JordanN Ok buddy before i say anything let me say you do have talent.
That being said, I think your a troll..
You have a grasp of basic concepts but you never use them.
Anyway to stay on topic.. I liked the girl on the rights shirt shading before, it showed mass. But you've totally ignored the left girls shading on the sidewalk, its f"d.
... and your "shadow vanishing point" is ridiculously wrong. You implement things you dont understand
You can do better, which is why i called you a troll..
Don't waste everyone's time for a pointless "joke" (its not)
Good one, you got us....
Your lighting still doesn't work...
sorry i wouldnt bring it up if you didnt constantly act as if you were improving.
Tone it down and learn the basics please
Your lighting still doesn't work...
sorry i wouldnt bring it up if you didnt constantly act as if you were improving.
Tone it down and learn the basics please
I used a 3D program to visualize the lighting, so something has to work but I could make mistakes within the scene.
For example, one major error I had was both models were wearing the same clothes, when my drawing has them wearing 2 different skirt designs (one "hoop" and one "long one).
Another scene error was I had a model in the wrong position. The girl on the right is meant to be standing 3/4 and not completely sideways. There was a loss of mass but it's technically correct in the scene (light doesn't hit her arm because her body is in the way).
If you were to place a few spheres all around that scene and shade them according to the sun, they would all look the same, because the sun is so far that it can be approximated as a light source emitting parallel rays.
It's not really an exception : look up diagrams showing the earth distance to the sun, and you'll see how the rays can been considered as parallel. Think of it more like an approximation than an exception.
If you were to place a few spheres all around that scene and shade them according to the sun, they would all look the same, because the sun is so far that it can be approximated as a light source emitting parallel rays.
They would look the same as seen from a directional camera but with normal perspective they'd look different according to where they are in the scene.
What's true, though, is that there doesn't need to be a shadow vanishing point if the sun in supposed to stand directly above them and if there is need for one, it should be on the horizon.
Yeah, but that goes beyond the core point I was trying to make about the shadow directions being all over the place in the image
If anything I think the very valid point you are making goes to show that even though being self-taught is great, there are still very good reasons to take proper drawing classes in order to tackle all these topics in order. I can see a lot of enthusiasm in JN's approach, but some of the efforts are being compromised by a somehow scattershot approach.
Yeah, but that goes beyond the core point I was trying to make about the shadow directions being all over the place in the image
If anything I think the very valid point you are making goes to show that even though being self-taught is great, there are still very good reasons to take proper drawing classes in order to tackle all these topics in order. I can see a lot of enthusiasm in JN's approach, but some of the efforts are being compromised by a somehow scattershot approach.
Totally, you gotta walk before you can run. My teachers always told me, you have to learn the rules before you can break them. Nothing wrong with experimenting or anything like that, however I think you're jumping too far right now. I would pull it back, work on your drawing skills first. After that, you can move towards rendering, tone/value, etc. People in this thread have suggested Schoolism, I high suggest it. Lots of great courses there.
I think there's too much clashing of styles happening here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're attempting to paint 2d animatedcharacters with the impression of 3D rendering? At some point, I don't think the amount of attention you put into figuring out "perspective shadows" matters when the final result is supposed to be 2D. As far as I know, nobody is going to notice things like that. 2D naturally lends itself in fudging details. I mean, it has to be believable, but not to the point where someone is going to take a ruler to the redhead's glasses to see if the perspective is correct.
What I am noticing on your most recent image, is the unnecessary amount of shadows you have on the blond girl's face. The shadows on her eyes implies she has these large, extruding eggs on her face. The shadows for her eyelashes look strange. Also, the DOF would work if you didn't paint "grass" on top of it, again it clashes.
But I do think this thread is one of the more... entertaining threads in the 2D section. At some point, why do this in 2D at all? Just build your scene in 3D.
I've been avoiding this thread because I don't offer art advice to people I know won't take well to the way I give art feedback. I know I've butt heads with other people on this forum before and on the other extreme I've had a few people really thank me for the stuff I've expressed. Everyone has their own group of people that they will take feedback well and poorly from if they are open to learn in the first place. I've had great friends who I can't stand to listen to their critiques and some of the people who normally get on my nerves have connected with me over my pieces on very deep levels. Maybe no one in this thread is someone who is communicating with you on the right level but to be honest, after watching this go on as long as it has, I'm beginning to think you're really hurting yourself here. For all my disagreements with some of the people in this forum about art sensibilities, I really don't believe anyone here is acting in a hurtful manner when it comes to feedback.
