my problem with this is that it doesnt look functional and there is a general lack of definition. you should probably do some studies from nature, i think your work would benefit greatly from it.
my problem with this is that it doesnt look functional and there is a general lack of definition. you should probably do some studies from nature, i think your work would benefit greatly from it.
while i appreciate the comment, what you said is extremely vague. specifics would either help me clarify my intentions or help me better understand your critique.
I will try to clear up as best as I can though, as this piece is already heavily built around nature. The animal parts which it is most built around are the body structure of a gorilla, the hind legs of a spider, and the detail and definition of a frog. While I accept there is a lack of texture definitions in areas like the back, and sculpt/texture definition in the hind legs...the overall skin type and muscle definition is created with a frog in mind. So if you're talking about texture/alpha definition...I could maybe touch that up a bit. But i was not going for toned muscles on this creature, that was intentional. http://www.casarioblanco.com/poison-dart-frog.jpg
As far as functionality, I was pretty specific in it's function (to climb) from the getgo. So if you have something in particular that seems nonfunctional, I'd love to hear what. I could then possibly make an adjustment.
Keep in mind, the pose it has is meant for it to be standing on a rock, which I just never got to modelling.
why do only 3 of the plates on the tail have the notch out of them?
also while i see what you are saying about the definition, the hands and feet, and face area could still use a bit of definition. frogs jaw bones tend to leave very interesting and harder lines in the face area. the reason i bring this up is balance. you have a ton of detail in the tail and back/ midsection area, so that draws our visual intrest away from the face and hand areas, which are the most expressive, and thus realism in these areas is crucial to make a character seem real. what you have is a good foundation just work on those areas a bit more.
There are several parts that lack definition. The feet, while I'm sure they are supposed to be simple by natures, just look unfinished. And the eyes and mouth have no real definition. the hind feet in particular lack and kind of transition between the limbs and the feet. Overall it kinda seems like you just dove into the details a tad bit to early.
And I don't think 20 hours is to long to spend on just a sculpt.
while i appreciate the comment, what you said is extremely vague. specifics would either help me clarify my intentions or help me better understand your critique.
it was probably vague because there is just too much to say, there are alot of medium sized forms and details that are missing for example check this gorilla sculpt out http://cghub.com/files/Image/3851/image.jpg
I would assume that if you just go away and look at some of that reference you listed - gorilla spider frog etc, you will see what needs to be done and if you cant see what needs to be done then find some more reference of those areas which are hard to define.
yes, what Ged said. Start doing some studies, practising direct observation. You will build a library of shapes in your mind that way and then, when you have a solid foundation, you can start creating believable creatures of your own.
Agreed, what you have now reads like, well, not to sound like a dick, a childs play dough sculpture. It has arms and legs and a head etc but it has no function. What is its skeletal structure, how do the muscles attatch and function. I have seen no vague crits here, its not the crits that are vague its the sculpt, nothing is defined, its not clearly readable and you have started using alpha brushes and working on finer detail before you have even looked at its feet.....
Don't get me wrong, you have some interesting shapes and the idea is good, I just think you should try focusing more on sculpting more real creatures before you try and make your own. I would suggest a tree frog, it has a lot of interesting features to sculpt and its muscles are clearly defined and easy to read from reference.
Keep at it and don't get put off by negative crits, its negative crits that will help you grow as an artist. Good luck.
as a creature design its an interesting concept but it has to have structure. your mixing in alot of different animals but you have to ask yourself how does it move, eat, why does it have a tail? whats that opening on its back. you would be helping yourself greatly if you studied the anatomy of the animals your trying to merge into this creature.
wow this is all great criticism, i really appreciate it a lot.
one thing worth mentioning again is that the back legs and feet are NOT done.
i do agree that they SHOULD have been done long before I started detailing anything else. I really jumped the gun on detailing this guy, and it definitely shows. doing things out of order can get things done, but you just always end up covering mistakes and figuring out too much on the fly.
i think one of the main reasons this guy took me so long is that i didn't know where i was going from the start, all i knew is that he had to climb. so i tried to think of interesting ways for him to move etc, but i kind of went a little overboard.
things like coral type of deal on the back is all detailing that definitely should have been added last.
however, something of note is that there is quite a bit of functionality thought into this guy, i just wanted to branch out a bit from what we know of animals. perhaps a few explanations will help explain where i was going (and you can tell me if you buy it or not):
the two disk type of deals at the shoulders are the creatures method of "letting go." by default, all muscles are tensed in the position the creature is now (or holding on to a tree, for instance). that way, the creature can hold itself up with absolutely no effort, and just rest in the tree. all the effort comes in releasing, in which it pulls it's shoulders together, by moving the disks towards each other.
that leads to the cushioning type of deal between the disks (the circles on its back). I figure, if the creature is releasing, it's going to need a surge of energy to the back legs. there is a spider that uses a similar function as this to leap, and i thought it was appropriate given the spider legs. so when the creature moves the discs together, the cushioning serves as a large lung that shoots the energy down the back legs. All the back has muscle exposed etc like that because i want it to feel like it's getting as much energy from the air as possible. (i could also refine this with texture detail, to relate what is muscle vs. "other."
so it's main function is that, in holding on, releasing, and leaping. however, it does need to simply climb or walk some, and it's ok if that's slightly awkward in my opinion. that's why i seperated the back on the underside, so essentially all of it's "ribcage" and back is serving as a potential part of the leg. i wanted it to be able to move like a triple jointed leg to a degree (you can see from the front view, the "pelvis" almost looks like a knee if it were a triple jointed leg.
so i hope that at least clarifies my intentions. i was trying to really go into limited specifics, as if this creature was built for one thing. nobody bought it though, apparently, so any comments on how to refine those ideas would be awesome. any comments on generally referring to nature though, i don't appreciate so much. because nature is in there, and function is in there, it's just fairly unorthodox (and potentially nonfunctional).
maybe if i do a few animations it would help show my intention of it's movements.
and a quick side note. looking at nature, something that inspires me a lot is the angler fish.
if i modeled that. and told you that could swim, you would likely all laugh (i would too). if i told you it's function, in that it uses that light to draw fish to it's mouth, i would laugh even harder.
and yet there it is, and that's what it does. it swims, and it eats...and that's how it does it. i find that nature can be pretty creative, and ideas that seem dumb can also be the ideas that are fun.
i mean think of a world without an octopus or squid. for all we'd know, swimming was achievable only by use of fins.
i dunno just my two cents. thanks again for the critiques
. any comments on generally referring to nature though, i don't appreciate so much. because nature is in there, and function is in there, it's just fairly unorthodox (and potentially nonfunctional).
well its all good you saying that its in there but if other people cannot see it and recognise it then really its not there and I think thats what a lot of people are trying to help you with and thats why Im encouraging you to use that reference of yours more. Im glad youve got a solid idea now make it so that the creature displays that idea so clearly that you dont have to ever explain the idea again. This isnt a question of "is it plausible in nature" this is a question of "will people know what they are looking at" and even the most implausible things in nature like that angler fish have characteristics that make it believable.
well its all good you saying that its in there but if other people cannot see it and recognise it then really its not there and I think thats what a lot of people are trying to help you with and thats why Im encouraging you to use that reference of yours more. Im glad youve got a solid idea now make it so that the creature displays that idea so clearly that you dont have to ever explain the idea again. This isnt a question of "is it plausible in nature" this is a question of "will people know what they are looking at" and even the most implausible things in nature like that angler fish have characteristics that make it believable.
ya i know, and i definitely agree with what you're saying. i was just making a quick little point that in nature, you can't always know how something works without an explanation.
this isn't nature though, this is an industry where people have to know what you're trying to achieve with your work.
again, i really appreciate all your guys' feedback. hopefully you like my next creation more
Alright gents, decided to revive this one. Scrapping the entire concept of "spider hind legs," and made them triple jointed instead. Now it is truly more frog-esque. Going a different way with the face too, and since I like the direction of this second one more, i'll go ahead and take it to the next level of detail from here.
Replies
while i appreciate the comment, what you said is extremely vague. specifics would either help me clarify my intentions or help me better understand your critique.
I will try to clear up as best as I can though, as this piece is already heavily built around nature. The animal parts which it is most built around are the body structure of a gorilla, the hind legs of a spider, and the detail and definition of a frog. While I accept there is a lack of texture definitions in areas like the back, and sculpt/texture definition in the hind legs...the overall skin type and muscle definition is created with a frog in mind. So if you're talking about texture/alpha definition...I could maybe touch that up a bit. But i was not going for toned muscles on this creature, that was intentional.
http://www.casarioblanco.com/poison-dart-frog.jpg
As far as functionality, I was pretty specific in it's function (to climb) from the getgo. So if you have something in particular that seems nonfunctional, I'd love to hear what. I could then possibly make an adjustment.
