/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

little photo study to try some stuff

shoe study.
I feel spending alot of time on the study of shoes far surpasses that of anatomy and construction in terms of importance and improvement as an artist.

surely you all are aware that all objects in life can be broken down into the basic shoes?

I was told I was having trouble with the face?

>>1767181
love your work.

>>1767208
you were told? as in, you can't see how messed up it is yourself? because, that's a busted up face, bro. And busted up...everything else. those boobs are unreal yo. They look like balloons smuggled in her shirt

>>1767208
It was a /co/ request, big tits and all that, but what specifically is wrong with the head?

>>1767215
>>1767216

a photostudy

>>1767216
Here I've done a quick redline for you. apologies for the shitty quickness I'm at work. You mentioned //co/ so I'm guessing generic Adam Hughes pretty lady is pretty much on par for the course.

At any rate, big boobs are fine but big boobs that defy all reasoning or logic are just weird. Your face was busted, no chin, weird eyes, off centre features; start working on your construction perhaps? Before you start block in colour. Also, that brings me to: ugly colours and ugly background. Less is more and all that and if you want the focus to be this lady, just a really simple colour square will kinda frame her and keep her the centre of everything, yo.But your colours just muddle wtf is going on with her hands and arms and it's really difficult for me to tell what's going on. Look at your thumb: is it readable from that mall size? Not at all. It's confusing.

Hope that helps (ish)

>>1767268
>big boobs are fine but big boobs that defy all reasoning or logic are just weird
your whole redline defys reasoning and logic

>>1767279
>not bothering to point out whats wrong.

Do everyone a favor and never post on /ic/ again.

>>1767279
Welp. I realised it was quick, but I didn't realise it was that bad. I just went for generic cartoon lady style.

>>1767281
DENSE MOTHERFUCKERs WILL ALWAYS BE DENSE

>>1767286
UNLESS YOU HELP THEM YOU FLAMING SHITCUNT

>>1767290
ayy lmao

>>1767290
please do mankind a favor and stop breathing

>Ops with tripcode
>doesn't link previous thread
Stay stupid you third world piece of trash

sketching... Characters are not my thing

sketching... Characters are not my thing.

>>1767320
They're not bad at all, dude. Just the design of the female is bothering me. Why heels, why no clothing, why?

>>1767322
Tumblr pls go.
The dude's not exactly wearing full body armor either.

Agree about the practicality heels, but he said it wasn't his design anyway.

>>1767325
Whooops sorry, I misread.
Ignore my faggotry.

>>1767322
Thanks, I agree about the heels, as for the no clothing that was the look I was going for on both designs.

>>1767268
thanks for this. I knew I probably needed more studies, seems really apparent now. What I got from this was I need construction and values?

>>1767331
Spot on. Values and construction, yeah. Sorry, english isn't my first language. But start looking at anatomy books like Loomis Head and Hands (really good book if you are wanting to improve) and he has a lot of tips for getting into the mindset of measuring your features and making sure they are accurate and it'll soon be second nature after awhile.

>>1767175
oh god Firez you troll -_-

Posting again ITT since the last one didn't get any replies.

>>1767355
i did paint over of this last thread, didn't post it, people get too butt-hurt if you try and actually critique anything

came here again after 1 week, guess I'm out again indefinitely

>>1767361

post paintover pls

I'm not doing it right am I?
I try making the background a midtone and the. Going for a neutralish shadow and light tone to generally establish what goes where but I feel like I'm just stuck there. Like adding other vales just makes a mess.

>>1767368

focus on getting the shapes correctly before starting to add tones.

>>1767355
This has potential it's just a little bland in terms of value. Not enough visual interest either in terms of varying contrast and there's a lot of muddy issues in terms of the monster's lower back and the jungle in yours. You need to kinda separate the two because right now it's just hard to read.

Also your sky is nicely textured but it's taking away from the monster at this point. IDK man, if I were you, I would take this concept and do other thumbs of it maybe pushing the size of the monster in relation to the figures and giving it a dynamic perspective.

>>1767375

Yeah I was aware of some of those flaws but I didn't know how to fix them, thanks bro!

>>1767370
I keep on forgetting how lazy I am with the lines.

Frank Tenney Johnson color study

>>1767395
B-B-BUT YOURE A PAINTER!

tried the johnsilva smudge pack conmana suggested in last thread, it's pretty nice, may have overdid it lol
i know about the mouth expression, cant helpt it..
>>1767181
>>1767397
cool studies

>>1767397
Really nice study!

>>1767397

shit this is good

WIP.
Probably going to change the proportions around after this.

>>1767175
At least try to link back to the previous thread, please.

>>1767473
static
avoid X, change it up a bit

starting a study

rigga ma tooty chef gonna get that booty
tried to push larger strokes that look nice I guess

>>1767414
make sure to read silvas notes
most of the brushes are tap ones so you just tap tap tap
100% strength ect

looks bretty good

>>1767504
woops

>>1767475
You mean those tentacles thingy?
I'll try to mix it up.

dragon guy from last thread, what do you guys think of this

>>1767534
A quick value sketch thing to help

>>1767547
Oops, wrong one.

