The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Y'ello. I'm new. I've read a lot through these forums and I hope to not be despised by each and every one of you! It's something I aspire to. It seems like a difficult task. ANYWAY.
So, I draw and stuff. I figure the best way to kick this thread off is to post some fan-art that my friend and I did tonight of Tycho and Gabe. I did Tycho. Friend did Gabe.
Then I'll post some of my actual art. I'm always looking for suggestions, even if I don't correct them, it doesn't mean I won't learn from them.
IMAGE REMOVED -- DUE TO MULLY'S GOOGLE EGO SEARCHING.
I like it. Don't have time right now for specific crits, so i'll just say Welcome to the forum! You're the most promising newbie we've had for a while i reckon.
When your not using a photo ref some of the anatomy (mostly joints) start lacking. But you do have some really good technique with the digital painting thing down.
The main problem is the backgrounds. Work with some perspective maybe, or at least establish some kind of horizon.
thanks for the crits thus far. i definitely agree with what you're saying about the joint problem.. i hadn't actually noticed it was so specific to that, but you're right.
as for backgrounds.. haha, not a single one of these has either a) a background at all, or b) a background that's supposed to be noted. i'll have to post something with an actual background ... that could be a challenge; for i am a lazy bastard.
Great to have new talented people here, I agree with Greatnation about the backgrounds, they need some work. Maybe do a really time consuming work where you use multiple refs. I'm trying something like that myself, tough I'm mainly working on color theory... but still a large and complex work would be a good variation, i think. Something less character-centered perhaps.
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
edited December 2006
As a non-drawing-artist, I have to say that some of these are just beautiful. I'll leave the real crits to everyone who knows what they're talking about, but. . . wow.
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
edited December 2006
Some super-looking stuff here. A few issues, which you and others have mentioned, Mully. (Most notably, the head on the Calvin Klein model guy, but you already knew that.)
The painting of the old man is really nice. I totally dig that. Some really good use of color in there.
Do you paint all these directly in Photoshop (or whatever software you're using), or do you do the linework on paper first? If the latter, I'd like to see some of the pencils or sketches that preceded the painted versions.
I've done most of these in a program called OpenCanvas. You can find OpenCanvas 1.1 free for download, on the "interweb". I also use Painter IX. And Oekaki. Photoshop and I are not on speaking terms.
The "model" looking dude is Oekaki though, and I can show you an animation of that! That's something. Here's the animation.
To me it looks like anytime you use a photo referance you just trace over the photo referance with whatever program you use.
S'okay other people, he's welcome to make his accusations.
Feel free to take any one of my photo reference'd drawings, find the photo, and put one over the top. Y'know, if you're into feeling like a jackass, and spotting the many (to me) glaring mistakes with some help for yourself.
But thank you for thinking that they look good enough to be paintovers!
(( Note -- OpenCanvas 1.1 I use in a networking mode. This means that up to 3 other people may join it, and there is absolutely no way to do a paintover this way. Also, Oekaki (if you click the animation you will plainly see) has no option for this. ))
Totally uncool to accuse someone of paintover. Really. They arent paintovers.
for reals lame.
All Mully's other work other than the parts where Mully said there was photo referance there are genericish, with less than accurate anatomy and shading. The ones with photo referance are stunningly accurate with anatomy and shading. I just calls them how I sees them.
I also don't give a fuck if you think it's lame to say that, then good go fuck yourself, there is nothing in the rules thread about that; and I've seen other posters say the same thing in other threads. And also, how can you say they aren't paintovers? Were you there when these works of art were done?
If Mully were to post the photo referances for us to compare, that would be one thing, but to post some pretty darn good looking art, with some faults, then to post two that are absolute spot on I can think of nothing else. And from my experiance with art, and watching others, and looking at others, if people make anatomy and shading mistakes in their own works they are prone to do the same even when copying from a referance as they draw it how they think they see it, not how they do see it.
The great differance in the shading on the head of the ripped man, and anatomical differances show this in Mully's work.
Until the referances are posted I stand by my claim. I'm not saying Mully should be tarred and feathered or banned from the forums, or yelled at or anything, I'm just saying: that's what it looks like, particularly in comparison to the other work.
for the TL;DR : FOAD -> Greatnation
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
The only other photo ref'ed one is the one of the model-y male, which is going to be harder than hell to find. But the freaking ANIMATION of the ENTIRE process is listed. Go inspect an Oekaki board for yourself. I use www.fearsome-oekaki.com, if that helps you.
This is so cute, I've been here like, what. 1 day? And there's already cursing in my thread! Hot damn, I win!
All Mully's other work other than the parts where Mully said there was photo referance there are genericish, with less than accurate anatomy and shading. The ones with photo referance are stunningly accurate with anatomy and shading. I just calls them how I sees them.
You, go draw a giraffe from your head. Then, go draw a giraffe from a photo reference. You will be shocked to discover how much more accurate it will be! From colouring, to anatomy, the results will be AMAZING!
You, sir, have rocked my socks right off. Awesome stuff. Hurray for a cool newb! (I especially love the self portrait and the one of that shirtless man at the beginning.)
You better have a job in the art business! *shakes fist*
Nah, for now I work in Insurance. I use AutoCAD though ... That's .. KIND of like an art.
I'm sort of waiting for a bit in a boring job before I try to jump into doing concept art for video game companies. I have so many connections in that field that it's inevitable, but.. it will take time.
I've seen what you people do to other comics, though.
Well...
1. The expressions usually change once a panel +5 points
2. You didn't use comic sans font +5 points
3. The characters maintain a regular size throughout the strip +5
4. It wasn't done in MS Paint +100 points
that's 115 points more than most strips on AC get...
I've seen what you people do to other comics, though.
Well...
1. The expressions usually change once a panel +5 points
2. You didn't use comic sans font +5 points
3. The characters maintain a regular size throughout the strip +5
4. It wasn't done in MS Paint +100 points
that's 115 points more than most strips on AC get...
Agreed.
And I give an extra 100points for it not being
a)game related or
b)image-comics superhero knockoff
"
All Mully's other work other than the parts where Mully said there was photo referance there are genericish, with less than accurate anatomy and shading. The ones with photo referance are stunningly accurate with anatomy and shading. I just calls them how I sees them.
I also don't give a fuck if you think it's lame to say that, then good go fuck yourself, there is nothing in the rules thread about that; and I've seen other posters say the same thing in other threads. And also, how can you say they aren't paintovers? Were you there when these works of art were done?
If Mully were to post the photo referances for us to compare, that would be one thing, but to post some pretty darn good looking art, with some faults, then to post two that are absolute spot on I can think of nothing else. And from my experiance with art, and watching others, and looking at others, if people make anatomy and shading mistakes in their own works they are prone to do the same even when copying from a referance as they draw it how they think they see it, not how they do see it.
The great differance in the shading on the head of the ripped man, and anatomical differances show this in Mully's work.
Until the referances are posted I stand by my claim. I'm not saying Mully should be tarred and feathered or banned from the forums, or yelled at or anything, I'm just saying: that's what it looks like, particularly in comparison to the other work.
for the TL;DR : FOAD -> Greatnation"
Defenseive much?
There are simple ways to verrify claims like this, for example a simple google image search of Mel Gibson brings up the picture at least by page two. The fact that you would rather see the artist scurry to defend herself, than make claims with some sort of backed up opinion- is lame.
And what the fuck are you talking about, "TL;DR : FOAD"?
Mully-
Im looking at the animation process for your painting, and im pretty impressed. But I also feel like you may be torturing yourself to a degree. You took the whole thing to completion peice by peice, which always feels tedious to me. Have you ever tried doing it in passes? Like lay down lines, then colors, then go back and define all the colors a little more, then go back and add a lightsource, wash rinse and repeat?
Im looking at the animation process for your painting, and im pretty impressed. But I also feel like you may be torturing yourself to a degree. You took the whole thing to completion peice by peice, which always feels tedious to me. Have you ever tried doing it in passes? Like lay down lines, then colors, then go back and define all the colors a little more, then go back and add a lightsource, wash rinse and repeat?
I agree. When you work in this method, it gives you a foundation for everything you place on top of it. Which, in turn helps to keep you value key and many other things in check. They already look pretty good, but working this way from reference will probably help you with your non reffed works.
Im looking at the animation process for your painting, and im pretty impressed. But I also feel like you may be torturing yourself to a degree. You took the whole thing to completion peice by peice, which always feels tedious to me. Have you ever tried doing it in passes? Like lay down lines, then colors, then go back and define all the colors a little more, then go back and add a lightsource, wash rinse and repeat?
I agree. When you work in this method, it gives you a foundation for everything you place on top of it. Which, in turn helps to keep you value key and many other things in check. They already look pretty good, but working this way from reference will probably help you with your non reffed works.
Ahh, you guys have a good point. I don't know why I do things the way I do. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I never trust my placement with my lines, so I tend to do things piece by piece so its easier to move if I realize that hey -- noses don't go on chins, or what have you.
I'll have to give that a try though, thank you for the suggestions.
Posts
photo reference used
i don't play WoW anymore.
photo ref used for body, not for head. ... obviously, ugh.
no ref, but .. wtf is it? iuno.
hey this must be pretty image-heavy by now, eh?
small version of this'un.
h'okay i'll leave this alone for awhile now.
The main problem is the backgrounds. Work with some perspective maybe, or at least establish some kind of horizon.
Overall though,
:^:
thanks for the crits thus far. i definitely agree with what you're saying about the joint problem.. i hadn't actually noticed it was so specific to that, but you're right.
as for backgrounds.. haha, not a single one of these has either a) a background at all, or b) a background that's supposed to be noted. i'll have to post something with an actual background ... that could be a challenge; for i am a lazy bastard.
thank ye thank ye for the welcomes!
Yes, this is exactly the kind of girl I go for! The seat looks like it could come undone any minute.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
The painting of the old man is really nice. I totally dig that. Some really good use of color in there.
Do you paint all these directly in Photoshop (or whatever software you're using), or do you do the linework on paper first? If the latter, I'd like to see some of the pencils or sketches that preceded the painted versions.
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
The "model" looking dude is Oekaki though, and I can show you an animation of that! That's something. Here's the animation.
I dare you to make less sense.
Totally uncool to accuse someone of paintover. Really. They arent paintovers.
for reals lame.
S'okay other people, he's welcome to make his accusations.
Feel free to take any one of my photo reference'd drawings, find the photo, and put one over the top. Y'know, if you're into feeling like a jackass, and spotting the many (to me) glaring mistakes with some help for yourself.
But thank you for thinking that they look good enough to be paintovers!
(( Note -- OpenCanvas 1.1 I use in a networking mode. This means that up to 3 other people may join it, and there is absolutely no way to do a paintover this way. Also, Oekaki (if you click the animation you will plainly see) has no option for this. ))
Ahahah. Yeah. Agreed. Meh, that's what happens when you don't really have any outcome in focus.
But we all know that Tycho is Cloud in another time and place, anyway.
((Auch, kidding.))
All Mully's other work other than the parts where Mully said there was photo referance there are genericish, with less than accurate anatomy and shading. The ones with photo referance are stunningly accurate with anatomy and shading. I just calls them how I sees them.
I also don't give a fuck if you think it's lame to say that, then good go fuck yourself, there is nothing in the rules thread about that; and I've seen other posters say the same thing in other threads. And also, how can you say they aren't paintovers? Were you there when these works of art were done?
If Mully were to post the photo referances for us to compare, that would be one thing, but to post some pretty darn good looking art, with some faults, then to post two that are absolute spot on I can think of nothing else. And from my experiance with art, and watching others, and looking at others, if people make anatomy and shading mistakes in their own works they are prone to do the same even when copying from a referance as they draw it how they think they see it, not how they do see it.
The great differance in the shading on the head of the ripped man, and anatomical differances show this in Mully's work.
Until the referances are posted I stand by my claim. I'm not saying Mully should be tarred and feathered or banned from the forums, or yelled at or anything, I'm just saying: that's what it looks like, particularly in comparison to the other work.
for the TL;DR : FOAD -> Greatnation
Mel Brooks
There's my Mel Brooks reference.
The only other photo ref'ed one is the one of the model-y male, which is going to be harder than hell to find. But the freaking ANIMATION of the ENTIRE process is listed. Go inspect an Oekaki board for yourself. I use www.fearsome-oekaki.com, if that helps you.
This is so cute, I've been here like, what. 1 day? And there's already cursing in my thread! Hot damn, I win!
You, go draw a giraffe from your head. Then, go draw a giraffe from a photo reference. You will be shocked to discover how much more accurate it will be! From colouring, to anatomy, the results will be AMAZING!
More drawrings. I did this in OpenCanvas too. But it's old and makes no sense. Huzzah!
Oekaki. Photo reference, self portrait. ... I horrify myself with my resemblance to one of those Hanson chicks, here.