You're using terms you don't fully understand and you're keep trying to apply fundamentals in ways that are fundamentally wrong. You have over hours of collective feedback in your thread already and instead of using this and asking questions, you're blowing off people who are trying to help you steer clear of spending a lot of time going down the wrong path. Your perspective is wrong, your cast shadows are wrong, your foreshortening into camera is wrong, your shape language is juvenile, you're missing the bar of what you originally set out to do and instead of stopping for one second and trying to fix any of these errors, you push back on every bit of feedback this forum has provided to you. I would really think hard about why you're posting here and whether or not you have an ego that you need to tone down or if everyone is just misunderstanding you.
Quote system is messed up right now but I'm trying to quote you Greg.
[quote=GREG WESTPHAL] I would really think hard about why you're posting here and whether or not you have an ego that you need to tone down or if everyone is just misunderstanding you. [/quote] I don't think it has anything to do with ego so it does come down to communication/misunderstanding problems.
In this thread, people give me suggestions and I use them. But for reasons related to the type of art I'm doing, I have to sometimes clarify that there is a certain direction I still have to follow or else, what's the point in me doing this?
And that's likely were it starts to feel like "clashing", even though I've stated many times, I am not an anti-crit person.
Another reason too is I'm a very careful person. I never want to say or do anything that offends anyone, so I often limit posts or remain secretive. Unfortunately, again, miscommunication might make people be more imaginative and see the opposite.
I want to disagree that I've blown off anyone here.
I took the time to read through my thread and I don't believe I've said anything that is considered flagrant/swearing/ or straight up rejection. As stated in the above, I've read people's comments and had almost always agreed with them or explained in civil fashion, I might want to attempt something else.
It's not really something I want to type, but it might be important to say going forward.
I want to disagree that I've blown off anyone here.
I took the time to read through my thread and I don't believe I've said anything that is considered flagrant/swearing/ or straight up rejection. As stated in the above, I've read people's comments and had almost always agreed with them or explained in civil fashion, I might want to attempt something else.
To be honest, Jordann, the main reason people are becoming very frustrated by this thread (aside from your misused technical terms) is the fact that you don't actually take anyone's advice. You only take snippets from what people are saying and ignore the rest. Even then, the advise you do take seems to rarely be put into practice. I mean dude, come on, you've had at least ten plus people tell you to go back to fundamentals, yet you completely ignore this. I don't understand how SO MANY people can be telling you this and still the little light bulb inside your head hasn't gone off telling you: "Hey, this is a problem. I should take their advice."
I also think there is a perceived notion that by not going back to learn fundamentals, you aren't overly serious about your art or your future as a professional artist. No one is going to lie to you - going back to fundamentals sucks. It's as boring as hell but you will learn a hundred times faster than you are now. It will make you a better artist and help you in identifying your own mistakes within you're work.
You're very lucky that you've had so many talented artist take time to critique your work. Some coming back more than once. Learn from these people and take their advice. Otherwise, you're going to end up with no one to help you because no one wants to give you critique only to have it ignored. You need to actually practice what people are advising, not just agree and then not do anything about it.
Start listening, start practicing, or else people are going to get the shits with you and this thread and leave it for good. Stop talking about the 'kind of art you want to do' and learn how to draw, render, etc.
@chubycat [quote] I don't understand how SO MANY people can be telling you this and still the little light bulb inside your head hasn't gone off telling you: "Hey, this is a problem. I should take their advice."[/quote]
Before I could do that, I felt something needed to change first. I figured the only solution left was to steer the thread under a new direction and just have people crit the art, instead of all the mini-commentary I included.
Just to let you know the moderators are monitoring this conversation heavily and warnings have been issued. If physical violence is brought in to this conversation once more, permanent bans will be given to those who do it.
Be respectful to each other, even when you disagree.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thing is, problem people might have with your communications is that, despite the critique given to you, you've not progressed one yota, and continue to post art like nothing happened, while simultaneously asking for MORE critique. What exactly are you doing with this critique, Jordann? EATING it?
Personally, I don't get it, and I don't get other people in this thread either. Call me bitchy, but there's plenty of newbs in the thread, yours truly included, who WANT to learn, who NEED meaningful feedback and who CAN APPLY it to their work, but this thread is like a honeyjar, with so much input given to a person who doesn't appreciate and apply it, and you still force it down his throat, while completely ignoring other people who would actually make good use of your advice.
