Submit your artwork for critiques here, or give someone else some helpful criticism or advice on their artwork. Please keep things civil.

Moderators: Ambiguity, SeaQuenchal, Waveloop, imcostalong, virtueone

 

Postby Markus Creation » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:19 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

Subject title: Do you see how to improve these drawings?

Hey guys,
I only post 1 picture this time, but I called the thread "these drawings" because then I can post future drawings here as well.
So, to the picture: it shall convey a peaceful mood with green grass, blue sky and beautiful wheats. so, what do you think about it?
Do you have advice to improve it?

windmills_mood_small.jpg

 

Postby Audiazif » Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:25 pm

User avatar
  Audiazif
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:38 am

It is flat. One simple way to create depth would be with values. Another thing would be simple perspective, no complex lines required. It already looks like you know this but as stuff goes farther back they get smaller (and bigger when closer). You kind of did it with the windmills but I did it more in the repaints. You could also do it with the path, use it to to give more sense of depth. One thing you did not do is not overlaps. Sometimes when there is no overlap it flattens things so I played with the overlap of the hill and windmills.
Untitled-2.jpg
"Painting is edge hell!"

Deviantart
Sketchbook

 

Postby Markus Creation » Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:14 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

Audiazif wrote:It is flat. One simple way to create depth would be with values. Another thing would be simple perspective, no complex lines required. It already looks like you know this but as stuff goes farther back they get smaller (and bigger when closer). You kind of did it with the windmills but I did it more in the repaints. You could also do it with the path, use it to to give more sense of depth. One thing you did not do is not overlaps. Sometimes when there is no overlap it flattens things so I played with the overlap of the hill and windmills.


Yes, those points are good. I will try to change that. Thanks.

 

Postby biosphere » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:55 am

User avatar
  biosphere
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:16 pm

Additional to what Audiazif was mentioning is the simple fact of the universe that light sources are lighter than what they hit and that angles affect the light reflected.

https://thelandscapeatelier.files.wordp ... ration.jpg

This little illustration might explain why despite being further away than the foreground, the upright windmills will still be some of the darkest values in the picture. Simply because they are upright, they don't receive as much light from the sky. Whereas the ground which is directly paralell to the sky receives a lot of light.

This theory in conjunction with the basic "law" of atmospheric perspective should help quite a bit.
It might also help you to now and then take a photograph of some place you think is close to what you're trying to portray and look at it in black and white to differenciate value from saturation. It's far too common to be tricked by saturation and perceive it as a light value.

 

Postby Markus Creation » Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:22 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

@ Biosphere: Could you maybe rephrase the idea that you wanted to show me with the jpg? I dont get the little illustration, yet.
And if I take a photo and look at it black/white- then I see the values. How do I then choose saturation?

And to Saturation- Lets say I have an triangular color-palette. in one corner I have the color e.g. red. When I now move the picker towards the white corner its like lowering the value and when I am moving it towards the black corner I am lowering the saturation. Can I say so?

 

Postby Audiazif » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:23 am

User avatar
  Audiazif
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:38 am

Markus Creation wrote:When I now move the picker towards the white corner its like lowering the value and when I am moving it towards the black corner I am lowering the saturation. Can I say so?


Not quite.

pal.jpg


If you look at the visual I made, The red corner is starting at full saturation and 50% value. When you move it to the white corner you are decreasing value and saturation. When you move it to the black corner you are increasing the value and decreasing the saturation. In order to decrease the saturation only you move horizontally, not towards either the black or white corners. Decreasing the saturation of a color could also be called "greying down".
"Painting is edge hell!"

Deviantart
Sketchbook

 

Postby biosphere » Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:26 am

User avatar
  biosphere
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:16 pm

Markus Creation wrote:@ Biosphere: Could you maybe rephrase the idea that you wanted to show me with the jpg? I dont get the little illustration, yet.
And if I take a photo and look at it black/white- then I see the values. How do I then choose saturation?


The little illustration refers to the brightest thing in a picture if not considering amospheric perspective. It bases itself on the fact that 1 (the sky) is the lightest, since it is the source of light. 2, the ground is directly parallel to the light source (1) so it is the second lightest. 3 is angled, so it's not catching as much light as 2. And same with 4. It stands straight up and receives very little direct light from the source. Which in landscape is always the sky.

