Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Questions/Discussion/Tutorials Thread

1356735

Posts

  • MillionsMillions Registered User
    edited October 2004
    What's the best format for compression?

    Whenever I shrink down, say a GIF, in photoshop it always looks a grainy mess.

    If you have Photoshop it should have come with a program called Image Ready. When you finish designing something in PS, click "File" then "Edit in Image Ready"

    ...in Image Ready you can optimize your image for premium quality...set the colors, the amount of dither, the type of file, etc....you can also make animated gifs fairly easily. :D

  • MillionsMillions Registered User
    edited October 2004
    Doodmann wrote:
    how do i make a image like this

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/doodmann/camic1frame1copy.jpg

    into my avatar?

    i know its huge sorry :cry:

    Photoshop:

    1.) Select the marquee tool (dotted rectangle). Click and drag a box around the pumpkin.

    2.) Hit "Image" at the top...click "Crop"

    3.) Hit "Image" again...click "Image Size" select size you want it to be.

    4.) Save!

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    Millions wrote:
    What's the best format for compression?

    Whenever I shrink down, say a GIF, in photoshop it always looks a grainy mess.

    If you have Photoshop it should have come with a program called Image Ready. When you finish designing something in PS, click "File" then "Edit in Image Ready"

    ...in Image Ready you can optimize your image for premium quality...set the colors, the amount of dither, the type of file, etc....you can also make animated gifs fairly easily. :D

    Ah, see I never used image ready except to play around a few times with animating gifs.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    I never really understood something about when you draw realistically.

    Starting my freshman year, my art teacher says my life drawing looks cartooney.

    I didn't misshape the proportions or anything, so my question is:

    How do you prevent from making a life drawing turn cartooney when you're trying to draw realistically?

  • Angel_of_BaconAngel_of_Bacon Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2004
    Don't let your outlines do the work. Lots of people ridgidly define their outlines from the outset, then fill the lines with shading. This ususally leads to the outlines defining the figure more than the light and shade, in a cartoon manner.

    Try to use tone directly to define your forms. A suggestion that I find works well is to use a broader tool to define the tone before locking in on outlines- in my life drawing classes, I use a piece of medium vine characoal about 1-1.5" in length, and use the broad side of it to lay in tones and gesture quickly, then use a chamois cloth to take away any mistakes. This only really works if you have actual 'charcoal' paper, not sketchbook stuff...otehrwise it won't wipe away clean. By working back and forth without focusing on linework, if should help you shake the 'cartoony' aspect of your work.

  • DMACDMAC Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2004
    That's a hard thing to help with without examples of your work. You could be outlining things instead of building them up by shading. You could be exaggerating things (whether you're conscious of it or not). I used to make the models we were drawing better looking with more defined muscles, firmer boobs, etc. I wasn't really aware of it until it was pointed out to me. Post some samples, it's usually a matter of drawing what you see, instead of what you think you see.

    Edit: Heh. :)

  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    From 3 weeks ago..

    nun.gif

    My scanner messes up my contrast a whole lot. I tried getting it right, but it got a tiny bit dark than the original.

  • DMACDMAC Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2004
    Is it supposed to be a caricature? It looks like you're using "the grid method" to match your drawing to a photograph but unless the photo was distorted, that nun's features (what's there anyway) are way out of whack.

  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2004
    In fact, I'll eat my own nose if she actually looks like that. Do you have the reference around?

    It really is a caricature - people don't have black holes for eyes, for one. It looks like you've elongated the most prominent features (upper lip, jaw), which is fine as a styalistic decision but completely wrong for any kind of realism. It also looks like you're treating the picture as two-dimensional, rather than a 2d representation of a 3d image, which is always going to make it look cartoony. What's your general approach? Are you mapping out the shape in light lines before you draw heavy ones?

  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    I don't have the reference, but the lighting showed that her eyes were all black, she has normal looking eyes except they're all shadowed in. She had a long/horsey face. I'll try to find the reference tomorrow. She looked like that, I swear. At least 85% of it.

    Tynic:

    I didn't really use the grid method, the teacher told us to, but I wanted to just use guidelines to kinda follow the picture I showed with the gridlines. So it was used with guidelines, basically.

    Also, what do you mean I'm treating it 2d instead of 2d in a 3d image? My general approach is usually draw it lightly, then shade it in. But my later pictures that I couldn't take home with me doesn't really have so many outlikes like this one.