I'll play devil's advocate and say that I sometimes you can be learning without showing improvement in your work. I know that when I first started drawing I barely showed any improvement for months and I was studying upwards of 14 hours a day for 7 days a week. Sometimes it takes a long time to transfer that potential energy build up from mileage into kinetic energy in results. Whether or not that is happening here is up for debate and only time will tell I guess.
Also, I don't think a thread like this is a complete waste. I think threatening violence is terrible and being harsh without offering a solution is wrong but I think any new person could see this thread and apply a lot of what was said to their own methods, exceptionally in the department of "how to ask for feedback." A long time ago someone contacted me after reading through all my forum post saying that my notes on other people's work really helped him. When I was in school some of the best "a-ha" moments came from listening to the art director give feedback to my friends. Now, I level up sometimes when I study other people's work and try to find solutions to help them.
TBH man, it probably feels like you're on the wrong side of a witch hunt and I get that. Although you're asking for critiques against your work and not you personall have to realize that your piece is fundamentally wrong in terms of visual communication and differs so greatly from what you're explaining your goals are that the only advice people can give to you is "Stop! Return to fundamentals." Cube studies in perspective and maybe trying to paint value paintings of a still life set of one object is where I would start. You're tenacious as all hell but believe me when I say that your energy expenditure is going into the wrong focus.
My family has a motto: "If you're going to be dumb, you gotta be tough." Getting into art is dumb enough already. Your competition is working upwards of 80 hours a week trying to improve by studying over a thousand years of art theory and applying it practically to hundreds of pieces a year. You might lose girlfriends (I did), isolate yourself from your non-art friends, and your family might constantly be stepping on glass about your pieces because they'll know how important is is to you but not understand any of it. Why anyone would try to get into art as a career if they could help it is beyond me. But the calling to get better and reach that next level and showcase that next piece is so insanely strong that many of us tough it out. And it does get better because every time you level up that feeling of accomplishment becomes stronger. My point is, getting into art is super tough already and when everyone on the forum is trying to steer you clear of a pitfalls it would be really disadvantageous to push ahead through a piece that is going in the wrong direction.
One last thing and this is more of a personal observation. Most people give critiques based on what they have personally struggled through the most to get better at. I have a friend who is known as "the shape guy" cause his language is so strong. He works on it more than anyone else and has made more mistakes than probably the rest of my friend combined to learn how to be strong at it. I also have friends who are great at composition and functional design and color application. Their critiques generally follow what they themselves have toughed through the most. Find someone who you respect an aspect of their work and then ask them to critique your work based on that aspect. You probably won't even know how to apply it at first because you don't have the mileage they do behind that understanding, but it'll point you in the right direction.
I'm really sorry if you guys though those were physically violence threat, it wasn't at all. You little sister probably hit and do more dmg than me.
From where i'm from it's something you heard often. (There's a lot of variance" Jte frapperais tellement fort que t'ouvrirais enfin les yeux)It's an expression mean to say " Open your eyes/i'll make you realize/get a hold of yourself" to someone clueless about themself and their surrounding. In this case make him realize that he's really unrespectful toward everyone giving their free time away for nothing and that he's going in a bad direction. It's a bit like what you saw in movie, when the girl slaps the guy/girl because he's hurting himself, or when you try to make an alcoolic realise his addiction or someone else and doesn't care/know, or more metamorphic (is that even the right word): When you were an adolescent and you were saying stuff like " If it's that way then i'll kill myself" or " I hate you" the slap represent the harshness of the reality.
It was no physically based cartoon threat at all, if i was to do a real one i would be more radical than a slap. Like broke knees or something like that (It's a joke, really don't get mad, there's 200% chance of me getting bruise just by trying to poke you)
So here's my new direction for the thread. I wont post anymore mini-commentary plus I'll leave out the theory stuff. I'll just post any finished/uncomplete paintings with just a small description and read the crits.
So here's a new scene. A stylized Canadian Battle Tank.
One of my main issues with some of your sketches is how undefined they are. They're very rough, and the forms aren't very well defined. In the short term, that makes it easier for you (sketching becomes more care-free, but you'll also learn less); but if you plan on bringing something to completion, that just pushes off some of the work until later, when it might be more difficult to part with what's already on the paper.
Also, I'm not sure if it's a stylistic choice of yours to ignore the rules of perspective, but it reads like a mistake, and not a choice. Your previous characters looked quite skewed as well. It's generally good practice to constantly "flip horizontal" (Or, turn it over and hold it up to a light, if it's on paper) to make sure you're not drawing something in a really unbalanced/skewed way.
All right I'm not gonna go through the whole thread because, woof.
I think I understand what you're going for though. You want stylized shapes but with realistically rendered lighting and surface treatment. But here's the thing. The concept of doing 2D while keeping rendering principles like occlusion, surface roughness, metallic reflections, etc, in mind really isn't anything new though. Every painter in the history of representative art has had to think of that. Rembrandt understood the hell out of light falloff. Albrecht Durer most certainly knew about ambient occlusion. Vermeer was famous for his strong grasp of reflectance and global illumination. You're really just retreading already well explored ground here. Which is good news though! Because that means that there is heaps of knowledge and material on the subject. I'm sure someone has already mentioned James Gurney's Painting With Light, that is a great place to start. It's gonna be a much better use of your time than trying to reinvent the wheel in a vacuum.
As for giving a realistic treatment to stylized painting, it's obviously common in 3D animation with studios like Pixar and Dreamworks. In 2D though there is still no shortage of artists who do the same. A few worth looking at are Ryan Lang, Max Grecke, and Daisuke "Dice" Tsusumi. Those are great inspiration, and I'd even recommend trying a master study, you'll be amazed at how much you learn from that.
Breaking my own rule just for once, but I'm going to update the OP and change the part where I was talking about PBR in relation to cartoons. This is because someone did point this out before and I admitted I didn't actually mean I invented the idea, but what I meant was I wanted to use this technique for artstyles that are no longer mainstream or are much older (i.e see my list of references in this post and I mention I'm following Looney Tunes/Hanna Barbara type art).
My best guess is he means fairly realistic lighting, but not fully rendered, and broken down to some sort of cartoon shading. Perhaps some texture overlays that remind of more traditional media. (So simulating e.g. chalk, not necessarily the material that is depicted in the scene.)
Jordann, not to join in with everyone psychoanalysing you, but you're really, truly, honestly not being clear with your intentions here. And that's the issue. Its not your art, per se, or the style, per se, or specifically that you said PBR; its that none of the words you are saying help describe what you are doing.
Your descriptions are esoteric, and your replies are always shrugs (which I don't at all think is intentional and certainly not intended to shrug off critique, but you really need to work on it for clarity). For example, Fingus is trying to help us get an idea of what you're going for, and instead of finding a sort of reference yourself or clarifying, you're just saying "Oh, that's not what I meant", or "Well, that style isn't what I want". Which is fine enough, but you have to understand it gives us no clearer image of what you ARE going for. So people keep guessing and getting frustrated.
And because your fundamentals aren't really up to scratch yet, your own attempts leave people even more confused. Because we can't see what you're aiming for, and have no clue how you intend to get there, we can't give any advice as to where you went wrong, or what even seems off to us.
I actually prefer those original scenes. They still capture the type of
texturing/rendering I like (but I prefer Looney Tunes art over both).
I don't want to derail my own thread again so I'm not sure what more I can say.
It might be obvious to you what you mean by all of this, but what Fingus was putting forward wasn't a suggestion for what to go for. It was pointing to an example and asking if that was what you were going for, because a lot of people in this thread may have thought you were going for something like these. Which, if I extrapolate from this reply, you weren't, but that wasn't clear to a lot of people here. If you don't clarify what you ARE doing, what you ARE aiming for, without using buzzwords that aren't applicable or helpful, then people will give you weird, abstract or even flat out wrong advice based on what they think you're doing, not what you are doing.
So please. Clarify. "I'm not sure what more I can say"? Explain WHAT about these examples is not what you're aiming for, and clarify what your intent is.
While we're here though and staying positive, here are some cool old cartoon studies I love and that don't mince their intention, focusing on gesture (which is an aspect you might want to look into)!
On the last tank drawing I'd say sometimes less it more, it's better not to draw the wind wisps if you have a flag which have have it's movement display that there is wind. It just makes the image harder to read.
The floor is similar in that respect, the cracks and holes I think? they don't really add to the piece, if anything I'd say they destroy the sense of depth because they don't seem to follow the perspective as intensely as the tank's body.