Concept art for a game. I think it still lacks mood.

>>1767561
Way too dark. And maybe you should try desaturating it some if you're wanting it gloomy.

>>1767566
Well, it's night and there are no street lights, how could it be brighter? Not trying to be defensive.

>>1767561
IS IT ONE OF THOSE ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GAMES AGAIN, JIMMY?

>>1767570
You're an artist dude, you don't need to subscribe to realism.

Plenty of artists, both young and old, use bright nights. Night isn't JUST defined by the picture being dark. Certain colors are more obvious during night, like blues and greens.

>>1767548
I liked the other one you were doing, this one seems a little less dramatic and powerful

>>1767577
Kinda. No zombies though.

>>1767579
Alright. I'll try to lighten it up a bit. Thanks.

>>1767580
I'm just thumbnailing some stuff right now, but I do agree with you. Still, I think it'd be best if I try to force some more ideations out just to see if something else sticks.

Either way, thanks for the comment, help reassured my own thoughts.

Me again. Lines are on a hidden layer but fleshed out drawings are more essential than I thought.

How do I do occlusion shadows or simply define small shapes like abs and the serratus or the lines of his pecs? Do I just drag a very tiny hard brush accross the drawing in close up?
And how do I improve what I already have?

>>1767579
>Certain colors are more obvious during night, like blues and greens.
Isn't it more like, your cones/rods don't work too well at night so you don't see reds so well anymore? And the blue is a trick that comes from that?

James Gurney talked about it I think.

>>1767599
Probably. I've also heard that apparently night is actually green and not blue, but I dunno about that.

>>1767473
I'm already aware of that, this the 1st time I was unable to find the previous one. Sorry about that.

>>1767493
contd
kinda lame

I can draw portraits from models or pictures with fairly reasonable likeness but when I draw my characters from imagination I seem to revert to stylization instantly (I started out as a lolanimufaggot once) and it's driving me insane... So how the fuck do I shirk this shit? Pic related. How can I get this to look more naturalistic apart from rendering the fuck out of it? I think I'm doing something fundamentally wrong. I just can't seem to pinpoint what, I think it's mainly the eyes though.

>pls respond

>>1767594
Your value range is all over the place. Build up the values slowly and save the darkest darks and highlights for last. Also, be aware of the surface material you are rendering. The skin in the reference is very dry, which makes it a matte surface with very low reflectivity. There is no strong specular highlight anywhere in the ref, yet you have them everywhere.

>>1767702
Anon it looks so funny x'D
I just think you should be more careful with the lines and make them more refined and explore line width and weight, also try to do them less wobbly.

>>1767702
Pants look too flat. Gather refs and study how they wrap around the form of the thighs and crotch area.

I've been doing a bit of digital sketching recently. I find that perspective lines and shading are really helpful for understanding how things look in three dimensions, but still, some of the figures don't seem to read well.

Critiques and tips would be appreciated.

>>1767723
Noted. I'll try to rework my process and put in closer values first.

>>1767733
Make your shapes more obvious. Arms are cylinders, torsos ovals or boxes. These are just flat gestures, they don't even belong on a perspective grid.

>>1767744
>These are just flat gestures, they don't even belong on a perspective grid.
It's not flat gestures though. It would be if you were drawing the outline of a body, a memorized shape. I'm trying to think in threedimensional shapes though, and I do feel that grids help with actually being able to see and feel depth on a flat screen.

>>1767765
Gesture captures movement, not contour. It's not enough to think in shapes or whatever, fucking draw them in because your stick figures can't get much flatter.

>>1767772
Oh, that's what you mean. Sure, I'll try doing that.

>>1767268
I don't like to derail, but you mentioned Adam Hughes and when I googled him I found he has a very characteristic style of rendering his women. I'm really interested in learning about what the other common styles are out there, is there an informal classification of female character styles people have in common? I don't know how to put it into words for a google search.

>>1767268
I don't like to derail, but you mentioned Adam Hughes and when I googled him I found he has a very characteristic style of rendering his women. I'm really interested in learning about what the other common styles are out there, is there like an informal classification of female character styles people have in common? I don't know how to put it into words for a google search.

>>1767886
Sorry, didn't mean to double (triple) post.

Dragon guy again. I forced out some thumbnails and am trying to decide on a good comp.

>>1767892
Your shit is really fucking annoying. Stop posting until you have something solid to submit. Otherwise, just shut the fuck up and get to work.

Fucking STUPID retard.

>>1767906
Calm down man, I'm just trying to get an idea of what direction I should head in. It's hard to find people who generally know stuff about fundamentals and such.

Either way, try to not get too mad over something so minor, I'd rather someone not get so stressed.

>>1767915
For starters, you should head in the direction of continious, confident lines and understanding of anatomy.
Then we'll see.