    EDIT: She had a ruler, to kinda match why she was supposed to look all evil-ish, but I could see it, cause it was a dark photo.

    And if you haven't noticed, it was a two-day project, andI didn't really get to finish the background.

  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2004
    It just strikes me as being very flat - probably mostly because of the sharp delineation in the outlines of her face and neck.

    A reference would be awesome. Or, if you can't find it, get another reference and do a picture, then post both. It's easier to understand what's wrong if we can see what's meant to be right.

    (If she really looks like that, then day-amn, that's one ugly nun).

  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    Sharp Delineation in the outlines of her face as in the wrinkles and stuff? So you're saying I made it too dark?

  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    The subject of paintovers came up in Lolly's thread:
    Megamau_X wrote:
    well i think its a paint over, but i don't think it matters in the least. since he changed a lot from the original picture im just going to take it as that. plus if we are going to kudos good photomanipulations, and piss on good draw overs (especially when all there doing is using the reference) im going to have to start flaming all over the place.

    i think the argument here is weither or not he admitts it. but he could be right, he could have just spent countless wasted hours lining them up perfectly. which is stupid. i would have done the same. you people have to stop tearing people down for using there heads to increase prossess. draw overs and transfers are widely used by pro's and amatures alike. and when you guys finally get your elitist "im a purist" artist crap out of your head maybe you guys will make as much progress as those who use what they have to save themselves a lot of work, needless work.

    i like it Lalilulelo, weither it be drawn over or not. which personally i think your stupid to spend so much time matching it up perfect if its not. unless your using this as just an excersise. then kudos again.

    god dammit.

    Ok, so the problem here, as I perceive it, is defining artistic effort.

    So it saves time to paint over an image? It also saves time to just paint right on the image. Or to just apply a filter to the image. Fuck, save the most time and just use the image. Do you see where I'm going with this? I don't really participate in the paintover accusations, but I do hold much more respect for artists that produce good work without the aid of an underlying image to trace.

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    I guess I'm just going to have the debate with myself...
    Megamau_X wrote:
    your sadly mistaken if people who actually buy or put money to peices care of what prossess you do this with. not to mention he gets my respect for being bright enough not to bother with combersum alinements.

    Megamau, we are not paying clients. This forum ideally exists to improve ourselves as artists. Are you telling me that if a seven year old traces a photo that would take DMAC longer to recreate in markers and ink, he is just as good an artist as DMAC? Simply because he used a shortcut process?

    Fuck that. Nascar drivers aren't better athletes than runners just because they figured out a faster way around the track.

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited October 2004
    .Tripwire. wrote:
    Fuck that. Nascar drivers aren't better athletes than runners just because they figured out a faster way around the track.

    Werd. (btw - I effin LOVE that comparison).

    Tracing kills the artists personality.

    Every stroke an artist lays on the paper is a processed piece of information... it's the object as PERCEIVED by the artist.

    When you tracy - you don't perceive, thus you don't create original work.


    Now...
    Is tracing bad? HELLLLL NO! Excellent exercise, be it line practice, line weight practice, etc. etc. However, CLAIMING a traced piece to be an original piece of work is pushing limits.

    (btw - I'm not talking about lalulelo here, just the topic in general).

  • E.C.M.E.C.M. Registered User
    edited October 2004
    This reminds me of the whole "inker is a tracer" argument from Chasing Amy.

    Banky Edwards : Who should I sign it to?
    Little Kid : I don't want you to sign it. I want the guy who draws Bluntman and Chronic to sign it.
    [snatches the comic away]
    Little Kid : You're just a tracer.
    Collector : Tell him, little shaver.

    "I am a bucket of cock machine, ohhhhhh myyy gggggggggod!!!"-Tom
  • MrDominoMrDomino Registered User
    edited October 2004
    By the way Mega, I never took anything you said as a flame, so don't even sweat it. In the same way I mean no direct offence to you. We just disagree.


    The point you make about people paying clients not caring about how you did something is interesting. Should that then be the acme of our achievement as an artist? To have paying clients? As I said before, people will pay for almost anything if you spin it right. Does that make it art? There are any number of works of art that focus hugely on the process of creation. I use this example all the time, but the American Flag by Jasper Johns comes immediately to mind. Yes I agree that there are professionals that use photos for their work, to name a few: David Mack, Alex Ross, Tim Bradstreet. In those cases though they take the pictures themselves. That creates a mixed media piece that is still wholly original.

  • sainsain Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    Okay, I just got some Oil Pastels. I'm having a lot of fun with them, problem is...I have no idea how to blend them together nicely. Also, any brand recomendations?

    Edit: What paper works best with pastels and is it expensive?

  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    Reference:

    knockers.gif

    My pic.

    nun.gif


    I would also like to thank DMAC, Angel, and Tynic for helping me with these questions.

  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    Ok, so you need to concentrate more on what is actually there. Make your brain stop thinking about what things "generally look like", and just focus on what that one picture looks like. The eyes are in pitch black shadow, and you've captured that. But look at the entire portion of the face beneath those bitchin' glasses... see how dark it is? Have you established that contrast in your own work?

    And the reason you're getting a cartoony vibe from your work (besides the fact that the real-life reference is kind of cartoony in this case) is because you're sort of simplifying in the wrong way. Notice the creasing in the skin on her nose? The lines follow the form of the nose, it's a three dimensional object. But it looks like you sort of just saw lines and randomly stuck them on the nose in your drawing, causing it to look flattened, and thus less realistic.

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    And the reason you're getting a cartoony vibe from your work (besides the fact that the real-life reference is kind of cartoony in this case) is because you're sort of simplifying in the wrong way. Notice the creasing in the skin on her nose? The lines follow the form of the nose, it's a three dimensional object.

    Aah, I see. The lines on the nose need to be more curvy, yes? Because the middle of the nose(The bridge?) it curves on the left and right, and there's a small space in the midde where it's straight?
    Ok, so you need to concentrate more on what is actually there. Make your brain stop thinking about what things "generally look like", and just focus on what that one picture looks like.

    Are you saying that I have a train of thought like "Okay, there's a bunch of wrinkles near her nose. I'll draw some lines their to accomplish that look" and I'm not really thinking about the form of the nose and stuff?

  • Angel_of_BaconAngel_of_Bacon Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2004
    McAllen wrote:
    Are you saying that I have a train of thought like "Okay, there's a bunch of wrinkles near her nose. I'll draw some lines their to accomplish that look" and I'm not really thinking about the form of the nose and stuff?

    Yes.


    goddamn that's one frightening ass nun.

  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    That's the idea, ask Optic about it and he'll probably reference the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which explains how it is important to ignore the generalizations we make about how things should look.

    For example, since childhood, we've come to know that curly lines can represent smoke coming out of a pipe or chimney. But when you want to render that realistically, it has to be so much more. You are no longer using a symbol to represent something, you are using a rendering of the thing itself.


    And yeah, with the nose, you know what I'm talking about. Consider the lines to follow the contours of the nose, so they should be curved up a little instead of just jabbing into the center like you've drawn.

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited October 2004
    .Tripwire. wrote:
    That's the idea, ask Optic about it and he'll probably reference the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which explains how it is important to ignore the generalizations we make about how things should look.


    Weeeeerd!

    8)

    edwards.jpg

    I think I'm making her friggin rich. YOU OWE ME BETTY! YOU OWE MEE !!!!!

  • bombardierbombardier mr. mully Vancouver, BCSuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2004
    What's that book bacon always mentions? It's not Betty Edwards, more of something for people who know how to draw what they see but still has basic stuff? I don't know if I'm being clear here.

    The book bacon mentions all the time that is not Betty Edwards?

  • bombardierbombardier mr. mully Vancouver, BCSuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2004
  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    gj.gif

    >_< I've had this book for almost 3 months, I think. Probably more. But the problem was I could never fully get into it. I got as far as doing the practices with the signatures, Self Potrait, Doing the hand, and doing something from memory. Afterwards Band Camp became my number 1 problem. I was too tired(I underestimated how heavy the damn sousaphone would be!) to read the book, nor was I interested. Then school came up. And now I'm planning to read it at least once every week.

  • NeoBurritoXIIINeoBurritoXIII Registered User
    edited October 2004
    hehe..bandcamp.
    I bought the book based on optics comments a good deal of time ago, and I made it to about the drawing of the guy looking through a grid at a nude reclining. Then I stopped. I also bought Burne Hogarths's Dynamic Anatomy, and it sits on my bedroom floor, somewhere under the weeks worth of newspaper and a seasons worth of pringle cans and reesees wrappers.


    And a question:

    What the hell is bittorent, and where can I get some?

    Caprice wrote:
    this sprang forth from my loins.
  • thehomelymulethehomelymule Registered User
    edited October 2004
    My brother and sister-in-law bought it for me a year or so ago and I finally read it this past summer. Honestly, I didn't do most of the exercises, but I think it's a worth-while read regardless and I'd also recommend it. In fact, I believe I loaned my copy to a friend a while ago.


    Edit: Google is your friend, Fuzy.

    resettosan.gif
  • jpegjpeg Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    What are a few online anatomy books/resources/references I can find, besides Figure Drawing for All It's Worth (saveloomis). Particularly on faces and t3h wimminz.

    so I just type in this box and it goes on the screen?
  • NeoBurritoXIIINeoBurritoXIII Registered User
    edited October 2004
  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    .Tripwire. wrote:

    For example, since childhood, we've come to know that curly lines can represent smoke coming out of a pipe or chimney. But when you want to render that realistically, it has to be so much more. You are no longer using a symbol to represent something, you are using a rendering of the thing itself.

    So what would you think about when you're, say, drawing a finger? Do you try to/not to think "Long cylinder thing that has flesh on it, a nail, and curves" Would you think what type of bones are inside the thumb, or index finger? The proportions?

    Argh. If anyone else wants to answer, please do so, I hope I'm not hogging this thread up TOO much...

  • TardTard Registered User
    edited October 2004
    Don't worry about hogging it up, these questions are helping more people then yourself.

  • NeoBurritoXIIINeoBurritoXIII Registered User
    edited October 2004
    When I draw a finger (or anything else from life) I just draw the lines, the shapes, the contours. I leave language out of it, it's too confusing.

    Caprice wrote:
    this sprang forth from my loins.
  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    Well McAllen, this applies to when you're drawing from a photo or life. If you're looking at the bend in the finger and drawing it on your page, you try not to think "Ok, this is where the finger bends, and I know that fingers always have wrinkles there, so I'll draw some wrinkles."

    That is bad, because then you're just working off of simplistic generalizations. You need to forget that they are wrinkles. Just look at what is there. "Ok, in the photo there is a line here that is sort of perpindicular to this side of the finger, and then it sort of disappears in this shadow."

    You want to look at things very literally in the picture, don't think that you can check out the reference and then have your head down in your page for five minutes drawing what you "know" is on a finger. You have to always be inspecting what you're drawing, and breaking it down into shapes, forms, and lines. Sorry if I'm being really confusing, does anything I've said make sense yet?

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2004
    Some advice I read about a decade ago that really made a lot of sense was from a book by Mervyn Peake. It went something like "Beginning artists often glance at the subject, then stare at the paper while they draw. You should be looking at the subject almost all the time, and only glancing at your medium."

    Also, less relevantly in this case, but interesting: "When you draw a line, don't be afraid to completely remove it if it isn't contributing to the drawing. Every line should have meaning." Of course, I've also been told never to even have an eraser in the house. People give all sorts of advice.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited October 2004

    This is the book to have.

    I don't know, it seems to go "Drawing on the right side of the brain" until you get to novice, maybe early intermediate level, then you need to drop that book and start thinking about the above.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • AgentflitAgentflit Registered User regular
    edited October 2004
    tynic wrote:
    Some advice I read about a decade ago that really made a lot of sense was from a book by Mervyn Peake. It went something like "Beginning artists often glance at the subject, then stare at the paper while they draw. You should be looking at the subject almost all the time, and only glancing at your medium."
    Quoted for emphasis.

  • happy_killmorehappy_killmore Registered User
    edited October 2004
    McAllen wrote:

    So what would you think about when you're, say, drawing a finger? Do you try to/not to think "Long cylinder thing that has flesh on it, a nail, and curves" Would you think what type of bones are inside the thumb, or index finger? The proportions?

    When you're drawing something, try looking at what you're drawing for a second or two before you draw it, but REALLY look. Dont look and say "thats a nun", look at relationships between lines and where shadows start/end. Dont think about what you're drawing, just kinda....draw and try to shut that part of your mind up that thinks way too goddamned much(trust me I know how THAT goes :S). You'll know its working when you start a sketch/drawing and not even realise that you're drawing until you see that the time has flown 3 hours into the future. Its hard for me to explain, but when the left side of your brain is shut off you wont realise it until after.

    avatarbannercopy.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.