This sort of rule is actually true more often than you think. Even in a dark night sky, the sky is the lightest part of the picture. The ground the second lightest etc. And it's to do with angles to a lightsource. (Or in the sky's case it is a lightsource). Of course if you have other light sources in the picture, you have to consider those as well. But that's a given.


If we combine that with atmospheric perspective. Atmospheric perspective is simply that things become lighter the further away they are because of.. well.. light travelling through the atmosphere. Lighter and bluer actually. It's why we see a blue sky instead of a black one because we're not just looking right out into space. We're seeing light from the sun filtered through our atmosphere.
But back to atmospheric perspective and combining it with what's brightest.

The foreground is usually very dark, so it's darker than the middle ground etc. But the ground, even the darkest foreground will probably be lighter than a row of trees in the middle ground. If this is very confusing, I'm sorry I don't have any immediate examples.

I may just confuse you more with this. But example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k6q8vhF6UP4/T ... norway.jpg
In this one, if you squint your eyes, you may be interested to note that the clouds are actually about the same value as the lighted ground. The mountains are towering and dark because something standing straight up usually is. Even if light is hitting the scene. The foreground is very dark, not just because it's in the foreground, but also because the painter has chosen a scene which is specifically lit. But again, the comparison between the seemingly dark clouds and the lighted ground reveals that they're not that far off in value after all.

https://d2mpxrrcad19ou.cloudfront.net/i ... llsize.jpg
Here is a good example of atmospheric perspective. Note how the further away we get, the lighter and more desaturated the values become. But also note that the water and the sky are about the same value. This is because water reflects light. So the plane directly facing the sky (the source of light) is about as bright as it when it is as reflective as water is. If you're very used to the squinting test, you can see that the boat and the reeds in the foreground are darker than the island in the back left, but the ground again is lighter than it because it's facing the lightsource.

It's a constant balance of this. The angle to the light sources vs. atmospheric perspective that really breathes life into landscapes. I'm not very good at it myself. But the little I have done has been greatly helped by those two theories.

http://cultured.com/images/image_files/ ... g_cows.jpg
Finally here's one that doesn't include such a wide open scene. Our view is blocked by a bunch of trees and so atmospheric perspective is not as important. Here we see that anything upright. Trees, cows, houses, are dark in comparison to the ground. But if you squint carefully, you'll see that even the darkest part of the clouds are actually not as dark as the trees below it.
Don't believe me? Look again if we turn it black & white
http://i.imgur.com/5ck3DMw.jpg


I know this can be more confusing than helpful. But a surprisingly good book on landscape painting is "Carlson's guide to landscape painting" by John F. Carlson. It's old and wordy, but there is some really solid knowledge in there.

 

Postby Markus Creation » Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:42 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

Thank you Biosphere and Audiazif for your tipps and explanations!

Seems like a lot of stuff I have to go through, but I'll try to implement as much of that stuff as soon as I can.
Hopefully I can do that in the next picture already.

 

Postby Markus Creation » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:20 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

I have this character (left one) and want to give him dark shadows in his face, so that he only through lighting looks suddenly evil. (right one)
On another character I succeeded with this, but in this case it looks sooo wrong. Why is it?
(I mean, yes, its because i didnt define a lightsource and did not make the lighting realistic, But this shall not look realistic, just stylistic evil)

testcharacter2.jpg

 

Postby biosphere » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:20 am

User avatar
  biosphere
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:16 pm

Light doesn't have to be 100% accurate. But that's different from being realistic. Light needs to be realistic otherwise it does look weird.

This looks weird because other planes of the face which should also be in shadow if those areas are in shadow, are NOT in shadow in your drawing.

Also is the eye is in shadow then the eyeball is also in shadow.. not bright white, shining out of the socket.

 

Postby Markus Creation » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:23 am

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

biosphere wrote:Also is the eye is in shadow then the eyeball is also in shadow.. not bright white, shining out of the socket.