>>1767921
I admit my line quality and strokes aren't the best, but do realize that I'm trying to pump these out as fast as possible to get a general sense of composition. Why waste time worrying about anatomy in a bunch of 2 by 3 inch ideations? The goal of these isn't to worry about details, it's to make sure things look good from a distance. If they look good from a distance, they'll look good bigger. This is basic stuff.

>>1767930
To further my point, this is the sorta stuff most artists do. Hell, in the business people can go through over a hundred tiny, shitty thumbnails and have maybe three of them actually good. That's just what being an illustrator is like, you're trying to find "the one". If you're not, then you're probably too satisfied with how everything is going which is never good.

>>1767892
Is the fourth one that crystal dragon from dark souls?

>>1767943
They all are.

I've just been grinding out lineart studies for the past few weeks... I really need some help

>>1767945
I think you fucked up the scale of most of them.
Personally, I think that 2, 3, 5 and 6 suck.. 2 would be kinda nice if the head would stick out from open water.

>>1767951
Alright thanks. I'll probably end up going back to 4, but maybe I'll do a bit more with 1 and see where it goes.

>>1767181
>>1767397
sexy

>>1767882
Good Girl art? Cheesecake? Try those.

>>1767941
you're right, but no one in their right mind would hand in first sketch to art director (or whoever) for critique. YOU have to decide which one to take to the next step, because there's not much we can say at this point.

>>1767181
ew, photo study. draw from life or imagination /ic

Sketched this in an hour and a half trying to work on proportions and shading. Should something like this take that long?

>>1767949
I would recommend deliberate lines. The face has clean lines, but the jacket and hands are very sketchy. The hands don't look very feminine. The eyes look high up on the skull as well.

You could play around with your line weight a little more, it seems your only thick lines are the borders. You could use line weight to show the overlap in the clothing layers a little better.

Post some of your other studies.

>>1767993
If your new to it, its going to take a bit longer then it should.

If your really trying to work on proportions and shading, you need to do some studies man. You're symbol drawing and that's because you don't really know what it looks like.

Also this,
>>>1761985

>>1767998

>>1768004
thanks man, when I posted I was worried that I was going to get shit on. I think I'll start coming here more often.

>>1767985
I agree with you, but for the most part your client work is rarely ever going to be as good as your personal work. I don't see why it's so unacceptable for multiple thumbnails to be posted if it's not job-related. Is there some time-limit, are we in a race?

>>1768031
well you might annoy people enough to give you a critique. trolling works, speaking from personal experience.

Should probably fix that hand at some point.

Also, can you not erase away adjustment layers in CS6 or something?

does my anatomy exaggeration work?
the left dudes head looks too small :/

also these are from imagination

>>1768051
I think it does.
Also, set a height in heads for your characters, which suits your stylization most.

>>1768051
The left one's head is far too big and the right one actually looks quite proportional to me.
Be careful with pointy edges, they just look bad - like the bent leg on the dude on the left.
On the dude on right, his left leg is too thick and his butt is sticking out too much.
I think your stylization just needs some more work on form and harmony, you have to find a balance. Also try to make your lines more expressive with width variation, that'll help.

>>1767175
So, I'm designing characters for a friend's manwha.
This is one of them. I think her feet's pose looks fucked but not sure.
Also ignore the color blobs.

>>1768054
thanks for critiquing, im still trying to figure out how to stylize without butchering the subjects so it helps. about the lines, I turn off opacity and pressure sensitivity so thats why that happens lol... gonna try it with pressure now

I am extreeemmee beginner, and I've seen a few things on how to shade and such. I whipped this up really quick just to see how I could use some of the things I learned after watching my cousin (who has much more experience than I do) and seeing some of the videos he sent me. Now, I'd love some critics on the shading, since the art itself isn't really my best work, but if there is anything else you see that is wrong (like the clothes look weird and stuff), that is fine too. I don't care if you're brutally honest about how horrible it looks since it's pretty shitty compared to the norm on here. I think I need tips so I know where to improve. I mostly would like tips on shading and how to do it, if that's okay.

>>1768058
You're welcome. Getting the stylization right is the hardest part, you have to do a lot of experiences and non-finished drawings. Stick to quick sketches and harmony studies and when you tink it works, finish one of them.
Post the one you do with pressure to see if it helps.

>>1768060
If you're a begginer please post on the begginer thread and not here.
Also, don't use MS Paint, get Krita, GIMP or MyPaint.
>>1761985

>>1767175
Any C&C before aplying fixative?

Any C&C before aplying fixative? Fwiw it's the underpainting for pastel piece.

>>1768179
>cold, blurry doll eyes
>expressionless face
do you have a soul at all or..?

>>1768183
its also plain ugly

hes poor, he cant afford a soul

but for christs sake, the past 12+ months. Soulless and creepy unnerving drawings of young girls looking nowhere in particular somewhere just over our shoulder.

also group the values of the hair. ffs

Colored Pencil

Hurry up and top out this thread so we dont have to look at the piece of garbage that is in the op

>>1767175

Just moved from b/w to color today.

