/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>1524485
The pink lines lead to the diagonals' vanishing point.
I wanted to see where the ascending guidelines go.

>>1524462
This is interesting and innovative!

>>1524459
>>1524464
>>1524465

I'll have to leave the field of criticism on these to my fellow anons, OP, since I started drawing yesterday.

My eyes are not schooled yet to recognize anything beyond obvious flaws, as with young Michael's mouth and lips looking very head-on while his face and head remain angled.
Sorry, come back to me in five to fifteen years, I've just started with my fundies.

>>1524457
Maybe the following video on yt will make things come together in your head:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jL0_y_YK0w

What you are doing, is to rig an image in much the same way any animator would rig a character for animation but without keyframes or in-betweens, ie redrawing by hand.

I think they started doing these gifs by cutting out areas of an image and rotating, twisting and shearing these cut-out "limbs".

Experiment with the liquify tool in your software of choice.

If that doesn't satisfy your hentai sweettooth, check out Ps CS6's Puppet Warp tool.

If I am not mistaken, this artist doesn't give a shit.

>>1524059
I'm with this anon.

Depends on how many commissions like these you get, if this is your primary job or a little something on the side, how much time this will cost you in hours and how high or low your cost of living is, since you can't earn money any other way while you are working on this commission.

Estimate your daily cost of living based around your monthly expenses, then estimate how much time you will have to spend on this job and add 50% to the amount of time you've estimated this job will cost you and give them that figure flat.

The half on top is because of two things: they are buying your time as an artist and, which is more important, you won't be able to do it in the time you've allotted.

That's how I see it.

>>1523967
-when not everything you are working on gets classified as a "work in progress" by you with an accompanying scan or photo of it

-when your average workload per week is between twenty and hundreds of pieces of which none will ever be shared with the online world and which you just keep for personal reference and create for your own practice, to experiment, to evolve and to goof about

-when you know that you are polishing a turd when you are polishing a turd

-when your foundations are solid and part of your daily routine

-when you stop creating art for the praise of others who are not artists

-when you draw pornograpic imagery just to get it out of your system once in a while instead of uploading it somewhere for people to see

-when you have little time to hang around and procrastinate on the internet; chatting and jerking off does not equal taking a time-out from drawing and painting

&c.

One of the milestones has always been the question "I've messed it up, I can see that but I don't understand why or how, help me".

Keep an eye out for that one.
Or ignore anything and everything, I have no idea how you work or who you are in terms of your artistic expression and experience.

The hair on the back of his head looks as if it has been cut out from somewhere else.
Overall nice, but since I am a noob I don't understand the technical details of painting in general, much less working with oils.

So let's just go with that I like it. You has moar?

Assuming you use a Mac:
the brushes have been put into potatoshop/presets/brushes?

Did closing and restarting help?

Is your version of Ps happy with the abr or does it want tpl instead as the file extension?

What brush set is this / where did you get it from / can we have it so we can test it out, to see if it works with our machines?

>>1523605
Then let me try again:

objects the same height as the eye level of the viewer all touch the horizon line with their highest part, regardless of their distance to the viewer, as long as they share the same ground plane as the viewer.

If they don't, then the stacked heights of their individual perspective heights between their perspective height and the horizon equal to the height or level of the eye of the viewer.

>>1523578
They have more posters, so your values are skewed.

>>1523544
Yes. You always need at least one known dimension to relate to.

>>1523526
In short:

it's math. Just like >>1523508 said.

If looking at a point on the horizon, you are looking at the centre of vision, or the vanishing point where parallel lines to your line of sight apparelently meet.

This, of course, is not a point on the horizon but a point on your picture plane, which will cover up the real point on the horizon if you would draw it right in front of your eye.

The ground line (the line running from your feet to the center of vision on the picture plane and to the center of vision on the horizon, the "real" point) is parallel to your line of sight and simply runs along the ground, at a given distance from your eye.

The heights of the kayakers are diminished due to the perspective of their distance to the viewer and since we assume here that the kayakers are each of the same given and known height above the water, their heights all lie in the same plane, which is parallel to the ground plane while they themselves each occupy their own picture plane, perpendicular to the ground plane and the "kayaker height" plane.

So, how mony of the (adjusted, because parallel lines which are perpendicular to your line of sight are easier to work with) perspectively distorted silhouettes fit in between a kayaker's ground line (the water in this case) and the viewer's horizon line yields the information of how high his eye level is.

source: Gwen White's Perspective - A Guide for Artists, Architects and Designers

tl;dr it just is that way.

Starting with Betty Edwards today!

Nobody can stop me!
Harr!