I meant it like this, from One Piece for example-
The shadows wouldnt be like that in reality, but it makes the expression look so devilish:
maxresdefault.jpg

 

Postby Markus Creation » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:33 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

Do these poses look right and readable?
Three dudes, wanting to look cool by standing back on back on back and crossing their arms. (and each one has one leg a little bit further than the other leg)
If not, pls correct it if you can.

L1_small.jpg

 

Postby Audiazif » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:14 pm

User avatar
  Audiazif
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:38 am

Markus Creation wrote:I meant it like this, from One Piece for example

I think this is the problem right here. Your character is drawn somewhat "realistic" and you are trying to shade it like a cartoon. It is a clash of styles. The lighting fits the One Piece example because they are both stylized, the lighting and the character.
"Painting is edge hell!"

Deviantart
Sketchbook

 

Postby biosphere » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:58 pm

User avatar
  biosphere
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:16 pm

Audiazif wrote:
Markus Creation wrote:I meant it like this, from One Piece for example

I think this is the problem right here. Your character is drawn somewhat "realistic" and you are trying to shade it like a cartoon. It is a clash of styles. The lighting fits the One Piece example because they are both stylized, the lighting and the character.


I agree. The manga is very simplified. But I would even argue that the lighting in the picture posted does look a bit weird if you start to analyze it. But it works because like you say it's stylized and just looks ok.

 

Postby biosphere » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:23 pm

User avatar
  biosphere
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:16 pm

Markus Creation wrote:Do these poses look right and readable?
Three dudes, wanting to look cool by standing back on back on back and crossing their arms. (and each one has one leg a little bit further than the other leg)
If not, pls correct it if you can.

L1_small.jpg


Looks good.

There are some rythms of the body that you can exaggerate a little to get a more dynamic stance.

Image

Not that you have to, but I often find that consciously exaggerating the gesture communicates the idea better than trying to go very accurate. We have a natural inclination for understatement and often it makes figures feel stiffer because of it. The proportions look otherwise good.

By the rythms of the body I mean the "B" shape of the legs in a front pose, the S curve it gives sideways etc. The direction of the gesture. I wish I knew a good example for this. If you ever find a copy of Michael Hampton's Figure drawing design and invention there are some very good sketches and examples of that in there.

 

Postby Markus Creation » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:40 am

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

I am trying to learn/emulate this style:

It is known from the cutscenes from the Witcher 2 and 3 and also some other games and its (as far as i know) based on the work of Mike Mignola.

I dont know how the style is called, but I heard the phrase "puppet style" which I find fitting.

example:

style_small.jpg



My first tries:

OwnChars.jpeg


Does somebody know about this style?
How is it `officially` called, how can I improve it, what are good sources to learn it (besides Mignolas work and Witcher) ?

 

Postby Audiazif » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:30 pm

User avatar
  Audiazif
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:38 am

The example image you gave has a slight blockiness but in your attempts things are rounded. Also, the example has big blocks of black shadow, the only black yours has is in the outline. You didn't do any color but it looks like "cut and grad". I could probably keep coming up with more but I think the key to emulating a style is to look at how the artist tackles the basics. Look at line, shading, shape/form language, etc.
"Painting is edge hell!"

Deviantart
Sketchbook

 

Postby Markus Creation » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:48 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

Yeah, that is true. With the colors I was leaning a bit more towards this one..

charstyle1.jpg

 

Postby perkexpert » Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:38 am

User avatar
  perkexpert
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:37 pm
Location: Germany

Here is a Suggestion how you could go about your character, i think you cannot work with lighting alone to convey character...I mainly changed the eyes to make him look more angry
2016-11-30 10.31.09.png
Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/artofhannesmangelsdorf/
Homepage: www.perkexpert.com

 

Postby Markus Creation » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:24 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

perkexpert wrote:Here is a Suggestion how you could go about your character, i think you cannot work with lighting alone to convey character...I mainly changed the eyes to make him look more angry


thanks, yes, the eyes and eyebrows are way better in this version!

 

Postby Markus Creation » Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:38 pm

User avatar
  Markus Creation
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:00 pm

Here, I am trying to make a knight posing with his crossbow. the armor looks totally off. The shoulder is not right in perspective. How would it look not off?

crossbow_sketch1_small.jpg


Return to Critique This!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests