Appreciate all the crits guys. Definitely slapping me around some for the better. As far as workflow goes I don't work in smooth mode and I started with a cube + edge loops but deviated a bit much.
Fixed up most of the stuff, except for the mouth/nose area which should be done tomorrow. Thanks again guys, at this rate I probably won't make the deadline but I'm learning a hell of a lot for the next one . Also I'll stop posting this here as I should put it in my thread from now out.
Appreciate all the crits guys. Definitely slapping me around some for the better. As far as workflow goes I don't work in smooth mode and I started with a cube + edge loops but deviated a bit much.
Fixed up most of the stuff, except for the mouth/nose area which should be done tomorrow. Thanks again guys, at this rate I probably won't make the deadline but I'm learning a hell of a lot for the next one . Also I'll stop posting this here as I should put it in my thread from now out.
Aim, you were 100% right about everything you posted. It was a solid crit, I spent all last night fixing the issues. I'll have another update later tonight.
I spent about 10 minutes copying a drawing from henry yan's book just now. I just thought I'd post it. It's not anywhere near spot on, but I learned a lot doing it. I think.
Squid- I'll advocate for a much simpler cover. Eliminating the guy in white from that, and centering the silhouette, maybe showing more sky by lowering the horizon line. The painted look just doesn't do it for me if your trying to keep with the same style of the cartooning in the book. If you look at other covers done in a similar way (painterly, or rendered versions of the characters) they are usually done in a totally different style.
Obilex, I have much ado and to say and other slurring words of this picture painting of yours but when it comes to being with crit i say i
WAIT
Sorry. What I'm trying to say: is that the composition is too direct. You're in this painting, and then you're out of it. Mostly because your punch is right in the middle of the composition, and you've tunneled us right to it, with a formulaic and typical "Dark foreground, middle middle ground, light background" value scheme. It's like the image is shooting me into the white abyss to come out the other side and find some other painting. Make us spend time with the piece.
The couple help, but they're dialed back a lot. We don't even need to look at them right now with those low values.
But first things first, need to change that white gash on the right of the image. It's the same value as the center one, and is the second strongest contrast, so it's your second read. So we just look at the center one, then look at the one on the right, and then we're out of the picture and critiquing you or making a bacon sandwich or something.
We discuss more later.
Urantia on
Ignore the above.
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
Honestly I'd drop this one obelix, I think your composition went up shit creek when you decided to increase the size of you people, it completely lost the grand scale of what you were aiming for.
Maybe if you moved them up a bit higher it might help, I dunno.
Yeah i think it would be easier to start again. The original issue (my opinion) was it was hard to distinguish the foreground, middleground and background. Now things have been edited but the original image/idea is lost.
Start again, and i think you'll hit it this time.
I think the whole image foreground is too saturated. thats killing it for me.
___________
Heres a composition im working on for a painting ill get around too for my friends bday
im not happy with the face because i dont feel ive captured his likeness well enough. Though im quite pleased with how the body turned out, considering i couldnt find a reference from that exact angle and kinda had to reference 3 seperate images of different boxers. *i ran out of room at the top of the page. :x
I think my problem with your work (and from the comments I've seen about your work, other people think the same thing) is that you lack structure. You are drawing without basic knowledge of construction of the human body (particularly how facial features sit on and in a skull) in 3d space. Learn that and you will make a giant leap in ability.
I'm not DISagreeing with F87 and Wasser, but I totally get a stallone vibe from the face. I really have to say the shading and the structure on teh muscles is very good. Course, I'm only a 3rd year art student, and don't have nearly as much practical application knowledge as 90% of the members of theis forum.
the_monarch23 on
"Gott in himmel! Fritz, vee haff named our car after ein lady-garten."
~Jeremy Clarkson
thanks for all the help guys, I'll admit that composition is one of my biggest weaknesses and fears because I really don't have a grasp on what a good one entails. Does anyone know of any good guides for this particular subject? I checked the question/tutorial thread and nothing popped out at me.
There are a lot of books and rules about composition, but I think the majority of them are bullshit. It really just comes down to what feels right, and looks good. Not too much else matters. You just have to struggle through it, because the only real solution is mileage and experience.
I think my problem with your work (and from the comments I've seen about your work, other people think the same thing) is that you lack structure. You are drawing without basic knowledge of construction of the human body (particularly how facial features sit on and in a skull) in 3d space. Learn that and you will make a giant leap in ability.
Im trying to understand and apply structure. it may not look like it to others but there is a lot of planning in this picture. I started with the basic sketch composition, and then applied the individual shapes of the rib cage, direction of the spine, head etc. maybe not the most successful, but then thats the point of practice, to improve each time.
I'll take that as there is problems with the face. Ill try to capture his likeness some more.
But to be honest, i think your comparison to michael jackson is a bit of bullshit.
I'm almost at a loss for words as for how to give you advice at this point WCK without just breaking down and savagely browbeating you.
It has all been said to you so many times, in so many ways, by so many people, I can hardly imagine anything I have to write will tread new ground. You have a 42 page thread that frankly could be stickied it has so much advice in it.
The elephant in the room is that you have, for some time, had a reputation of completely disregarding advice. You are enthusiastic and amiable in word, but have absolutely no follow-through, so your smiley-face emoticon rings a bit hollow.
Maybe at this point, if for no reason other than sheer curiosity, I will ask: how do YOU feel about your progress over the past year or so?
Obilex- Yes, like Cake said, Mileage and experience are the only things that will produce great compositions- but I know hearing that doesn't actually help you get started on improving.
The key is in this sentence: "one of my biggest weaknesses and fears because I really don't have a grasp on what a good one entails."
You have pinpointed one of your biggest obstacles! It will take you forever to understand composition because you have no frame of reference! You don't need books, or a list of "Environment design composition teckinikcs!" from conceptart.org that will fill you with rules you think you need to follow. (Cake calls them bullshit, i think his subtext means that these "rules" are extremely malleable and can be adjusted to fit your situation.) What you need is to study Art History. You need to see how environment paintings have been done in the past (Protip: masterfully) and the design choices those artists made. Studying and analyzing these will dig up treasure troves of classic composition "rules"- both applied and broken- all in service to the ultimate goal of painting: beauty, clarity of concept, ease of viewing, and unity of effect.
You don't say, "I want to build a house!" and go get some wood and start right there with no knowledge. Your house will fall over, and you'll probably build a couple hundred broken homes before the idea of a "concrete foundation" even enters your mind. What you do is go look at how the Amish built houses, how tribespeople built houses, and how those ideas helped lead up to Victorian palaces and southern plantation manors. If you don't know how it has been done in the past, you will fail time and time again.
Did Michelangelo, Gerome, Degas, or Sargent just have some inborn affinity for composition that destined them to be fluent with it? Nah. Museums aren't new things, Michelangelo learned to compose by sitting infront of paintings of his masters and copying them.
So please, Obilex, let any slight curiosity of art history consume you now, and let it inform you with half a millennium of failed compositions, bad perspective, and previously attempted layouts. Oh, and stunning successes:
http://artrenewal.com/pages/artist.php?artistid=187&page=10
^I have directed you to the 10th page in this Sargent archive to show you his later work, after he renounced portraiture and started traveling doing watercolor landscapes and hanging out with the impressionists. (His portraits are powerfully composed, but I know you're in it for the scenery.)
Of course, it is very easy to look at a thousand paintings and just see beautiful pictures and not analyze and learn from them (That is because these masters were doing their job very well, they don't need you to get hung up on technicals in the work.) So please, enjoy, but study carefully and ask yourself a thousand questions.
If you are having trouble seeing the general ideas of good design and positive decision making in these pieces, please post a couple you really like, and I would be happy to help you dissect them. I'm sure anyone on these boards would.
I haven't watched TV in a long time, so I'm kinda lost here- has Dove become known for airing commercials with fat, small breasted women in them in recent years? o_O
Following up the reference link to see if how fat these "fat" models are, I really wouldn't call any of those girls fat. The image you were putting in my head was more, "People of Walmart"-level lumpen grossness, which would probably be a much harder sell.
Yeah I was just kind of joking around about Wak even drawing slightly larger women. I couldn't remember seeing any fat people in the commercials either.
I didn't mean to derail though
Following up the reference link to see if how fat these "fat" models are, I really wouldn't call any of those girls fat. The image you were putting in my head was more, "People of Walmart"-level lumpen grossness, which would probably be a much harder sell.
The author of that article is retarded.
bombardier on
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
A commercial utilizing the people of walmart to promote positive body image would be fucking hilarious.
I'll take that as there is problems with the face. Ill try to capture his likeness some more.
But to be honest, i think your comparison to michael jackson is a bit of bullshit.
He totally does look a lot like MJ, though. There's definitely a recognizable Stallone there, but there's also definitely a recognizable MJ. Don't be a cock in response to criticism.
I'll take that as there is problems with the face. Ill try to capture his likeness some more.
But to be honest, i think your comparison to michael jackson is a bit of bullshit.
WCK, are you willing to try to improve based on what we suggest?
Yes
It's not bullshit at all, I also thought it looked like your version of MJ's face. Even in that creepy picture of the two kids around the cauldron the little boy looked like your version of MJ's face. You might improve at drawing if you didn't have such selective hearing. And no matter how many times you say 'yes I do want crits and I will take it on board' it's kind of a 'boy who cried wolf' situation at this point. Don't call peoples crits bullshit, or do I guess, it's not going to make a difference either way.
Posts
Fixed up most of the stuff, except for the mouth/nose area which should be done tomorrow. Thanks again guys, at this rate I probably won't make the deadline but I'm learning a hell of a lot for the next one
oh yeah cool beans! I find myself greatly intrigued by this cover.
Maaaaaaan DC is way better than Marvel at the moment, you're crazy.
I want to see a set of parents having a serious discussion about this concerning how best to rear their child
facebook.com/LauraCatherwoodArt
But this isn't the thread to talk about this.
vs
Thanks again :]
Hiking Essentials
Hiking Essentials
WAIT
Sorry. What I'm trying to say: is that the composition is too direct. You're in this painting, and then you're out of it. Mostly because your punch is right in the middle of the composition, and you've tunneled us right to it, with a formulaic and typical "Dark foreground, middle middle ground, light background" value scheme. It's like the image is shooting me into the white abyss to come out the other side and find some other painting. Make us spend time with the piece.
The couple help, but they're dialed back a lot. We don't even need to look at them right now with those low values.
But first things first, need to change that white gash on the right of the image. It's the same value as the center one, and is the second strongest contrast, so it's your second read. So we just look at the center one, then look at the one on the right, and then we're out of the picture and critiquing you or making a bacon sandwich or something.
We discuss more later.
Maybe if you moved them up a bit higher it might help, I dunno.
Start again, and i think you'll hit it this time.
I think the whole image foreground is too saturated. thats killing it for me.
___________
Heres a composition im working on for a painting ill get around too for my friends bday
im not happy with the face because i dont feel ive captured his likeness well enough. Though im quite pleased with how the body turned out, considering i couldnt find a reference from that exact angle and kinda had to reference 3 seperate images of different boxers. *i ran out of room at the top of the page. :x
WIP - anything bugging people so far?
i finished the rest of his hands off using tracing paper and composited it digitally
I think my problem with your work (and from the comments I've seen about your work, other people think the same thing) is that you lack structure. You are drawing without basic knowledge of construction of the human body (particularly how facial features sit on and in a skull) in 3d space. Learn that and you will make a giant leap in ability.
~Jeremy Clarkson
Hiking Essentials
These are fantastic cake, they look like old timey illustrations from a Tolkien book.
Im trying to understand and apply structure. it may not look like it to others but there is a lot of planning in this picture. I started with the basic sketch composition, and then applied the individual shapes of the rib cage, direction of the spine, head etc. maybe not the most successful, but then thats the point of practice, to improve each time.
I'll take that as there is problems with the face. Ill try to capture his likeness some more.
But to be honest, i think your comparison to michael jackson is a bit of bullshit.