If you don't know Brandon Grahams' comix, you will soon. Did this up for him of a character of his. Micron pen + Painter IX.
Photo reference. Sharpie, 2 gray felt pens. It's an owl.
XD the comment about final fantasy characters rocks my socks
That guy looks like my friend symon and his little sister; which makes it kind of creepy.
Now you know the truth, through art. They get it on every night through the power of bass.
If you knew the family, you would find it almost possible; which once again, makes it creepy.
Sexcellent. XD
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
However.
I have the animation for this'un!
You, sir, have rocked my socks right off. Awesome stuff. Hurray for a cool newb! (I especially love the self portrait and the one of that shirtless man at the beginning.)
Nah, for now I work in Insurance. I use AutoCAD though ... That's .. KIND of like an art.
I'm sort of waiting for a bit in a boring job before I try to jump into doing concept art for video game companies. I have so many connections in that field that it's inevitable, but.. it will take time.
But I'm scared. :[
I've seen what you people do to other comics, though.
Let this be known: I am aware that it sucks and that it is mostly cut/paste, and that it is most likely unfunny as it is an inside joke.
...
Uh. Yeah. Don't know why I'm posting this. I'm working on another one right now that you guys will hate even MORE! Look forward to that, eh?
(( PS -- this is true, word for word. ACTUALLY HAPPENED. ... Minus the ball. ))
IMAGE REMOVED FOR FEAR OF GOOGLE RESULTS
commission
Well...
1. The expressions usually change once a panel +5 points
2. You didn't use comic sans font +5 points
3. The characters maintain a regular size throughout the strip +5
4. It wasn't done in MS Paint +100 points
that's 115 points more than most strips on AC get...
Agreed.
And I give an extra 100points for it not being
a)game related or
b)image-comics superhero knockoff
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
All Mully's other work other than the parts where Mully said there was photo referance there are genericish, with less than accurate anatomy and shading. The ones with photo referance are stunningly accurate with anatomy and shading. I just calls them how I sees them.
I also don't give a fuck if you think it's lame to say that, then good go fuck yourself, there is nothing in the rules thread about that; and I've seen other posters say the same thing in other threads. And also, how can you say they aren't paintovers? Were you there when these works of art were done?
If Mully were to post the photo referances for us to compare, that would be one thing, but to post some pretty darn good looking art, with some faults, then to post two that are absolute spot on I can think of nothing else. And from my experiance with art, and watching others, and looking at others, if people make anatomy and shading mistakes in their own works they are prone to do the same even when copying from a referance as they draw it how they think they see it, not how they do see it.
The great differance in the shading on the head of the ripped man, and anatomical differances show this in Mully's work.
Until the referances are posted I stand by my claim. I'm not saying Mully should be tarred and feathered or banned from the forums, or yelled at or anything, I'm just saying: that's what it looks like, particularly in comparison to the other work.
for the TL;DR : FOAD -> Greatnation"
Defenseive much?
There are simple ways to verrify claims like this, for example a simple google image search of Mel Gibson brings up the picture at least by page two. The fact that you would rather see the artist scurry to defend herself, than make claims with some sort of backed up opinion- is lame.
And what the fuck are you talking about, "TL;DR : FOAD"?
Mully-
Im looking at the animation process for your painting, and im pretty impressed. But I also feel like you may be torturing yourself to a degree. You took the whole thing to completion peice by peice, which always feels tedious to me. Have you ever tried doing it in passes? Like lay down lines, then colors, then go back and define all the colors a little more, then go back and add a lightsource, wash rinse and repeat?
Lookin good though.
orly?
/cliché
I agree. When you work in this method, it gives you a foundation for everything you place on top of it. Which, in turn helps to keep you value key and many other things in check. They already look pretty good, but working this way from reference will probably help you with your non reffed works.
You guys are being too nice to me, I think ... Especially since the next one is game-ish related. ... And entirely stupid.
Actually, I think if you saw the first comic I did (was forced to), you'd probably beat me out of here with blunt objects.
Mmm.. blunt.
Ahh, you guys have a good point. I don't know why I do things the way I do. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I never trust my placement with my lines, so I tend to do things piece by piece so its easier to move if I realize that hey -- noses don't go on chins, or what have you.
I'll have to give that a try though, thank you for the suggestions.
acrylic painting i did for a nursery.
LOOK HOW LIFELIKE MY ZEBRA IS???