I can't explain the theory stuff as well as Bacon, especially relating to color, but I know a thing or two about light.
And a fun GIF because I like GIFs
I haven't gone over every inch of the character but you get the idea.
You posted a mutated scientist character shortly after Bacon did a paintover for you and it seemed like you were still struggling with internalizing how to project light onto a character. We see the same problem here with the tree guy-- he's all very flat and it's almost impossible to discern any clear light source, despite the fact that you clearly spent a lot of time "shading". As Bacon touched on, the light literally and metaphorically illuminates the form, so when the light is applied with logic that does not obey natural laws (or no logic at all), we end up with a very unreal form that doesn't make as much sense as it could.
The basic logic that I have applied to this paintover is actually very simple, and has to do with the geometric shapes that Bacon mentioned. The reason thinking about geometric shapes is important, is because light has very specific and predictable rules that govern its behavior. If you can learn those rules and what it looks like when light interacts with various simple curved and flat surfaces, you can begin to leverage that knowledge to predict what light would look like when it strikes a more complex form, like an imaginary tree man. I am sure you have seen this type of thing before:
You may be wondering how you get from a sphere to a tree man, but it's not so huge a leap. For example, the torso mass of the tree guy can be mostly understood as a kind of vase or barrel type shape with an open top. If you've done a light study like the one above with a cylindrical shape, you're already well on your way.
Getting the fundamental volume correct like the abstract simplified form above is WAY more important than laboring over expressing all the knobby strips of bark in his surface texture and other secondary details. It's part of the reason I was not too concerned with obliterating your black line art when doing the paintover.
A similar method of thinking is applied to the legs, arms, and even the face. Having a good anatomical understanding of human facial muscles and how they broadly break down into planes can be very helpful for informing monsters and tree guys.
If you want to understand this stuff better, my personal advice is to do some still life studies and dedicate some time to learning those basic rules of light.
Missed this...love it! You should turn this into an actual piece.
Thanks! Probably as good as it will get for now..I should have a drawing tablet by end of this month, so give me a year to learn to use it and I might be able to deliver something presentable lol.
Until then more doodles
EDIT: Sorry bomb, I usually do, but I uploaded direct from my phone and forgot a step >.<
Please resize your images before you post them. I know the forum autosizes them to fit the width, but still having to scroll vertically (on a 1200px vertical screen, no less) is unnecessary and actually makes it more difficult to get a look at the whole drawing at once instead of individual strokes in more detail than one really needs.
Link to a large version and people will check it out if they really want to.
Spoilering this just in case my G&T secret santa comes in here (since he knows it is me now and this gives him a chance not to see what I still have to ship.
All of those drawings are done except the top right. What is in there is just something I quickly did to get an idea. Bottom right still needs hands added.
I have no clue how to properly color something with markers (although the markers I have aren't the greatest thing ever...just working with what I have). I really prefer to just use fine point markers/sharpies to doodle/draw. I was fine with doing the pencil drawings for this, but I think the markers/my markering takes away from it (at least when I just look at one of them colored...I am sure once I finish it will look presentable).
Thoughts? If you check out my Twitter I have better, closer images of most of those.
I need folks to give me the once-or-twice-over on this piece so I can figure out how to finish it
I need to redo the lighting on the chair I think, make it darker overall (probably)
Any crit is appreciated.
We shall see that at which dogs howl in the dark, and that at which cats prick up their ears after midnight.
This is really cool Shank. I feel like it needs to be darker though. Everything is a bit bright for being an ominous gate to something that's probably bad. I know that's not really technical advice.
to be honest I still think it looks too light, where are they supposed to be? it appears that they are in some sort of cavern type area, where is the light coming from? from the shafts of light on the right hand side I'd assume some sort of cracks in the walls which wouldn't give that much light at all. I think you should darken out a lot of it but maybe add some extra light sources like a couple candles either side of the door or something so you can still keep the detailed elements whilst adding a darker tone to the whole piece.
edit: did a real quick and dirty paintover to try and illustrate what I mean, if you define the light source you can get a lot more atmosphere and add some more basic compositional contrast shapes.
Spoilered to protect see317 from seeing if he browses the forums.
So, I didn't have a decent skin tone with the cheap markers I had, so I bought a few Prisma ones. When I used a Prisma marker (compared to the bleh ones I was using), I felt like I was in heaven. I don't know if Prisma is really good, but I'd rather have a those to use than the 100 (or so) lot of markers I have.
I have $60 in Amazon cash and I am tempted to get some sort of set of Copic markers. That or a few sets of the new Ninja Turtle Legos. Hmmm.
@Eisotrot: Yeah it really is. I feel stupid for having lovingly rendered all those friggin' stactite columns now. Gotta consider mood more, lesson learned!
We shall see that at which dogs howl in the dark, and that at which cats prick up their ears after midnight.
+1
TheExAmGerrymandered your districtsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2012
To be perfectly honest, I like Shank's original concept more than Esiotrot's paintover. I think there's something to be said for the incongruity between the bright light and the nature of the gate and the keeper. If anything, it makes the picture more unsettling to me. I think it still has some issues with focus and contrast that could be fixed by darkening some parts of it, namely the ribbing on the back of the chair, and the detail around the edges in general, but as far as light quality goes, I feel like this one's up to personal preference. Either composition's amount of light seems logical, since the open part of the cave on the right could either suggest a number of smaller, deeper openings, or one larger one with sun shining directly in.