Yes
It has all been said to you so many times, in so many ways, by so many people, I can hardly imagine anything I have to write will tread new ground. You have a 42 page thread that frankly could be stickied it has so much advice in it.
The elephant in the room is that you have, for some time, had a reputation of completely disregarding advice. You are enthusiastic and amiable in word, but have absolutely no follow-through, so your smiley-face emoticon rings a bit hollow.
Maybe at this point, if for no reason other than sheer curiosity, I will ask: how do YOU feel about your progress over the past year or so?
The key is in this sentence: "one of my biggest weaknesses and fears because I really don't have a grasp on what a good one entails."
You have pinpointed one of your biggest obstacles! It will take you forever to understand composition because you have no frame of reference! You don't need books, or a list of "Environment design composition teckinikcs!" from conceptart.org that will fill you with rules you think you need to follow. (Cake calls them bullshit, i think his subtext means that these "rules" are extremely malleable and can be adjusted to fit your situation.) What you need is to study Art History. You need to see how environment paintings have been done in the past (Protip: masterfully) and the design choices those artists made. Studying and analyzing these will dig up treasure troves of classic composition "rules"- both applied and broken- all in service to the ultimate goal of painting: beauty, clarity of concept, ease of viewing, and unity of effect.
You don't say, "I want to build a house!" and go get some wood and start right there with no knowledge. Your house will fall over, and you'll probably build a couple hundred broken homes before the idea of a "concrete foundation" even enters your mind. What you do is go look at how the Amish built houses, how tribespeople built houses, and how those ideas helped lead up to Victorian palaces and southern plantation manors. If you don't know how it has been done in the past, you will fail time and time again.
Did Michelangelo, Gerome, Degas, or Sargent just have some inborn affinity for composition that destined them to be fluent with it? Nah. Museums aren't new things, Michelangelo learned to compose by sitting infront of paintings of his masters and copying them.
So please, Obilex, let any slight curiosity of art history consume you now, and let it inform you with half a millennium of failed compositions, bad perspective, and previously attempted layouts. Oh, and stunning successes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Metcalf
http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artist.php?artistid=2021
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Constable
http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artist.php?artistid=782
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Judd_Waugh
http://www.google.com/images?q=Frederick%20Judd%20Waugh&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=600
http://artrenewal.com/pages/artist.php?artistid=187&page=10
^I have directed you to the 10th page in this Sargent archive to show you his later work, after he renounced portraiture and started traveling doing watercolor landscapes and hanging out with the impressionists. (His portraits are powerfully composed, but I know you're in it for the scenery.)
http://artrenewal.com/pages/artist.php?artistid=9
Of course, it is very easy to look at a thousand paintings and just see beautiful pictures and not analyze and learn from them (That is because these masters were doing their job very well, they don't need you to get hung up on technicals in the work.) So please, enjoy, but study carefully and ask yourself a thousand questions.
If you are having trouble seeing the general ideas of good design and positive decision making in these pieces, please post a couple you really like, and I would be happy to help you dissect them. I'm sure anyone on these boards would.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
facebook.com/LauraCatherwoodArt
Twitter
(I haven't watched tv in a long time either, but apparently this started 6 years ago)
facebook.com/LauraCatherwoodArt
Following up the reference link to see if how fat these "fat" models are, I really wouldn't call any of those girls fat. The image you were putting in my head was more, "People of Walmart"-level lumpen grossness, which would probably be a much harder sell.
Twitter
I didn't mean to derail though
facebook.com/LauraCatherwoodArt
The author of that article is retarded.
He totally does look a lot like MJ, though. There's definitely a recognizable Stallone there, but there's also definitely a recognizable MJ. Don't be a cock in response to criticism.
It's not bullshit at all, I also thought it looked like your version of MJ's face. Even in that creepy picture of the two kids around the cauldron the little boy looked like your version of MJ's face. You might improve at drawing if you didn't have such selective hearing. And no matter how many times you say 'yes I do want crits and I will take it on board' it's kind of a 'boy who cried wolf' situation at this point. Don't call peoples crits bullshit, or do I guess, it's not going to make a difference either way.