>>1768179
I probably introduced more problems than I fixed, but I tried to address these points:
-Cranium is too small, particularly in the top back.
-Eyes are too large. Her left eye looks like it's drifting out of the eye socket
-Pupils are too large
-Mouth too wide

-Inconsistent perspective: It looks like we can see some of the top of her head, meaning she's looking downward from our viewpoint. The eyes and nose look like they're viewed from straight on, instead of angling downwards slightly. The mouth looks like it's viewed from underneath, when we should be seeing it very clearly from the top. This makes it look like she's frowning. Corners of the jaw are also too low if we take this perspective into account.

Do a better construction in the future, thinking about the box/cylinder/sphere of the head (whichever makes the most sense or is the most useful for the angle). It helps to draw out the eye sockets of the skull so that you can place and size the eyes correctly.

>>1768197
>Just moved from b/w to color today.
Try to take the environment into account. In addition to the primary light source, everything that's visible and near your object of interest will act as an ambient light source to some extent. Be sure to practice painting some simple still lifes paying attention to all the possible light sources in your environment, and do some portrait painting from life as well (a mirror and a strong light source is all you really need).

You have a few drawing issues in this painting - don't neglect the basic forms and major planes you're dealing with.

>>1768200

Thanks a lot for this.

I'm using a very soft charcoal pencil and a mechanical one for some details so I think I can mend some of those points.

>>1767320
the heels are ridiculous. not because they aren't well drawn but because its the industrialized world getting a little too close to 10,000 BC. everything else except her hair is functional. the shirt hides her breasts, and the rest of her clothing articles no doubt has purpose in helping her do whatever it is she does (fight and hunt im guessing).

the purpose of heels is to make the buttocks clutch and appear bigger. whatever society she is from does not seem to have a need for that as the alpha female would likely dominate the lower females in order to gain status and appear to be an attractive mate. they would also make hunting and fighting (or whatever it is she does) harder.

you can see now the error is one of functionality. in the same way that impossibly complex armor is annoying in sci-fi, lack of functionality is also annoying in every picture. by putting in things which are irrelevant and even counter productive to the woman's work, you are asking the viewer to make a suspension of disbelief that is unreasonable.

of course, if you'd like to think "you only don't like it because you are a feminist" then im surprised you've gotten this far in drawing at all. such lack of self-reflection and objectivity is more typical of people who can't do anything really at all.

>>1767561
80% of it is black.

>>1768197
The nose kinda looks like a dick

some study

>>1767988
not everyone here has access to boobs 24/7, unless you r a boobs carrier

>>1768010
you should feel bad though. people really only shit on those worth shitting on

>>1768240
shut the fuck up michelangelo

>>1767985
good thing we are on an anonymous image board. who the fuck are you to decide this person's workflow. It's like instead of giving him real critique on his work you are giving some meta-shit on his seeking of said critique.

>>1767892
1 and 2 dont have a clear focus. especially 2 because the column demands too much attention.
3 and 4 are honestly the best and i do love the perspective choice of 4 the most. especially because 3 has alot going on to lead the eye all over the place lookin for other focuses besides seath himself.

5 has good composition but the gesture seems out of place with seath.
6 on the other hand has bad composition (lines lead flame to seath and finally offscreen) but great mood.

Simple request, it's currently on /r/ atm. Make a good job editing in some generous armpit hair on pic related. I also offer a steam game as a reward if anyone is interest: I can offer one of the following:

Bastion
Risk of rain
Another world
Sequence
Intrusion 2
Pacman Championship edit: Deluxe.

Thanks!

>>1768050
wouldnt it make sense to increase the contrast on seath. he seems far away in the fog. the bottom crystals fight for attention because of this. why not add crystals to both sides of the man and decrease their contrast in relation to the protag.This could "bind" the eye of the viewer to the man and seath and keep the crystals as a nice background/foreground object.

Buncha marauders who came and went
Beat up a poor bug who then spent
All his earnings on a gun
Lemme tell you, those marauders better run

>>1768284

I couldn't work on this for five seconds without feeling nauseous.

>>1768284

>>1768296
based on a nugget huh?

>>1768217
Thanks for the feedback, I think these are valid concerns. If I tell you the truth I was more worried about getting the pose/anatomy/face kinda decent that I ignored some details of the overall design.
Also, I was thinking she was more of a witch/sorcerer than a huntress (that's why the staff)

>>1768296

>>1768217

good post lol

>>1768219
Is it possible that saving it as an image makes it darker? It looks a lot lighter in photoshop. Tried saving in every possible image format, they're all dark. According to PS, I have no 100 % blacks and it looks a lot more blue.
Anyone knows what I can do?

>>1768388
I'm messing around with colour profiles and other settings, but nothing seems to work. This is the best I can do. It also gets darker by reducing the image file.

will be better next time, I guess

>>1768412

I think this would look a lot better if you just rendered part of the space outside your figures rather than all of it. Also if youre going to do it all make it darker and have more confidence in the strokes, it actually detracts from the piece as it is IMO. Something like this is what I mean

>>1768428

Or perhaps blend and fade the edges as it gets further away from the figure

>>1768429
>>1768428
okay bro, ty. just I'm just new to all this stuff

trying out how to produce darker atmosphere and colors while raining.

please respect m-muh art

What is wrong with this

>>1768443
you are blindly copying without understanding what you are drawing

>>1768443
This guy is _sitting_, not standing. Respect perspective. Seriously, it seems like you are a beginner. Start on paper, really. It's nothing worth fumbling around with a tablet with all those messy shadows (inb4 I'm gonna precise later!!). Take a good paper and a good pencil.
>>1768444
>44 ▶
>>>1768443
>you are blindly copying without understanding what you are drawing
this, laconic

>>1768444
you are blindly critiquing without understanding what you are talking about.

>>1768443
what has really helped me is understanding each shape that makes up the whole.
if you get the shapes right, then everything falls into place.

>>1768444
>>1768446
>>1768449
Right right. Back to the drawing. Sorry.

>>1768442
Dat giraffe neck.

>>1768452
It's sexy, ok.
Actually it's probably like that because I drew it in bed with just my bedside lamp on and it was kinda fucked that way.

>>1768466
>avoiding
its not that serious, you know?

>>1768466
>excuses
gtfo

>>1767181
>>1767397
>>1767969
>>1768429
You guys are damned good.

>>1768179
Hope I'm not late: the shoulders seem a bit short, trapezium don't read all too well and cleavage is too high. I do like the face; pretty woman

Same girl (Komiyama Haruka), more studies.

Used reference for the lighting.

>>1768497

Holy hell those wide lips makes her look terrifying.

Keeping at it. Though I'm getting close to setting it down.

yo whatcu got on ninja cat tan
aint got nothin

kyaaa~

Tried mixing texture brush with my other brush
O babeh I dig it

>>1768548
The water looks like blue sand instead of running water.

Been trying to do some imaginative stuff lately.
Here's a quick sketch but I'm not sure about it. Leg anatomy always fucks me over.

Also does anybody have any decent references of dogs. (I feel weird even asking that for some reason)

>>1767397
Love this.

>>1768564
Also, ignore the shitty tree in the background that was just some bored doodling.

>>1768217
only a feminist would say "if you'd like to think 'you only don't like it because you are a feminist' "

You just have to make that a part of everything don't you.

>>1768217
High heels were designed for horse riding you dweebus. If she's a barbarian, horse riding, nomad or something high heels are perfectly reasonable.

So...how do I make the rendering look more 3-dimensional and convincing? Yes, I've studied Loomis and I'm currently going through Michael Hampton's book but if somebody could explain the anatomy that would be nice. (I understand the traps, but where are the lats, and how do the scapulas work here?) I will post the reference pic below. Thanks.

Here's the back reference for the no. 1768588 picture. I was too stupid to look up how to quote a previous post...

>>1768588
>>1768591
Go through hampton more carefullly, copy out his diagrams. The back is complex because it varies a lot from individual to individual since fat levels and muscle size varies, and the muscles are mostly fairly flat and do have some overlap. Plus the scapulas are freefloating so move around and mess stuff up.

Anyways, a quick breakdown of what I see. Just a quick drawover, so soem stuff might be slightly off. Maybe you should try this with an anatomy book for help, then try to do it without reference.

Keep in mind the lats overlap the erectors and serratus, but it is a thin muscle so only show really near the armpits. I also just grouped a few muscles into the scapulars (teres minor/major, infraspinatus etc). You should also be able to identify the medial edge of the scapula itself, as well as the scapular spine, but I didn't really label it here to keep it from getting cluttered.

Hope this helps a bit!

>>1768553
Hey, are you guys still on the same google hangout?

>>1768615

Thanks, that is pretty helpful. Any advice on how to make the rendering more effective?

>>1768622
Divide your shadows and lights so that you have a 2 value read. Then throw in some halftones. You can also exaggerate the core shadow a little to help round out the forms.

Get a better understanding of the forms and spend a bit longer on the drawing and you can show it a lot better. Maybe try with like a front view of a torso first since those muscles are a bit easier to understand so you can show the form better.

well?

>>1768630
Looks good so far. I like it.

>>1768617
yerp
I havent been on at night so I cant say anything
but everyone seems to be on around 7-12 am pst

study that got out of hand. crits welcomed :3

>>1768412
Is this from ref?
If yes, pay more attention to the big shapes - their angles and their proportions.
If not, take your time to learn the proportions of the figure and try to translate it accurately in 3D space as applicable.

study that got out of hand. crits welcomed :3

>>1768647
>>1768653
What did you resize your pic^^?

>>1768659
yeah sry, the other one was to big

>>1768653
looks cool, except for that wobbly lines on her collar and background. The smudge line on her cheek is audacious

>>1768668
I'm with you on the smudge, but I don't mind the wobbly lines at all.

>>1768653
Not bad anon, you just need to control your values better. Your values jump around a lot, both in the bg and in the skintones on the face. Keep the values nice and flat and simple, and then focus on separating the lights and darks in a clear way. You want the quick main read to be clear at all times.

>>1768673
the right one is so much better.

the left one looks like she was covered in glitter

>>1768681
That's the point...the left one was his original painting, the right one is my quick paintover to show better value control.

>>1768668
>>1768671
>>1768673
i was trying to make it look sophisticated but mine kinda looks like a mess compared to yours. I guess i have to find a balance .ty!
thanks a lot guys !

>>1768684
>i was trying to make it look sophisticated
Don't try that since you don't know what you are doing. It looks like a mess of scribbles and random values everywhere. Focus first on the fundamentals then once you have that down you will know how to add in that other stuff better.

Stop shitposting in our thread >>1767437

>>1768673
>>1768681
>>1768684
>>1768685
I've seen this ref posted here yesterday I think. While the anon's correction is nice and all, that's not at all what the reference looked like, it had those glittering things on her cheeks (they kinda puzzled me when I saw them, so I remember them) and crazier values.

>>1768499
Some thoughts. Not perfect, but should have a few helpful pointers.

>>1768499
>>1768705
Oh, and I just realized I accidentally changed the position of the body/shoulders. Sorry about that.

>>1768548
Needs more consideration for temperature of the primary light source and all of your ambient light sources. You aren't thinking enough about it and as a result your shadows are going too much towards black (darker and desaturated version of the local color).

The thumbnail also doesn't read well. If it doesn't look pleasant at the thumbnail stage then you need to fix the values (and possibly colors and design) of your big shapes.

>>1768564
The boy's pose is awkward and unnatural. Establish a strong gesture first, and try out many different ideas. Then build up from there. Try striking feasible poses yourself in front of a large mirror. Try to put yourself into the character's shoes and try to lean towards more dynamic poses over static (can be subtle - you can accomplish a lot with just the curvature of the torso).

>>1768588
>>1768622
>how do I make the rendering look more 3-dimensional and convincing?

In addition to what anon said, it would be to your benefit to do a bunch of still life studies of simple objects (vases, apples, eggs, etc). Get a lamp and try to have a strong single light source. You need to get a feel for modeling simple forms from life before you can effectively tackle complex forms, and forms from photos.

Initiate me

Been a while since i've come around, have a figure study :p

>>1767282
It's not that bad don't listen to every fucktard on /ic/, it's just the weird bellybutton placement, it's literally just under the ribcage, halfway down the entire torso

Quick study, will reply to this post with my reference. This is pretty much the first time I've ever done anything digitally. Been studying with traditional mediums for about four and a half months.

>>1768349
Go easy on the chalk brush

>>1768827
ref for my drawing pls no bully /ic/ i know my line work is bad and everywhere

>>1768829
then go work on it

Comments on this so far?

>>1768837
Something of that scale would not get all that orange light on it from a tiny flame

>>1768838
Well it is a piece of the first flame after all. It could have a metaphorical meaning.

A quick head study.. :)

>>1768838
Any better? I'd like to have some light on the dragon to help lead down to the flame more so.

>>1767397
Since everyone else just sucked your dick, I'll give you some concrit.
It's good, but watch your perspective and proportions (the front horse is out of perspective, and the rider is slightly too large for the horse.)
Horse's limbs are anatomically incorrect, especially the forelimbs, which look almost broken. Look at/study some pictures of real horses.
I know this is meant to be a color study, and it's quite good in that regard, but I hope these observations are helpful as well.

>>1768837
I say push the perspective on his hand more. It looks like he has really tiny hands for a dragon that size.

>>1768856
Honestly his hands are probably even smaller than the ones I gave him.

Are the values fine? I'm looking at the thumbnail and I'm not quite sure how much I should push them more. I'm worried I'll be getting away from the foggy look.

>>1768852
Seconding the person being too large on the horse.

>>1768856
Hey you are right, I never realised just how small Seath's hands are. Something still bugs me about the perspective on them though.

>>1768869
If his finger were to overlap the flame would that help or no?

>>1768869
replied to myself hah!. I meant >>1768860

>>1768570
So why do men literally never have heels?
This is the most autistic retarded post I've ever seen

>>1767397
this is great, do you mind talking a lil about your process with this?

Did a quick....RIMjob (get it?), deciding if I like it or not

>>1768684
>>1768673
left is still more interesting, I think the best thing would be a compromise of both

>>1768843
great linework/technique!

stuff for an untitled project

more stuff for an untitled project. this skeletons name is steve (?), hes a rapper now that hes undead, and he would be the tank of the group. the other guy would be the healer

>>1768888
Linework's nice, but the construction isn't. Eyes are spaced too close together.

>>1768882
Hey man, I know it's all about the dragon right now but the dude seems to have two left hands.

>>1768920
Yeah, for sure, I'll get to him eventually, I just want to get the dragon done first. Dude will be easier.

Also what's wrong with people with 2 left hands? You racist!?

(in all seriousness though, is the dragon looking good?)

>>1768907

No, they're not. When you tilt your head your eyes get closer, that's basic.

trying some super cliche shit

>>1767993
Sticky
Draw from life
Loomis
ect...

>>1768934
>tilt
>rotate

ok kid. The problem is the eyes are rotating away from us while much of his features aren't. Hence the jutting cheeks and brow ridge, and the eyes which are close together.

so i did some gestures. i can barely ever get the whole figure drawn in 30 seconds and if I do I have to rush and not give each part the attention it needs to convey itself properly. should I just keep going at this rate or is there something i'm missing? because I know people can do these in 30 seconds but I simply can't

>>1768927
I'm liking the dragon so far, though to me it feels like there is some sort of disconnect from the neck and body.

Seriously though, just put that thumb on the other side of the hand, it gets to me.

>>1768956
The problem with his body is that the torso has this weird shape to it where the middle portion juts out. ie, you're not seeing where the neck and body connect in the picture due to perspective.

Seath is a fucking retarded creature.

any crit?

Thanks in advance

>>1768956
also wat thumb

assassin lady. legs and hand kinda fucked up

>>1768964
The guy's right hand.

As for the rest, just keep going man. I might just be nitpicking.

>>1768982
Nitpicking can make and break a painting anon, I always appreciate it, even if I don't agree.

>>1768946

ooohh... Please, show it to us, master.

heres my imaginary team of heroes

>>1768998
show what nigger? show what? a redline? a redline for the cunt?

>>1769004
I'm just mocking your try at showing off knowledge you think you have.

>nigger

lol

>>1767175
some work for a game im working for

>>1769012
You don't even know the difference between tilt and rotate. and there was nothing wrong with what I pointed out with the head. It's true.

>>1767175

Here's my latest....

Something feels of here guys can you help point it out for me?

>>1767175
Sorry not trying to spam but I did 2 today...

>>1769050

>>1769046
>>1769051
that's actually good

>>1769048
body too small?
Try not to draw "glove hands"...

>>1769053
That means the hands need more.. Form? Shape?

>>1769048
To the right of his shoulder where his joint connects to the side of his pec, judging from the angle of the abs i'd suggest you try maybe changing that joint connection to a more smooth curve rather than a <

>>1768494
Thanks. I also took into account your input for today's revision.

>>1767175
Initial sketch...

>>1768494
Thanks I also took your input into consideration for today's revision.

>>1769083
looks like she's going to rape the viewer

>>1767175
the eyes look cloudy but other than that it looks really good

>>1768466
>still a fucking giraffe neck.
fix that shit.
you fucked up.

Hi, a few threads back, somebody recommended Michael Hampton - Figure DRawing rather than Loomis' FWAP.
Reading through it, I have noticed that it mainly seems to be examples, with few exercises of any sort.
Are the exercise supposed to be up to the reader to make up?

>>1769089

I would be OK with that.

>>1769094
you have no right to crit anyone here.

>>1768998
>>1768934

You're responding to two different people here, and you're an idiot. If you really can't see what's wrong with those Downs eyes there's no reason to try to help you. It's wasted effort.

>>1768852
Thanks. Finally some crits, haha.
I realized the proportions are off right after I posted the image - mostly the guy being to boig. Something I'll look out for next time but since I studied color and not structure it doesn't really matter

sketch from photo ref

>>1769102
Those books acts as a guide. The real thing is the human body itself. The books just breaks it down into simple figures and volumes for you to memorize better, and highlight the things that makes a visual difference on the human body (thats why you're studying about major masses of muscles like pectoralis muscles and deltoids, but not the muscles in your ear canal).

One big mistake is to depend on the book and on the book itselves without actually referring to to the real thing. Read it, memorize it, then look at the real thing. Analyze a photo, or a model, and try to remember back what you have read, and see how it applies in the real world sense. The exercises, like those boxes of torsos help in which to determine where the landmarks and the orientation of the body in perspective, so it helps to do some of those. Then apply it when you do figure drawing studies to help you understand it better. Same as with the plane of faces, or the simplified skeletal structure in Loomis.

In short, book = supplementary. Model/Photo of model = Real thing.

Regarding photos, just be aware of lens distortion; they might mess up the proportions, which is one of the core important things in figure drawing.

>>1768949
Sorry for the canned answer, but I'll say it anyway: it takes practice.
Start with longer ones, like 2 minutes, and see how you feel. Gestures are meant to convey just what it sounds like: the general movement and 'flow' of a figure. Don't concentrate on anything but that at first, even if it means only drawing a few lines.

trying to learn how to paint in colors and painting in general

not sure how to go about the damn hair

>>1769114

Fuck off idiot, I'm the one who posted the drawing, not the guy who's "defending" me. I actually tried to correct it with liquefy, as I though the chin was elongated as well as the positioning of the eyes were wrong.
People are just over sensitive about critiques in this board...

study

Teachers want me to improve line weight.
I only know good painters tho..

Could /ic name some artists with insane lines i might learn from?

I tried very hard

>>1769192
and you failed, ayo lmao


you really should have nailed the drawing before getting into the painting or at lest corrected the drawing in the early stages of the painting

>>1769192
try again

>>1769198
>>1769199

what wrong? any advice? or paintover

>>1769180
Post your reference. Also smoothen out your strokes, it looks polygonal

>>1769200
you should have ignored the terrible loose eyelashes and focused on the eyes and eye sockets. Few of the angles are correct. Personally i think it's a pretty bad ref

>>1769200
I matched your drawing with the original with the jawline as reference. You should get them initial scaffold lines match as closely as possible bruh

>>1769208
okay
>1769209
yeah, what about brushwork? and other stuff?

Been sick for 2 weeks, havent been drawing, tried to draw something now. Random knight.

>>1769206

>>1769227
Nice!
Did you rasterize an image of a knight in Illustrator using a sample of 8 shades of gray and then painted that in some other software?
Because it looks like it and I find the idea fascinating; someone using the "technique" of vector artists of poor skill trying to produce a printable shirt print and then actually painting it.

>>1769094
>>1769106
check yourself before you wreck yourself

>>1769256

Its done in Photoshop, didnt use photos or reference. How I got the metal feel to it is just one trick I use after painting the values :)

>>1769286
you are aware it looks like garbage right?

>>1769083

Seriously learn to eyes man she looks like she's been hypnotised

>>1769287

Whether it looks like carbage or not is not the point in posting.

>Post your current drawing here and give constructive critiques to others!

Getting constructive critique is. You are not giving constructive critique. Are you too stupid to read what the thread is about?

If any of you are really good could you guys do TASOS in graffiti letters please

>>1769304

If you are any good on anything, how about you come to work for me as a slave for a day without pay.

>>1769303
>cabbage

>>1769306
Fair point sorry guys

simplified the bg and stuff

>>1769303
By that logic you should reply similarly to praise as well amirite?

>>1769313
why do you rely on smudging to make it look good

>>1769313
ear too low values all over the place

>>1769313
hope this helps a little

>>1769314

Would you reply similarly to these comments:
Your mother is nice.
Your mother is carbage.

Seems you dont understand the difference. You must be a special one. Here, have a badge.

>>1769316
Not him, but why do traditional painters rely on dry-brushing so much? your question is stupid and you are an idiot for asking it.

>>1769137
thanks for the help m8

>>1769324
your not too bright are you

>>1769328

>Post your current drawing here and give constructive critiques to others!

No drawing to post? No constructive critique to give? Then what are you doing here? Are you too simple to still understand what the thread is about?

>>1769330
babble all you want, its still crabbage.

stay summer faggit

>>1769333

Seems like you just cant understand what the thread is about. I give up, youre just too simple to talk to. Dont forget your badge on the way out :) You have earned it.

I know values and proportions are wrong.

any critics are welcome

>>1769342
I'd REALLY reccomend value study at this point, because it's really bothersome to look at.

>>1769342

>>1769359
>>1769347


thanks, I see is very off. I'll start studying

any glaring issues with my technique? I realize I need practice but i'd love some input. i can't seem to really finish a drawing enough to even get to rendering/values so my knowledge of that is naturally limited.

drawing mikassa but I'm having lots of troubles with this
First the proportion and also I don't really know what to do with the background to make her stand out more

>>1769307
new meme is born, guys.
>your art is absolute cabbage.

>>1769323
thanks i like how you added some cool tones

>>1768812
Update!

>>1769275
this isn't that correct (and I don't want to spend much time on it because the base is wonky), but hopefully it shows that you can add some more value for a "pop"

Tell me everything that's wrong so far, please.

>>1769416
Sure, thank you. I don't want to defend myself, but I've only just begun, so the values are still flat. What about design-wise?

>>1769342
its scary :(

>>1769440
hard to critique design he still looks naked atm, but i like where its going.

>>1769367
hey slav bro

There's so much wrong with this, how can I improve it?

>>1769411

I'm done with this now, would still appreciate feedback though :3

>>1769577
I think the thread is on autosage

>>1769578
:(

>>1768962
Nose is obviously crooked.
The rest is fine.

>>1769003
It's refreshing, but some of the stylizations still look like mistakes or amateurish .

>>1769313

Aaaaand I'm in love.

>>1769046
It's solid. Good work.

Has the bread reached its bump limit?

>>1769051
Nice scorzo.
Was it from the natural or pic?

>>1769577
It's pretty good.

>>1769511
Perspective. I wont risk in talking about shading and rendering because im still new toi.

>>1767220

It looks nice, but there are a few proportional errors. I don't see any underlines, though, so make sure you are constructing and not copying.

>>1768874

Are fucking retarded? Literally every pair of cowboy boots has high heels. It's so your feet don't slip too far forward into the stirrups of the saddle.

>>1771096
Not even remotely the fucking same and you know it.