Keep in mind, the pose it has is meant for it to be standing on a rock, which I just never got to modelling.
also while i see what you are saying about the definition, the hands and feet, and face area could still use a bit of definition. frogs jaw bones tend to leave very interesting and harder lines in the face area. the reason i bring this up is balance. you have a ton of detail in the tail and back/ midsection area, so that draws our visual intrest away from the face and hand areas, which are the most expressive, and thus realism in these areas is crucial to make a character seem real. what you have is a good foundation just work on those areas a bit more.
-Woog
And I don't think 20 hours is to long to spend on just a sculpt.
it was probably vague because there is just too much to say, there are alot of medium sized forms and details that are missing for example check this gorilla sculpt out
http://cghub.com/files/Image/3851/image.jpg
I would assume that if you just go away and look at some of that reference you listed - gorilla spider frog etc, you will see what needs to be done and if you cant see what needs to be done then find some more reference of those areas which are hard to define.
Don't get me wrong, you have some interesting shapes and the idea is good, I just think you should try focusing more on sculpting more real creatures before you try and make your own. I would suggest a tree frog, it has a lot of interesting features to sculpt and its muscles are clearly defined and easy to read from reference.
Keep at it and don't get put off by negative crits, its negative crits that will help you grow as an artist. Good luck.
one thing worth mentioning again is that the back legs and feet are NOT done.
i do agree that they SHOULD have been done long before I started detailing anything else. I really jumped the gun on detailing this guy, and it definitely shows. doing things out of order can get things done, but you just always end up covering mistakes and figuring out too much on the fly.
i think one of the main reasons this guy took me so long is that i didn't know where i was going from the start, all i knew is that he had to climb. so i tried to think of interesting ways for him to move etc, but i kind of went a little overboard.
things like coral type of deal on the back is all detailing that definitely should have been added last.
however, something of note is that there is quite a bit of functionality thought into this guy, i just wanted to branch out a bit from what we know of animals. perhaps a few explanations will help explain where i was going (and you can tell me if you buy it or not):
the two disk type of deals at the shoulders are the creatures method of "letting go." by default, all muscles are tensed in the position the creature is now (or holding on to a tree, for instance). that way, the creature can hold itself up with absolutely no effort, and just rest in the tree. all the effort comes in releasing, in which it pulls it's shoulders together, by moving the disks towards each other.
that leads to the cushioning type of deal between the disks (the circles on its back). I figure, if the creature is releasing, it's going to need a surge of energy to the back legs. there is a spider that uses a similar function as this to leap, and i thought it was appropriate given the spider legs. so when the creature moves the discs together, the cushioning serves as a large lung that shoots the energy down the back legs. All the back has muscle exposed etc like that because i want it to feel like it's getting as much energy from the air as possible. (i could also refine this with texture detail, to relate what is muscle vs. "other."
so it's main function is that, in holding on, releasing, and leaping. however, it does need to simply climb or walk some, and it's ok if that's slightly awkward in my opinion. that's why i seperated the back on the underside, so essentially all of it's "ribcage" and back is serving as a potential part of the leg. i wanted it to be able to move like a triple jointed leg to a degree (you can see from the front view, the "pelvis" almost looks like a knee if it were a triple jointed leg.
so i hope that at least clarifies my intentions. i was trying to really go into limited specifics, as if this creature was built for one thing. nobody bought it though, apparently, so any comments on how to refine those ideas would be awesome. any comments on generally referring to nature though, i don't appreciate so much. because nature is in there, and function is in there, it's just fairly unorthodox (and potentially nonfunctional).
maybe if i do a few animations it would help show my intention of it's movements.
thanks again for all the feedback
if i modeled that. and told you that could swim, you would likely all laugh (i would too). if i told you it's function, in that it uses that light to draw fish to it's mouth, i would laugh even harder.
and yet there it is, and that's what it does. it swims, and it eats...and that's how it does it. i find that nature can be pretty creative, and ideas that seem dumb can also be the ideas that are fun.
i mean think of a world without an octopus or squid. for all we'd know, swimming was achievable only by use of fins.
i dunno just my two cents. thanks again for the critiques
well its all good you saying that its in there but if other people cannot see it and recognise it then really its not there and I think thats what a lot of people are trying to help you with and thats why Im encouraging you to use that reference of yours more. Im glad youve got a solid idea now make it so that the creature displays that idea so clearly that you dont have to ever explain the idea again. This isnt a question of "is it plausible in nature" this is a question of "will people know what they are looking at" and even the most implausible things in nature like that angler fish have characteristics that make it believable.
ya i know, and i definitely agree with what you're saying. i was just making a quick little point that in nature, you can't always know how something works without an explanation.
this isn't nature though, this is an industry where people have to know what you're trying to achieve with your work.
again, i really appreciate all your guys' feedback. hopefully you like my next creation more