TheExAm on
Battlemans: DiscoCabbage | Elite: Dangerous: Aleksandr Khabaj
Anyway, there are a couple of ways you could look at doing scales. I did these really quickly so you can get the gist of it.
The first is the way you learned to do it in grade school. It's quick and dirty but it'll get across the idea of scales to most people, especially with more cartooney or stylized drawing.
The second way is more like what you had on your original pencil art. Basically, just start from the top and work your way down. It takes way longer and, as you can see, if you don't get it exactly right it'll overload your image and make it too cluttered.
This way looks more like a sea turtle's scale pattern. It's quicker than the second way but looks more complete than the first. But it ultimately comes down to how you want it to look.
To be perfectly honest, I like Shank's original concept more than Esiotrot's paintover. I think there's something to be said for the incongruity between the bright light and the nature of the gate and the keeper. If anything, it makes the picture more unsettling to me. I think it still has some issues with focus and contrast that could be fixed by darkening some parts of it, namely the ribbing on the back of the chair, and the detail around the edges in general, but as far as light quality goes, I feel like this one's up to personal preference. Either composition's amount of light seems logical, since the open part of the cave on the right could either suggest a number of smaller, deeper openings, or one larger one with sun shining directly in.
IMO the original and the paintover share the same core problem; their value distribution doesn't do a whole lot to separate fore/mid/background or suggest depth. One's just too midtoney, the other too dark. My personal preference is also for Shank's original, though, since it better illustrates what's there despite looking a little flat.
Posts
EDIT:Totp
In hindsight, this came out looking like something you'd find on a rotund lady's shoulderboob at a Kiss concert.
Machinima just posted it on Facebook with no links to the author and I pulled a Chris Griffin "WHUUUUUUUUUT?"
my work speed in dry media has really increased over the last couple months, I am enjoying it
wip
Thanks Frank.
Here's some more stuff rotting on my desktop. Photo studies.
Dang. First dudestudy in particular is fantastic.
Also, yeah, agree with bombs about birdguy.
Missed this...love it! You should turn this into an actual piece.
Until then more doodles
EDIT: Sorry bomb, I usually do, but I uploaded direct from my phone and forgot a step >.<
Link to a large version and people will check it out if they really want to.
http://www.irfanview.com/
http://www.getpaint.net/
Use either of those if you don't have a good image resize program.
I don't usually post in here, but sometimes I do.
Those are a couple of doodles I made in boring classes.
EDIT: made a thumbnail of the actual work, for full quality just click on it
I have no clue how to properly color something with markers (although the markers I have aren't the greatest thing ever...just working with what I have). I really prefer to just use fine point markers/sharpies to doodle/draw. I was fine with doing the pencil drawings for this, but I think the markers/my markering takes away from it (at least when I just look at one of them colored...I am sure once I finish it will look presentable).
Thoughts? If you check out my Twitter I have better, closer images of most of those.
Tumblr | Twitter | Twitch | Pinny Arcade Lanyard
[3DS] 3394-3901-4002 | [Xbox/Steam] Redfield85
I need to redo the lighting on the chair I think, make it darker overall (probably)
Any crit is appreciated.
I think this fixes a lot of that
edit: did a real quick and dirty paintover to try and illustrate what I mean, if you define the light source you can get a lot more atmosphere and add some more basic compositional contrast shapes.
I have $60 in Amazon cash and I am tempted to get some sort of set of Copic markers. That or a few sets of the new Ninja Turtle Legos. Hmmm.
Tumblr | Twitter | Twitch | Pinny Arcade Lanyard
[3DS] 3394-3901-4002 | [Xbox/Steam] Redfield85
Battlemans: DiscoCabbage | Elite: Dangerous: Aleksandr Khabaj
That siren doodle HAD to be inked.
Any tips for the scales?
Anyway, there are a couple of ways you could look at doing scales. I did these really quickly so you can get the gist of it.
The first is the way you learned to do it in grade school. It's quick and dirty but it'll get across the idea of scales to most people, especially with more cartooney or stylized drawing.
The second way is more like what you had on your original pencil art. Basically, just start from the top and work your way down. It takes way longer and, as you can see, if you don't get it exactly right it'll overload your image and make it too cluttered.
This way looks more like a sea turtle's scale pattern. It's quicker than the second way but looks more complete than the first. But it ultimately comes down to how you want it to look.
When I look at the stomach, I can't help but see the outline of a dolphin. Am I a bad person?
Tumblr | Twitter | Twitch | Pinny Arcade Lanyard
[3DS] 3394-3901-4002 | [Xbox/Steam] Redfield85
IMO the original and the paintover share the same core problem; their value distribution doesn't do a whole lot to separate fore/mid/background or suggest depth. One's just too midtoney, the other too dark. My personal preference is also for Shank's original, though, since it better illustrates what's there despite looking a little flat.