I'd say focus on the main pieces of a drawing and then think before any any extra details, if you don't have a clear idea of what those other details will be, don't add them, and don't add any just to fill in space since that can make it harder to focus on the more key areas of it.
For more technically info I think that the tank's nozzle's perspective doesn't match the rest of the tank, keep in mind where it connects to the tank, the base meets at a change of angles so it could be good to draw it so it connects in a more believable way, with how straight of a line the nozzle ends at on it's base it doesn't show a sense of the shape it's suppose to be, which is more round.
There are quite a few exercises you can do with drawing where you draw geometric shapes using different perspective grids. Could be a good idea to do those everyday to improve. Especially since building up a drawing using basic shapes can be extremely helpful for figure drawing and for hard surface modeling.
Since you're not posting commentary and only want people to crit the art, I assume that's a proper update, ie you've completed step 2 of your image?
in which case ... You're doing basic block colour in Photoshop but still manage to have zero quality of line. At the stage you're at and with the tools you're using , this is worrying. Lines break where they meet another element/colour and don't continue as they should to solidly describe the shape - see the end of the barrel, the top of the right track at the front, the top of the turret where it meets the indentation, amongst many others. You have an obvious pixel gap around the shapes that form the observation hatch thing. The bottom of the flag pole and the antenna overlap the body of the tank. Etc etc etc. Like I said in a couple of previous posts, you have no chance of properly describing any chance of 'accurate' rendering (if indeed you're still doing that, tbh I'm confused on the matter) if your base looks like it's been shoved together on a tabletop with bits of construction paper
i wonder if some of this is down to photoshop technique. Can you briefly share your workflow for laying these colours out? The pixel gap in partcular suggests something is amiss there (as well as your willingness to let it slide / failure to spot it)
also so your perspective is still out of whack. Check out the leading edge of both tracks where they meet the ground. You seem to be following your very rough sketch to the letter, rather than correcting as you go.
Replies
JordanN
Ok buddy before i say anything let me say you do have talent.
That being said, I think your a troll..
You have a grasp of basic concepts but you never use them.
Anyway to stay on topic.. I liked the girl on the rights shirt shading before, it showed mass. But you've totally ignored the left girls shading on the sidewalk, its f"d.
... and your "shadow vanishing point" is ridiculously wrong. You implement things you dont understand
You can do better, which is why i called you a troll..
Don't waste everyone's time for a pointless "joke" (its not)
Good one, you got us....
Now what?
sorry i wouldnt bring it up if you didnt constantly act as if you were improving.
Tone it down and learn the basics please
I used a 3D program to visualize the lighting, so something has to work but I could make mistakes within the scene.
For example, one major error I had was both models were wearing the same clothes, when my drawing has them wearing 2 different skirt designs (one "hoop" and one "long one).
Another scene error was I had a model in the wrong position. The girl on the right is meant to be standing 3/4 and not completely sideways. There was a loss of mass but it's technically correct in the scene (light doesn't hit her arm because her body is in the way).
I'll modify it now so the two shadows look more closer to casting in the same direction. :thumbup:
[edit]This one should do the trick :
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
They would look the same as seen from a directional camera but with normal perspective they'd look different according to where they are in the scene.
What's true, though, is that there doesn't need to be a shadow vanishing point if the sun in supposed to stand directly above them and if there is need for one, it should be on the horizon.
If anything I think the very valid point you are making goes to show that even though being self-taught is great, there are still very good reasons to take proper drawing classes in order to tackle all these topics in order. I can see a lot of enthusiasm in JN's approach, but some of the efforts are being compromised by a somehow scattershot approach.
I think there's too much clashing of styles happening here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're attempting to paint 2d animated characters with the impression of 3D rendering? At some point, I don't think the amount of attention you put into figuring out "perspective shadows" matters when the final result is supposed to be 2D. As far as I know, nobody is going to notice things like that. 2D naturally lends itself in fudging details. I mean, it has to be believable, but not to the point where someone is going to take a ruler to the redhead's glasses to see if the perspective is correct.
What I am noticing on your most recent image, is the unnecessary amount of shadows you have on the blond girl's face. The shadows on her eyes implies she has these large, extruding eggs on her face. The shadows for her eyelashes look strange. Also, the DOF would work if you didn't paint "grass" on top of it, again it clashes.
But I do think this thread is one of the more... entertaining threads in the 2D section. At some point, why do this in 2D at all? Just build your scene in 3D.
You're using terms you don't fully understand and you're keep trying to apply fundamentals in ways that are fundamentally wrong. You have over hours of collective feedback in your thread already and instead of using this and asking questions, you're blowing off people who are trying to help you steer clear of spending a lot of time going down the wrong path. Your perspective is wrong, your cast shadows are wrong, your foreshortening into camera is wrong, your shape language is juvenile, you're missing the bar of what you originally set out to do and instead of stopping for one second and trying to fix any of these errors, you push back on every bit of feedback this forum has provided to you. I would really think hard about why you're posting here and whether or not you have an ego that you need to tone down or if everyone is just misunderstanding you.
[quote=GREG WESTPHAL] I would really think hard about why you're posting here and whether or not you have an ego that you need to tone down or if everyone is just misunderstanding you. [/quote]
I don't think it has anything to do with ego so it does come down to communication/misunderstanding problems.
In this thread, people give me suggestions and I use them. But for reasons related to the type of art I'm doing, I have to sometimes clarify that there is a certain direction I still have to follow or else, what's the point in me doing this?
And that's likely were it starts to feel like "clashing", even though I've stated many times, I am not an anti-crit person.
Another reason too is I'm a very careful person. I never want to say or do anything that offends anyone, so I often limit posts or remain secretive. Unfortunately, again, miscommunication might make people be more imaginative and see the opposite.
I took the time to read through my thread and I don't believe I've said anything that is considered flagrant/swearing/ or straight up rejection. As stated in the above, I've read people's comments and had almost always agreed with them or explained in civil fashion, I might want to attempt something else.
It's not really something I want to type, but it might be important to say going forward.
I also liked working with the girls and hope to do more with them in the future.
I took the time to read through my thread and I don't believe I've said anything that is considered flagrant/swearing/ or straight up rejection. As stated in the above, I've read people's comments and had almost always agreed with them or explained in civil fashion, I might want to attempt something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, Jordann, the main reason people are becoming very frustrated by this thread (aside from your misused technical terms) is the fact that you don't actually take anyone's advice. You only take snippets from what people are saying and ignore the rest. Even then, the advise you do take seems to rarely be put into practice. I mean dude, come on, you've had at least ten plus people tell you to go back to fundamentals, yet you completely ignore this. I don't understand how SO MANY people can be telling you this and still the little light bulb inside your head hasn't gone off telling you: "Hey, this is a problem. I should take their advice."
I also think there is a perceived notion that by not going back to learn fundamentals, you aren't overly serious about your art or your future as a professional artist. No one is going to lie to you - going back to fundamentals sucks. It's as boring as hell but you will learn a hundred times faster than you are now. It will make you a better artist and help you in identifying your own mistakes within you're work.
You're very lucky that you've had so many talented artist take time to critique your work. Some coming back more than once. Learn from these people and take their advice. Otherwise, you're going to end up with no one to help you because no one wants to give you critique only to have it ignored. You need to actually practice what people are advising, not just agree and then not do anything about it.
Start listening, start practicing, or else people are going to get the shits with you and this thread and leave it for good. Stop talking about the 'kind of art you want to do' and learn how to draw, render, etc.
[quote] I don't understand how SO MANY people can be telling you this and still the little light bulb inside your head hasn't gone off telling you: "Hey, this is a problem. I should take their advice."[/quote]
Before I could do that, I felt something needed to change first. I figured the only solution left was to steer the thread under a new direction and just have people crit the art, instead of all the mini-commentary I included.
Just to let you know the moderators are monitoring this conversation heavily and warnings have been issued. If physical violence is brought in to this conversation once more, permanent bans will be given to those who do it.
Be respectful to each other, even when you disagree.
Personally, I don't get it, and I don't get other people in this thread either. Call me bitchy, but there's plenty of newbs in the thread, yours truly included, who WANT to learn, who NEED meaningful feedback and who CAN APPLY it to their work, but this thread is like a honeyjar, with so much input given to a person who doesn't appreciate and apply it, and you still force it down his throat, while completely ignoring other people who would actually make good use of your advice.
You're wasting your time here, seriously.
I'll play devil's advocate and say that I sometimes you can be learning without showing improvement in your work. I know that when I first started drawing I barely showed any improvement for months and I was studying upwards of 14 hours a day for 7 days a week. Sometimes it takes a long time to transfer that potential energy build up from mileage into kinetic energy in results. Whether or not that is happening here is up for debate and only time will tell I guess.
Also, I don't think a thread like this is a complete waste. I think threatening violence is terrible and being harsh without offering a solution is wrong but I think any new person could see this thread and apply a lot of what was said to their own methods, exceptionally in the department of "how to ask for feedback." A long time ago someone contacted me after reading through all my forum post saying that my notes on other people's work really helped him. When I was in school some of the best "a-ha" moments came from listening to the art director give feedback to my friends. Now, I level up sometimes when I study other people's work and try to find solutions to help them.
@Jordann
TBH man, it probably feels like you're on the wrong side of a witch hunt and I get that. Although you're asking for critiques against your work and not you personall have to realize that your piece is fundamentally wrong in terms of visual communication and differs so greatly from what you're explaining your goals are that the only advice people can give to you is "Stop! Return to fundamentals." Cube studies in perspective and maybe trying to paint value paintings of a still life set of one object is where I would start. You're tenacious as all hell but believe me when I say that your energy expenditure is going into the wrong focus.
My family has a motto: "If you're going to be dumb, you gotta be tough." Getting into art is dumb enough already. Your competition is working upwards of 80 hours a week trying to improve by studying over a thousand years of art theory and applying it practically to hundreds of pieces a year. You might lose girlfriends (I did), isolate yourself from your non-art friends, and your family might constantly be stepping on glass about your pieces because they'll know how important is is to you but not understand any of it. Why anyone would try to get into art as a career if they could help it is beyond me. But the calling to get better and reach that next level and showcase that next piece is so insanely strong that many of us tough it out. And it does get better because every time you level up that feeling of accomplishment becomes stronger. My point is, getting into art is super tough already and when everyone on the forum is trying to steer you clear of a pitfalls it would be really disadvantageous to push ahead through a piece that is going in the wrong direction.
One last thing and this is more of a personal observation. Most people give critiques based on what they have personally struggled through the most to get better at. I have a friend who is known as "the shape guy" cause his language is so strong. He works on it more than anyone else and has made more mistakes than probably the rest of my friend combined to learn how to be strong at it. I also have friends who are great at composition and functional design and color application. Their critiques generally follow what they themselves have toughed through the most. Find someone who you respect an aspect of their work and then ask them to critique your work based on that aspect. You probably won't even know how to apply it at first because you don't have the mileage they do behind that understanding, but it'll point you in the right direction.
I'm really sorry if you guys though those were physically violence threat, it wasn't at all. You little sister probably hit and do more dmg than me.
From where i'm from it's something you heard often. (There's a lot of variance" Jte frapperais tellement fort que t'ouvrirais enfin les yeux)It's an expression mean to say " Open your eyes/i'll make you realize/get a hold of yourself" to someone clueless about themself and their surrounding. In this case make him realize that he's really unrespectful toward everyone giving their free time away for nothing and that he's going in a bad direction. It's a bit like what you saw in movie, when the girl slaps the guy/girl because he's hurting himself, or when you try to make an alcoolic realise his addiction or someone else and doesn't care/know, or more metamorphic (is that even the right word): When you were an adolescent and you were saying stuff like " If it's that way then i'll kill myself" or " I hate you" the slap represent the harshness of the reality.
It was no physically based cartoon threat at all, if i was to do a real one i would be more radical than a slap. Like broke knees or something like that (It's a joke, really don't get mad, there's 200% chance of me getting bruise just by trying to poke you)
I'm out
So here's a new scene. A stylized Canadian Battle Tank.
Also, I'm not sure if it's a stylistic choice of yours to ignore the rules of perspective, but it reads like a mistake, and not a choice. Your previous characters looked quite skewed as well. It's generally good practice to constantly "flip horizontal" (Or, turn it over and hold it up to a light, if it's on paper) to make sure you're not drawing something in a really unbalanced/skewed way.
I think I understand what you're going for though. You want stylized shapes but with realistically rendered lighting and surface treatment. But here's the thing. The concept of doing 2D while keeping rendering principles like occlusion, surface roughness, metallic reflections, etc, in mind really isn't anything new though. Every painter in the history of representative art has had to think of that. Rembrandt understood the hell out of light falloff. Albrecht Durer most certainly knew about ambient occlusion. Vermeer was famous for his strong grasp of reflectance and global illumination. You're really just retreading already well explored ground here.
Which is good news though! Because that means that there is heaps of knowledge and material on the subject. I'm sure someone has already mentioned James Gurney's Painting With Light, that is a great place to start. It's gonna be a much better use of your time than trying to reinvent the wheel in a vacuum.
As for giving a realistic treatment to stylized painting, it's obviously common in 3D animation with studios like Pixar and Dreamworks. In 2D though there is still no shortage of artists who do the same. A few worth looking at are Ryan Lang, Max Grecke, and Daisuke "Dice" Tsusumi. Those are great inspiration, and I'd even recommend trying a master study, you'll be amazed at how much you learn from that.
Works by Tyson Murphy http://gardenturtle.blogspot.com
I don't want to derail my own thread again so I'm not sure what more I can say.
Your descriptions are esoteric, and your replies are always shrugs (which I don't at all think is intentional and certainly not intended to shrug off critique, but you really need to work on it for clarity).
For example, Fingus is trying to help us get an idea of what you're going for, and instead of finding a sort of reference yourself or clarifying, you're just saying "Oh, that's not what I meant", or "Well, that style isn't what I want". Which is fine enough, but you have to understand it gives us no clearer image of what you ARE going for. So people keep guessing and getting frustrated.
And because your fundamentals aren't really up to scratch yet, your own attempts leave people even more confused. Because we can't see what you're aiming for, and have no clue how you intend to get there, we can't give any advice as to where you went wrong, or what even seems off to us.
It might be obvious to you what you mean by all of this, but what Fingus was putting forward wasn't a suggestion for what to go for. It was pointing to an example and asking if that was what you were going for, because a lot of people in this thread may have thought you were going for something like these. Which, if I extrapolate from this reply, you weren't, but that wasn't clear to a lot of people here. If you don't clarify what you ARE doing, what you ARE aiming for, without using buzzwords that aren't applicable or helpful, then people will give you weird, abstract or even flat out wrong advice based on what they think you're doing, not what you are doing.
So please. Clarify. "I'm not sure what more I can say"? Explain WHAT about these examples is not what you're aiming for, and clarify what your intent is.
While we're here though and staying positive, here are some cool old cartoon studies I love and that don't mince their intention, focusing on gesture (which is an aspect you might want to look into)!
http://verticalart.tumblr.com/post/128878735219/i-redrew-some-poses-i-liked-from-older-cartoons
The floor is similar in that respect, the cracks and holes I think? they don't really add to the piece, if anything I'd say they destroy the sense of depth because they don't seem to follow the perspective as intensely as the tank's body.
I'd say focus on the main pieces of a drawing and then think before any any extra details, if you don't have a clear idea of what those other details will be, don't add them, and don't add any just to fill in space since that can make it harder to focus on the more key areas of it.
For more technically info I think that the tank's nozzle's perspective doesn't match the rest of the tank, keep in mind where it connects to the tank, the base meets at a change of angles so it could be good to draw it so it connects in a more believable way, with how straight of a line the nozzle ends at on it's base it doesn't show a sense of the shape it's suppose to be, which is more round.
There are quite a few exercises you can do with drawing where you draw geometric shapes using different perspective grids. Could be a good idea to do those everyday to improve. Especially since building up a drawing using basic shapes can be extremely helpful for figure drawing and for hard surface modeling.
In fact, I believe ctrl+paint has video about it.
http://www.ctrlpaint.com/videos/simplifying-form
Here are some colours on my birthday!
in which case ... You're doing basic block colour in Photoshop but still manage to have zero quality of line. At the stage you're at and with the tools you're using , this is worrying. Lines break where they meet another element/colour and don't continue as they should to solidly describe the shape - see the end of the barrel, the top of the right track at the front, the top of the turret where it meets the indentation, amongst many others. You have an obvious pixel gap around the shapes that form the observation hatch thing. The bottom of the flag pole and the antenna overlap the body of the tank. Etc etc etc. Like I said in a couple of previous posts, you have no chance of properly describing any chance of 'accurate' rendering (if indeed you're still doing that, tbh I'm confused on the matter) if your base looks like it's been shoved together on a tabletop with bits of construction paper
i wonder if some of this is down to photoshop technique. Can you briefly share your workflow for laying these colours out? The pixel gap in partcular suggests something is amiss there (as well as your willingness to let it slide / failure to spot it)
also so your perspective is still out of whack. Check out the leading edge of both tracks where they meet the ground. You seem to be following your very rough sketch to the letter, rather than correcting as you go.