putting, i know its not really a biggy, but if you consider that a lot of serious talent producing world-class images would balk at the idea of doing this on stuff intended to post online, its the sort of thing that could get peoples backs up)
I think this is being excessively harsh. I agree I need to know my terms but I am still human. I think the fact I was only 1 number off means I was close or trying to get the gist of something.
For me, the date/signature is not meant to be taken as a symbol of offensiveness. I try to use it as a way of keeping my art organized and making it easier to point out in time where I've been improving.
Note that these were the only two comments I wanted to offer discussion. I did not disagree with any of your art criticisms and I am now looking into which areas I need to focus and improve on for the next time.
i don't think its harsh at all, technical terms are absolute, and the only way of using them in a useful capacity when talking tech (and as far as i can tell, you are talking tech) is to make sure they're used correctly. And as i say, i'm reiterating what a few people have already said
Second I think before you do these shadow experiment studies it might be better not to rush things and get the forms/volumes drawn out well first. Based on your last sketch it looks extremely rough and screwed. If you mirror your sketch you will see how all the trees bend one way among other problems, if you mirror your sketch you should be able to see it.
I don't think you can get much out of shadow studies if you don't finish the first steps to completion beforehand.
And I think this shows with the 3d volume drawing you showed in your shading step which doesn't seem to read very well on what the actual 3d volume is for different shapes. What makes it more confusing to me is why you left out that top bit of hair from the 3d volume study and the shading study,
It seems all over the place to me. The whole thing so far just has an appearance of being rushed.
Are you using any sort of books or online resources for these exercises? It could be good to post links to those when you do these to avoid confusion.
But I can get to this one.
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.ca/2006/12/color-theory-art-lozzi-explains-some.html
http://livlily.blogspot.ca/2010/11/cats-dont-dance-characters-darla-dimple.html
[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/The-Noble-Approach-Maurice-Animation/dp/1452102945"]The Noble Approach: Maurice Noble and the Zen of Animation Design: Tod Polson, Maurice Noble, Chuck Jones: 9781452102948: Books - Amazon.ca[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Animating-Looney-Tunes-Drawing-Books/dp/1560103035"]Animating the Looney Tunes Way (Looney Tunes Animating & Drawing Books): Tony Cervone: 9781560103035: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Figure-Drawing-Andrew-Loomis/dp/0857680986"]Figure Drawing: Andrew Loomis: 9780857680983: Books - Amazon.ca[/ame]
http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php
https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Rendering/LightingAndShadows/DistanceFieldAmbientOcclusion/index.html
http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-practice
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Figure-Drawing-Invention-Michael-Hampton/dp/0615272819"]Figure Drawing: Design and Invention: Michael Hampton: 9780615272818: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Will likely have it colored today.
Edit: Honestly, I just want to start moving through this stuff now. I feel like I finally have an idea on how to render this now and so I don't need to show any further tests.
Yesterday was not a good day for me. I had weird encounters at work, I came home to even more weird events, and I went to bed without eating dinner. I was not in a good mood at all. If my comments kinda "jumped at you", I'm sorry.
On a positive note, I'm feeling much more better today. I did finally get to eat and I'm given more time to rest. This puts me in a much better mood to make art, which is what I value most.
I'm now really starting to color my scenes.
And as i mentioned earlier, Sam Nielson's course at Schoolism.com is awesome
I'll also get ripped for this but the "leaking colors/lineart" was done on purpose. It's based on looking at the raw animation cels where artists would sometimes go a bit off model. It's an imperfection I thought was charming.
Or maybe I'm just being lazy and don't want to hold a pen down for 10 hours. :poly121:
Seriously, clean it up, make it solid, get a physical and visible connection between every element, every material, or you are totally wasting your time here.
It was not my intention to make everything 3D. You are still looking at an image that is drawn in complete perspective, and there are elements which still require 3 dimensions. But I have also left elements that are flat and will not receive the same lighting treatment.
If you're wondering "why didn't you just draw everything in 3D?" it's because:
1. I could but it takes too much time to make everything 3D in a modeling program and then trace over it. For this drawing, I drew all the 3D by hand and I can now paint more faster with it. Last time, I went all 3D first and it took too long to draw/color it.
2. Cartoons themselves have always played folly to this logic, featuring both 2D drawn elements and 3D as a style.
This is where the 3D in the thread title came from. It's an allusion to the idea I'm using the more effort based approach of drawing out volume/perspective by hand and playing around with them.
If you're still confused, just keep watching. I've said I'm going to keep posting art.
Yeah, I'm not confused by a 2d drawing that uses perspective, or one that mixes the depth up (either by a stylistic choice or plain misjudgement)
I'm confused by all the posts and tests that go on about material reflectivity, shadow, bounced light, ao, etc etc ... And then you provide a 'fully coloured diffuse' that's so scruffy that it would be impossible to apply any of those notions to. Have you given up on that direction already? If not, fill in the holes in the redheads hair fercrissakes
Reading this thread has given me all kinds of emotions but at this point I'm just super interested to see what you're going to further do with your latest image.
Texturing.
Mostly 2 days. But it can take longer if I'm not satisfied.
What is the general idea - that you'll have standard flat-lined cartoon, and then render the surfaces in a realistic style inside those lines?
wow, thats long. The vast majority of artists with a decent working knowledge of photoshop and some experience painting would be knocking that out well under an hour.
Now, does that matter, in terms of the finished image? Its not in a production environment, and you're doing it at your leisure as part of a learning experience, so its easy to say no, it doesn't matter
however, 2 days to produce something so simple is also symptomatic of something fundamental thats missing in your process. Whether thats knowledge of the software, or comfort/confidence drawing, or lack of concentration - only you can answer that (do you think you know?) but i'd say you'd need to solve it before tackling anything more complex. Again, walking before running.
Here's where I now give an explanation. When I say 2 days, I don't mean I'm literally staring at a screen going "durrrr, what comes after yellow?". I did color the actual image in much shorter time.
But, it took 2 days because I WANTED to have more time to tweak the colors so it appears right in my eyes.
Coming up with colors is HARD (as opposed to painting it) in my opinion.
For example, every color in that scene is meant to have a purpose. I wanted there to be a pattern for people to pick up on.
The girl in the blue dress was specifically created so she stands out the most. Nothing else in that scene has the same vividness and contrasty look as her blue dress and yellow hair.
The girl on the right was created with the opposite in mind. I wanted her to blend in with the environment. If you look at the top of the page, you'll notice I changed her dress from a light blue-green to a darker green. I did this so she matches the trees and grass. Her red hair and glasses are also meant to compliment the red roofs in the background.
You mention this is not for a production environment, and I'll say that's mostly the point of the thread. I'll do something because I really love art.
Yes, this is the idea. But don't interpret realistic as meaning I want to do photorealism.
What I am getting at is that you seem to be tackling the "animator's style" from the outside in, reproducing (admittedly cool) visual effects and tricks seen in cartoon productions. However, things like extreme squash a stretch, perspective stylization and gesture depiction are better grasped from real, live models rather than looking at the end product of animation. Even line weight effects have a root in real life observation.
Now it is also true that some artists manage to develop a certain style by memorizing many "line tricks" (there are countless videos on youtube on "how to draw X character from X movie") but at least in my experience I find this approach to be very limiting. Developing an understanding of the structure of things is much more helpful, and this knowledge then trickles down to lighting, shading, and so on.
Also, work on paper more. You will be surprised how much faster it is than digital for that kind of stuff.
right well, there's a fundamental right there to work on so its not hard. Basic colour theory, its important to get this pretty much instinctive and not a slog. I fear you'll get seriously bogged down in the more advanced stuff you're planning without this feeling more natural to you
Also important to get your working document set up so its fast and easy to tweak. You're at block values and colours, so at this stage it should be each element on its own layer, and then at a basic level the Variations dialog, or the levels and HSL sliders (though less intuitive to the beginner). Study, tweak layer, sit back, squint, tweak again. On your first image with the blue dress girl and the photoshop ui on it, it looked liked you're going one layer flat colour for the whole character - not easy for tweaking bits.
I know people are looking at this and are likely going "how is this Yogi Bear/Looney Tunes etc".
Just remember that those people have YEARS more experience drawing cartoons than I did.
I've only started doing this 3 or 4 months ago. People like Chuck Jones or Hanna-Barbera lived to be in their 80's and 90's and made a complete living off it.
This is not excusing any current quality issues. It's actually why I keep saying "I'll post more art". I need the time to get better and practice.
You are trying to build a carriage before you have a horse to pull it.
That said, I have a serious question about what your goal is. Do you plan to make a living out of doing thisn?
I have thought about this.
If the opportunity ever arises, I definitely would want to make a living drawing cartoons. But money has never been the main reason why I'm doing this.
If I were in your position I'd stop posting intermediary steps, since I'm still practising, and only when I've obtained a result that's close to what I'm after is when I'd share it around and explain what I've learned in detail (and then people can give feedback on the final version of the piece, not the temporary, intermediate steps).
Besides the ways of learning that previous comments discussed, I'd study this thoroughly (WARNING, cartoon nudity):
http://helgesonart.blogspot.de/2014/08/a-formula-step-by-step.html
Now I'm adding lighting.
It's a bit hard to chart it out, but the sun is suppose to be directly on top of them.
Edit: I see a problem now and there's a mistake on the right girl's skirt. I will fix this tomorrow.
Thanks for help noticing. :thumbup: