/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Here's a basic scene that I tried setting up. Could it be something like this? The main thing that I'm wondering about in OP pic is the crisp edges. Masks? The brushwork looks really clean, it doesn't look like they noodled it. Also, how to avoid value creep? Do they plop out minimum and maximum value as separate blobs on the canvas and just delete them when it's finished, like in this pic, or is it unnecessary? Any tips?

Same story with this painting that somebody posted in another thread.

>>3845256
>Could it be something like this?
Yes, it could. Could be something else too.

>The main thing that I'm wondering about in OP pic is the crisp edges. Masks?
No, doesn't look like it, probably just good edge control, using a small hard brush to make hard edges where necessary, working on a large canvas.

>The brushwork looks really clean, it doesn't look like they noodled it.
There's probably a lot of airbrushing there, and some strokes along the forms added over it. This, of course, is done with masks.

>Also, how to avoid value creep? Do they plop out minimum and maximum value as separate blobs on the canvas and just delete them when it's finished, like in this pic, or is it unnecessary?
Do whatever helps you. Make a swatch if you want, anything you need. Also, establish the values of the main shapes early on.

>>3845256
>value creep
What is this?

>>3845272
>Same story
Not really. This one is done in a more painterly way, maybe in one or two layers. Here the edge control is done entirely with the brush, and all the brushwork is there from the process itself, no masks and no airbrushing.

>>3845253
>>3845256

I might be wrong but for this painting, it looks like they may have used the lasso tool and a basic fill brush to make a lot of the shapes. Then used mask layers and a textured brush to paint within it and regular layers to paint over it and create soft edges.

It just seems like the hard/crisp edges created in that painting is hard to achieve without using a lasso tool.

Here are different greyscale speedpaint videos that might give you ideas how to start

https://youtu.be/2tMagqFKQ9E
https://youtu.be/YZQDe-slZUo
https://youtu.be/2GwQOJ55WQQ

>>3845281
I don't know if it's a real problem or what it's really called but it's what I call it when I start haphazardly adding darker shadows or brighter lights than previously established ones, making it look weird. See pic, it's one of my earlier failed attempts. I worked from dark to light and I felt like the value range of the character was too narrow compared to the background so I added shadow to the hair. Scrapped it at that point.

>>3845285
I meant it in the "greyscale character" sense. OP pic does seem to have more steps in the process.

>>3845297
Thanks, I'll check them out

>>3845281
When you work with large areas of black and white, there's a tendency to lose contrast as you paint, everything goes towards black and white or centers too closely on a midtone. It helps to define a value range you're using to make sure you don't lose your frame of reference. It isn't necessary, but it keeps cast shadows dark and highlights light but not too light.

>>3845302
It's unironically called value creep by a lot of people. Or baked potato contrast, push your values harder, maybe warm/cool dichotomies weren't a bad idea, and needs more burn tool. Dark backgrounds demand heavy shadows and careful highlights. I usually work on a very dark desaturated green and change it towards the end. Also keeps edges visible if I go near black.

>>3845256
It's like a digital bargue plate. work with five values. place the lines, then the midtone, then darkest shadows, then the shadow midtones, then highlight midtones, and lastly highlights. take short breaks, step away, and adjust the balance as more values are distributed on the canvas.

>>3845253

Looks like he's using a art pen with rotation for those föat brush strokes that go across the form. No lines doesn't mean a accurate drawing wasn't first established.

Pic is from one of the videos linked. The artist puts down lines and some base values below the line, and then she creates a new layer above it all and starts blending. What I'm interested in knowing is, do pics like >>3845253 >>3845272 also employ similar line -> value or are they more along the lines of >>3845256, where we simply paint without line, mask/lassoo or no mask/lassoo? It really fucks with me and it's why I'm so thirsty for a process video for a painting where they do these really form-y paintings with many values. I want to disregard line and go straight to painting without first using line but I haven't been able to create anything acceptable in this way yet. Just draw etc?

>>3845310
Yeah not sure why I made those value decisions in hindsight.

>>3845317
I wonder if I'll have to do that. I'm stuck.

>>3845356
Part of me really hopes that he did a drawing because I can't fathom how somebody could do the silhouette thing of >>3845256 and plop the light down correctly. I bet it's possible but it seems so hard if you're aiming for that look.

>>3845302
>>3845303
>>3845310
Nice, thanks for the explanation.

>>3845272
how would i paint like this?

>>3845382
Also here are two earlier "paintings" I did, color disabled. The left has lineart and the right does not. However, both started with lineart assistance. Right one was base values under lineart under final value followed by lineart layer turned off close to the end if I remember correctly. The value ranges used are obviously flat as a pancake and the planes/light are stupid simple compared to >>3845253 >>3845272 but the works don't look as shitty as >>3845302. However, >>3845302 has higher aspirations regarding the rendering of form through light so maybe the failure is just shitty planes/light understanding on my part (aside from the obvious value range goof), which is why I've got the thirst for the type of process videos mentioned. I'm really close to just start doing a couple speed painting studies a day at this point, since I keep fucking up the values whenever I go for the form look of the goal images posted.

>>3845419
Do too many studies of cubes, cylinders and spheres so you tire and move on to bodies.

>>3845420
The goal images (first 2 in the thread at least) focus completely on lighting and don't take into account local color. Like, miku's arm warmer wouldn't be near black, it would be close in value to her arm. I think working on just lighting would help you focus on the form more. Forget color for now, you can add it later.
Also you don't have to straight up delete your sketch when moving past lines. You can blend it in instead, which helps with the transition from sketch to lineless. https://twitter.com/so_zikan108/status/1104749469193519106 Progress photos of what I mean.

>>3845427
Yeah, I'm currently just doing grayscale and I probably will for a while. I'm thinking of just doing fully rendered grayscale mannequins on darker/lighter backgrounds until I get it.

It's true that the sketch does not have to be deleted. I've done some earlier stuff where I just worked on top of the lines with color I think. I've just got this bad feeling that the >>3845253 >>3845272 types aren't particularly dependent on line. Maybe I'm totally wrong though. Hopes of getting some kind of answer is why I made the thread. Would be cool with a video, wish I knew Mandarin so I could search better.

Thanks for the link

>>3845485
here's da artist for >>3845272
https://www.weibo.com/p/1005052117054194/home?from=page_100505&mod=TAB&is_hot=1#place
he has a video of a mech speedpaint i don't think it's his and he might have retweeted it or whatever the gook equivalent of that is

>>3845420
hey why did you delete your twitter?

>>3845501
Thanks, bookmarked it.

>>3845505
I think I was really disappointed in myself, for reasons related to this thread. I've hit my first major plateau and that's why I nuked it. Realized it after reading your post, so I reactivated it. Lame, I know. Thanks.

This is mostly a bump to see if anybody else has tips or good videos.

Doing something like >>3845317 said (threw the order of things mostly out the window though). Defined 5 values and drew a dummy with some hair and filled it all with mid value. Then I started putting lighter value and darker value down on the same value layer. I put it on the same layer because I wanted to be able to move and erase away all value in some of the really early stages where my drawing was faulty and had to be changed. I think I should be striving to do the drawing well enough that this happens less.

I ended up doing a second value layer to draw over the line since I don't want line in the final. Also because it gets in the way in certain places, especially more bright and complex ones like the face here (mostly visible in the hair so far). I guess there isn't a better solution around when doing this lineart workflow?

Typed above out just in case anybody has a better idea.

>>3847154
>(threw the order of things mostly out the window though).
That goes completely against the purpose of it and is why you got a shitty result.
> I think I should be striving to do the drawing well enough that this happens less.
Yes, it's pointless to throw value around without a good drawing.

Midtone > shadow > halftone between shadow and midtone > halftone between midtone and highlight > highlight. You have no contrast in your image because you're blending. Use a hard brush with no opacity or flow jitter until toward the end for polishing.

>>3847190
Very good advice

>>3847190
Thanks. Yeah, I'm gonna try the hard brush and be more accurate with the next drawing.

I'm just gonna noodle this until it's finished.

>>3848815
That's some straight up Ruan Jia shit.

>>3848841
tragically ngmi

>>3845253
Blending to make it as realistic as possible and then go over it with a textured brush.

>>3845272
Does anyone have a somewhat idea on how to get something like this result?
I understand the value order but I notice ppl often start blocked in with a gray then add a large air brush to get the gradient feel for the larger light spots i.e Sakimichan and wlop, should this be used instead of using a hard round to block in the mid tones
God I'm so confused and I can't seem to fall asleep until I find a decent improvement in my work
It feels like I'm going crazy

>>3849167
Some of it was airbrushed but not very much. Airbrushing is mainly for very big, shallow curves, like breasts and thighs, and they still taper off to hard shadows.

>>3845272
DONG

>>3848841
and not in a good way, lol

>>3845253
You take black background and then just block in your shape with grey.
And then using various tones of grey drop darker and lighter spots as you see them in reference.
Then blend between them with airbrush. And you get something similar,
Use smaller brush for thinner detailed lines.

>>3845302
You're probably going to a small brush too soon. You need to keep the edges clean at first. A lot of the pencil/chalk-like textures are likely effects added on top of a clean painting, so trying to get that look from the start is going to give you a lot of headaches and bad results.

Do not underestimate multiply/darken/overlay layer modes, or simply additional layers of various opacity, to gently but selectively push values/increase contrast.

>>3848841
Thanks, a man can dream.

>>3849291
Thanks man. I feel like you're right about the texturing, and your paintover is an improvement. Which brush did you use, airbrush or something? I'm asking because pic related (textured, 20% flow) is what I'm currently working with and it's what you see in >>3848815. It might be that I just suck too hard, but I have a hard time getting that soft, marble look.

For the time being I'm gonna work with one or two layers at normal mode, and one or two brushes (textured and maybe airbrush).

>>3845272
anyone have speedpaints for art like this?

>>3849298
Whoops, I meant to quote you with >>3849947
>Thanks man. I feel like you're right about the texturing [...]

>>3849947
>Which brush did you use, airbrush or something?

No. I'm not against airbrush with low flow, but it's wrong for this.

This is 99% hard round with size sensitivity turned off. Shapes are painted on a top layer, shaped with an eraser if necessary, then the contents dropped down to the bottom final layer. Values were bushed using an overlay layer. Every layer on top is locked to the silhouette (I recommend you make a drawing always. I'm only doing without because this is just a torso.)

Only a little bit of flat texture brush was used near the end to show you that it can be done separately. The only brush setting that is changed often is opacity - high opacity for shapes, low opacity later to blend.

Hard brushes at high opacity forces you to make meaningful strokes and shapes. It can be laid down quickly. This took less than 20 minutes to do because it's mostly high opacity. I'm not rubbing the same spot over and over to get a solid value.

This was done without reference and the lighting isn't necessarily accurate, but there's at least an air of believability because the shadow/light shapes all have a combination of hard and soft edges. This is something that's missing from your paintings, and it is very tough for you to do if you're noodling with a small brush at low opacity the entire time.

>>3851915
wait, you did this? you painted the pic you posted?
I'm not a fan of that glossy very smooth look but I think you might give me some insight on the work of Olya Bossak / Reykat, I have been obsessed with her for a while
How would you go about with this kind of painterly thing? It looks like she just goes over the volumes with a textured brush, like across the form?

>>3851926
Like how do you go over forms with visible lines across the volume but also have the value change across the line and at the same time you preserve the brushstroke in its entirety? I try to do this shit but I have to do over it and it looks just bad or I have to blend it. Either way it looks terrible, do you have some sort of video about how to physically reproduce this sort of across the volume stroke digitally?

>>3851932
made one absolutely clueless attempt at painting (first time I ever tried), but it looks awful, it's all blended over and it's all patchy and shitty

>>3851934
I can follow volumes in pencil decently

>>3851935
fuck this looks so nice. i'm coincidentally working on a reykat style thing right now lol. if it turns out semi decent i'll try and break down the process for you. it's kinda similar to what you're doing in pencil, just that every stroke contains a few more types of information if that makes any sense

>>3851936
That would be amazing, thank you so much. I still love line, ink and pencil above all but I would really like to be able to paint.
Do you have any blog / site I can follow?

I don’t recommend painting or doing anything too long in greyscale.

It will make your color peices dull and uninspired.

Mix it up and study colors.

>>3851915
Did you use hard round with no opacity pressure?

>>3851915
god damn

>>3851915
hey anon thanks for demonstrating it. Mind if you could post more of your work or any value studies? Also, blog?

>>3849947
I use manga studio, it is just standard paintbrush called "dense watercolor", standard airbrush called "soft" . And colors are picked from the OP post in the beningin

>>3851915
Thanks man. 20 minutes is sweet, I've probably been doing at least 5-10 hours of focused work on this. I'll be saving the thread once it's done. It'd be cool if additional skilled people could post tips.

>>3851915
Thanks for the tutorial. I am trying to apply it but even when I set opacity to 100% there is still a diffrence when I press down light vs hard.

>>3851915
you did this purely with a hardbrush?

>>3851915
Great post, it explained a lot. I only didn’t understand this part:

>then the contents dropped down to the bottom final layer.

Can you explain?

there is always nurzhan with his render technique. his gumroad is full good packs with psd and timelapse videos. can't afford it but hope some of you found it usefull.

>>3853767

I need these pirated

>>3853789
These are really easy to find. Don't be lazy.

>>3853811
they arent, there is only one posted on cgpeers and isnt that good

>>3853811

His Patreon stuff is not on cgpeers, can't seem to find it anywhere else

>>3853789
It’s only 9 dollars you communist

>>3853818

I actually bought his first gumroad "tutorial". It was just a timelapse though, so I wish I pirated it.

>>3853827
Lol, well I can understand getting gyped like that though. That is why I’m slow to drop money on any tutorial these days.

>>3853827
>buy tutorial, get a timelapse
god I fucking hate this so much

>>3853745
It's what ctrl-paint calls the temp layer method. It's a very simple concept.

Work with two layers. Paint on the top layer with only one color, shape and blend it until you get what you want, then drop the contents of the top layer to the bottom layer (rather than merging). Then repeat. If it helps to think of this as physical media, the top layer is when the paint is still wet, the bottom layer is fully dried. You don't mess with the bottom layer anymore.

This is a very easy way to paint complex shapes, and allows you to fine-tune silhouettes without any concern for undercuts. When painting in color, it also helps avoid muddiness that happens often when you're mixing colors on a single layer.

>>3853969
That was very helpful, thanks for the reply my friend.

>>3851915
upload a video showing the process pls

i tried

>>3854970
too shiny, unless she’s covered in oil. but nice job

Ok guise, i am struggling like mad here, I've never done colour or greyscale painting before, i always done line art or tonal drawing which was alright, cross hatch shading ect.

I can do a preddy guud study in 5 mins, i can nail landscape quite well but i really want to paint such as OPs picture.

Where do I start? How do you show the form, how do you get those subtle tonal changes, my stuff either comes out a blocky mess or a blury portrait, i try hard edges but i guess I may look to hard into the reference photo/person and place an edge where it isnt or wash one out too far.

Do you guys use long sweeping strokes or short sharp ones? Do you build up by re stroking a lot, do you start dark to light? From the mid tone out? Light to dark?

And how the fuck do you get wrinkles n shit?

>>3855564
>Where do I start?

Put more time into your studies than 5 minutes.

>>3855564
took me around 2-3 hours to do this >>3854970 and isnt even close to the result i wanted. if you think that you can reach these levels with 10 minutes studies you are fuck up

>>3855633
Not him, but I really like what you drew there and you seem to know your shit, so if I may inquire, how much do you look at reference with a study like that? I feel like I end up looking at the reference too much after a while, and it feels like I'm just "copying" if you know what I mean. Is that what it's supposed to be like? Or do you just doodle around it for a while, and check the reference sometimes to roughly eyeball what needs more work (say, every 5-10 minutes or so?)

>>3855616
>>>3855564 (You)
>>Where do I start?
>
>Put more time into your studies than 5 minutes.


I think he ment the line art, not the "rendering" part.

Also I think he's trying to ask how to build and build on a portrait for e.g, how to move the brush.

how important is it to set Photoshop colour depth to your monitors? Would it help in seeing shapes?

>>3851915
Teal, is that you?

>>3855663
for that piece i didnt use a reference, it was an old drawing and i used the torso to practice.

but if i use references i try to have the reference pic visible all the time, i try to copy the shadow too, but focusing in stylize it, depending of what kind of body im working with (anime, cartoon, realistic)

there is no shame, anon. is just a tool, you will level up and be able to create your own shadows, but you need to study first.

>>3855728
SAUCE

>>3855736
nvm found her, Natasha Aughey
not as good as I thought

>>3855728
I see what youre going for, try enveloping before boxes/cylinders ect, also try and get your lines to be sweeping/dynamic

>>3851915
for easier save

>>3855701
I was thinking the same tbqh

So how do i study this? Do i just copy b&w pics? Or should i copy coloured photos trying to see only value?
Pic related i tried doing it but gave up without finishing it

>>3855803
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lzchH4SEU

>>3854970
did you only use a hard round brush to get that?
plz i need help

>>3856154
Sure if your skin is made of plastic.

>>3851915
Quite helpful, thanks.

>>3851915
>This is 99% hard round
It's a great post, but how accurate is this? Did you use a soft edge eraser to get a lot of your midtones between value areas? There's a gap in understanding for me here, because going from the second to third silhouette shows a lot of soft edges, and I fail to see how you achieve those. I'm going to assume you used a soft edge eraser otherwise, since I want to attempt this technique as soon as possible.

>>3853767
>can't afford it but hope some of you found it usefull.
>quiero esto!
I've seen two packs and they're not worth the time and effort. Eventually you'll stop being impressed by it.

>>3853969
>then drop the contents of the top layer to the bottom layer (rather than merging)
That's a slightly confusing way to describe temp layers. You do end up merging at points throughout either to the original temp layer or back to only one layer, creating a new temp layer when needed.
https://www.ctrlpaint.com/videos/temp-layers

>>3853789
Literally how entitled do you have to be to have this be your immediate response?
>>3853827
In none of his gumroad packages does he claim that his he is selling tutorials. He very clearly states he's selling videos of his process. I purchased one of his packages and the process videos included were well enough done, and the one I purchased had multiple speeds, so you can fully watch how he works in real time if you want, including all of the layers he uses, what brushes he uses, how he creates his values edges using which tools or techniques, and many other things. Don't misrepresent it.

>>3856352
I suppose I should clarify the verbiage a bit. I use these terms in a generic sense because I use multiple software packages. I assume you're using photoshop.

In photoshop, I consider anything at 75 hardness and above as a hard brush. I like the textures PS produces at the highest hardness settings, but if you want something smoother, a hardness of 80 is just fine. Same thing with eraser. You can go lower if you want.

For controlling opacity in PS, one would be using the flow setting. 80 and above for something solid, 50 and below when blending or erasing. This I feel is what makes the most difference.

Again, I have nothing against soft brushes. But the issue with going all soft is that the shapes are often lost. Not values, not blending, just weak shapes and edges.

>>3856438
Ah, so you use low flow to build your values up during that stage then? Do you still keep your values relatively simplified? (ie only having, say, 5 base values, and use a low flow hard brush to gradate into them?)

Thanks for the info, btw.

>>3856372
>That's a slightly confusing way to describe temp layers.

It's confusing to you because photoshop doesn't have a transfer down command. Other programs like CSP and Sai do.

>>3856376

hi nurzhan

>>3856460
I've been using CSP for a little over a year now but never knew about the transfer feature. It's useful to know but seems like it's a macro for merging down and creating a new layer, which I'm already quick at doing with my shortcuts. Are there any other benefits to it? I didn't notice any different behavior with testing multiply and a few other blending modes.

>>3856472
Hilarious.

In all seriousness, it's not nurzhan's fault you can't read.

>>3856474
No real benefits other than being one keystroke instead of three. The tedium adds up, especially if your workflow involves a lot of clipping groups.

>>3851915
>this
>20 mins
>hard brush
This is a post from a legit professional or some shit. I know a bunch of intermediate artists and they can't do THIS in 20 mins
Did you post in the drawthread before by any chance? Because either I haven't seen you post before ever or you're one of two people in the drawthread that are skilled enough to pull this off

fuck i suck. plz halp.

how do i get all those small details, the seratus(spelling?) the smooth transitions, the blending!?

i dont understand how to start honestly, how to male the strokes, ive only been art'ing for a year

>>3856729
In all honesty, 20 minutes looks like bullshit to me, no matter the skill level this kind of rendering takes time.

>>3855741
how dare you insult my wheyfu, unworthy scum

>>3857347
sorry man, I am put off by the extreme narcissism of these people

>>3857252
feel like ive wasted a bunch of hours here now. do i restart?

>>3857252

Don't be discouraged. If you have your values roughed out it's quite easy to start rendering. I just used one blending brush and a medium hard brush here. If you want to achieve a smooth finish it's easier to work from soft to hard, so I started by blending the rough brush strokes together and then went over with the hard brush. Rinse and repeat. Shapes basically comes down to observation and simplification + experience

>>3857381
You are going gods work, anon. Bless ya.

>>3857381
so go from smooth edges to hard?

>>3856490
That's what I figured. I forgot to say in that post but I swapped ctrl+e from merge down to transfer down in my CSP settings before I made that post. The shortcut is ingrained in me and it seemed to have only have positives since it maintained the layer count. Thanks for making me aware of it.

>>3857570
Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Lol

>>3857381
that looks awful, she looks metallic learn how to control your edges.

>>3857724
Its like rendering in watercolor

>>3856460
Idk what you mean exactly by "transfer down", but photoshop does have a "Merge Down" option in which the top layer gets "deleted" and merged into the layer right underneath it.

>>3857819
I'm not him. CSP has it too, but transfer is like merging down + creating a new empty layer on the top. So you have to press 1 button instead of 2. Sounds silly but it does speed up the workflow quite a lot.

>>3857833
Aaaah, I see.

Yeah that does sound like something that might come into handy. Not that you can't make a keyboard shortcut / macro for it in photoshop.. well, come to think of it, I might just do that lol. Thanks for the tip.

i tried /ic/ how'd i do?

>>3857350
well you're not wrong i suppose

>>3857895
Pay more attention to the actual values. Darker darks. Don't be tentative when it comes to value, it's the key to creating the illusion of depth and volume.

Couple of other points -

Measure! The belly button is too low. The right breast is lower than the left, because the figure's arm is raised up, which moves the whole pack of muscles the breasts ride on top of. The nipples are also pointing in the wrong directions - you will never see both nipples from straight on at the same time, unless it's a really bad boob job - the nipples are at somewhere around an angle to each other, on axis from the spine, so if you see one straight on, the other will be in profile (the angle will factor things like size, weight, shape, etc.)

Pay more attention to some of the transitional areas, like in the cleavage, some blending there would help. You have hard edges, and it's not a crease, it's a smooth curve.

It's not a bad attempt, pay more attention to those things, adjust the values, and try to define the outside contour more confidently.

>>3857895
I'd strongly recommend using photos of sculptures rather than 3d models for greyscale exercises. This looks like a preview rendering, it's front-lit, there's a lot of fill light, and there's no reflected light. You're missing out on a lot of things that naturally look good.

Hi all,

Some of the work here is fantastic, even if it's not correct ect. Keep going anons.

I'm curious to get into BnW rendering but I find the Brushes i usually use are shit, can anyone recommend a good brush set that doesnt have those shitty "photoshop brushes" where the brush pops up in the corner. I lack blending brushes and in general i find the std brushes shiiiet.

Also i desperately want some authentic looking "painterly"brushes which recreate brush strokes not dots and string

>>3858504
download kyle's set and find something sorta textured. don't fuss too much and just go.

>>3858723
Is that all it's called?

>>3853292
learn to draw beore rendering.
>dat chin

>>3857355

Same guy, did I do any better this time?

Kyles Brush set is preddy guud, feels comfortable to use

>>3845253
>>3845256
>>3845272
>painting from light to dark
>not dark to light

>>3859676
w-where can i get kyle set

>>3859988
Just google Kyle T Webster Brush set, can get the ultimate pack and some hatching pack n more. Just google breh.

>>3859218
https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/brushes.html

>>3859692
idk for some people it's easier to do light to dark
different strokes for different folks ya kno

>>3859676
This shit is nice, anon

what the fuck is a hard brush

>>3860595
When the paint dries on your brush so the bristles are hard and five a texture to your strokes
Van Gogh and Schniezler used this technique occasionally

>>3860598
Have*

>>3860600
what is hard round and how does it work in digital

>>3860603

The standard round brush in most digital art software. It is also called the circle brush occassionally. Ignore the idiot talking about traditional art above

>>3845253
someone post a cool statue/bust
I want to practice

>>3859676
Another quick study as i was out n about, used Kyles pallet knife, desu no goal here but to just throw shapes down and see what happens

>>3860856
9 hours later and I realised i put this in the wrong thread

>>3845253
is this a real sculpture? Anyone know the name and artist?

>>3861633
dont google it, it's totally fake

>>3861633
I dont know what the sculpture is called, but here is a irl pic of it. Artist is Lin Ran http://blog.sina.com.cn/linran315

>>3858039
>>3857999
i tried again
this one was a lot harder for me i guess cuz there's a lot more forms to care form
i feel like i finished a bit quicker so im happy about that

>>3861733

Light and shadow is too close in value which makes it take on a translucent quality.

>>3861733
>>3861738

To remedy this, I suggest you spend more time in the so called "cartoon" stage, where light and shadow is clearly divided into two separate values.

>>3861741
Do you just use hard round to get soft edges or do you mix both air brush and hardround
I've heard ppl say to just use hard round for both hard and soft edges but I can't seem to get it smooth and comes off as blocky
Rn I use lasso and airbrush to get the larger soft edges then get smaller soft edges using a hard round if need be
If it's not smooth enough I go over with a soft round till I like it
Is this a alright procedure if I wish to get a product like >>3845272

>>3861733

Here is an exercise for you to try, as a last effort to impress upon you the importance of starting as hard and opaque as you can, for as long as you can. Do not pass the work off as your own, do not post it, just keep the product of this exercise to yourself.

Take your reference and in Photoshop change the color mode to indexed color. Select 6 for the number of colors and turn off dithering. Then change it to greyscale. Now paint over it and blend it and try to get it back to looking like your reference. Hopefully, you'd find this easier than whatever method you're using now. Look back at >>3855760 and try to understand why it started the way it did.

>>3860805
is it usually max opacity or something? dunno settings for it or if it even exists in CSP. Been using some random shit i dl'd or slightly modified from vanilla for as long as I can remember.

i just want to know what everyones talking about all the time so i can understand their logic

>>3861680
thank you!

>>3845253
The lineart is either on a layer either on top of or below the painting before being turned off. Other than that the artist probably masked off the silhouette filled it in with a dark value and went from dark to light.

>>3851915
ACTUAL FEEDBACK ON 4CHAN?!!

>>3853969
...I might try that! I already use one or 3 layers max, but I just make them in/visible & change the opacity of the layers before flattening it all.

>>3845253
>Grayscale characters without lineart
This is a painters technique and illustrators shouldn't dive into this. There's nothing wrong in drawing lines, fill in colors and shade, then removing lines and cleaning up edges.
If you're set on doing this without outlines then do a bunch of paintings using reference to get accustomed with identifying silhouettes and values.

When painting always start with dark values and progressively add lighter and lighter values.

>>3861633
thats a bernini.

>>3862239
>>Grayscale characters without lineart
>This is a painters technique and illustrators shouldn't dive into this.

I'm not sure what you mean by illustrators, exactly. Digital painting is roughly used for two things, illustration and concept art. Some concept artists use painterly techniques too. Either way I am not seeing the distinction you are making.

>There's nothing wrong in drawing lines, fill in colors and shade, then removing lines and cleaning up edges.

I agree. There seems to be a misconception going around here that we should all strive to do studies without a drawing phase.

>When painting always start with dark values and progressively add lighter and lighter values.

I'd be a bit careful with making hard and fast rules like that. There are many different approaches that are legit. Craig Mullins gives a demo on two approaches in his digital painting course; the first one is working with a clear separation of light and shadow from the start, and the second one is the misty approach where you start from the midtones and work your way to the darks and lights, like a lot of asian digital painters are doing.

>>3862020
alternatively, a thing i picked up from krenz was adding a posterize layer. it defaults to 4 colors although sometimes i don't really like ps's black and white or posterize algorithms. it can be a good tool to stick with only a few values at the start of a painting.

>>3862048
It's the airbrush. I followed this video and made my own though because by default it doesn't behave that similarly to PS. Make sure you have mix ground or whatever it's called not bound to a key so you can turn it off to behave like other airbrushes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZbJYAVmghk&t=20s

A bump to let this thread stay up a bit longer as it has become a good resource

>>3864985
Same

>>3856729
>>3857272
Out of curiosity, how long does it take you to render a basic sphere?

>>3867517
About 20 minutes :^)

>>3867517
Several hours with a hard brush.

>>3867547
>>3867550
I see why you might be having problems.

>>3862013
Is this some kind of copypaste?

>>3867597
>placed the highlight incorrectly
baka senpai
Jokes aside, what's that you used at 00:10?

>>3867607
Nope sorry if it confused you
I can restructure it if you want

>>3862020
>Take your reference and in Photoshop change the color mode to indexed color. Select 6 for the number of colors and turn off dithering. Then change it to greyscale. Now paint over it and blend it and try to get it back to looking like your reference.
holy fuck
this is what I've needed
thank you anon

>>3856729
hint: it's a certain redliner that used to be really active on /ic/

>>3867778
>what's that you used at 00:10?
As I had mentioned prior, it's an overlay layer to push values. It's kind of great and overlooked for this. The brush is hard throughout.

>placed the highlight incorrectly
Just so we're clear, you know the highlight's position is determined by the viewer's position relative to the lightsource and object, and should not be at the center of the lit side, right?

>>3867882
TEAL?!

>>3868130
>Just so we're clear, you know the highlight's position is determined by the viewer's position relative to the lightsource and object, and should not be at the center of the lit side, right?
Man, I don't fucking know, I barely draw because I have brain problems(?) and the time I do spend drawing is like 9/10th line stuff and the rest is painting, I do a bunch of value studies on greyscaled photos but I still don't really get anything about light, volume, or whatever. I have less experience with painting than linework which says a lot about how much I know about art
I didn't say that about the highlight because I thought I was right, I was just fucking with you for funsies. Thanks for clearing that up though.
I'd ask you for a blog of any kind because this is one of the most useful threads and skilled work I've seen on this board, but I'm 99% sure it's not going to come

>>3868130
>Just so we're clear, you know the highlight's position is determined by the viewer's position relative to the lightsource and object, and should not be at the center of the lit side, right?
Not that anon, but...
Yeah that's true. But in case of a sphere if you'll make a line from it's center to it's highlight, then it should point towards the light source. In your example that line points too low. Highlight is basically a reflection of lightsource. Scott Robertson did some excellent tutorials about rendering reflective surfaces; you should check them out.

In conclusion: your highlight should be slightly higher.

>>3868264

You can *always* make a line between two points. In this case, it just implies you're viewing the sphere from a lower angle, i.e. the sphere is above your line of sight.

>where a single white dot goes on a masterful rendering
ah yes truly a hot-button debate

>>3868280
>. In this case, it just implies you're viewing the sphere from a lower angle
No you idiot, when you move lower, then highlight moves lower as well.

>>3868287

Re-read what you just wrote.

>>3861680
dayum bitch wash yo ass

can you guys redpill me on hard round brush?

is there any config i need to use? im not a fan of photoshop, because i dont know how to rotate the canvas and im always coming back to sai.

>>3845253
Have you looked at the work of Wangjie Li? His facebook also has more of his greyscale paintings.

He teaches a class at CDA in Pasadena, I've seen work similar to what you posted from the students taking it.

>>3868642
>Wangjie Li
>checks his bio
>2013 work

>>3868669
>recent work
fuuuuuuuck

>>3868669
I'm retarded. I think that's his way earlier work.
This one is from 2014

>>3868562
>because i dont know how to rotate the canvas
you sound fucking brainless. it's R. and key to hard round is using only opacity and/or flow jitter and either going fully opaque or using further down like 20-60% flow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nt9fa8jZUE&t=20s

>>3868682
Not the replied, but good tutorial for beginners.

>>3868682
That's a good tutorial for starters.

>>3859676

I love it so much

the eye is perfect with emotion

>>3857751
I think he did that as a draft to show how it's done before it gets refined, autismo.

>>3868562
>hard round
needlessly difficult to make anything good, don't bother with it

>>3845272
Decided to study this a bit, changed it up a bit though. Found it very helpful.

>>3845272
Decided to use this as a little value study. Changed it a decent bit, but very helpful nonetheless.

>>3862020
He's not really into breakfast.

>>3868671
Projectile vomit does have its charm, in hell.

>>3868671
My beuatiful little chicken ass perches on her roof here here and here and not try to argue me.

>>3870357
why did u give her tumors in her stomach?

>>3870487
Wangjie is that you? You've gotten really good dude keep on perching on roofs or whatever good job

>>3870518
To be fair to that anon the ref has a fucked up stomach too bruh

Stopping here, helpful thread

Tell me the truth anon. How bad is this, I know my values are shit. I only recently went into digital and painting in general. Any advice?

>>3873998

You are copying a sketch from imagination which wasn't accurate to begin with. I'd say use actual reference of a statue.

I tried following this >>3851915 but as a beginner I still struggle with proper block in. Am I doing it right?
What I did so far in other studies is just kinda find a way to block in stuff badly but mostly I'd jump too early to blending and soft brushes, of course I understand that is not a good way to go on about it, block in right now feels like my biggest issue process wise

>>3876126

This is perfectly fine, maybe even more complex than necessary since a lot of the tones will occur as you blend.

Even blending a bit haphazardly will result in something that looks good, while still retaining the overall structure. This is the stage where you refine shapes, push values deeper into the light and dark, and begin to incorporate some texturing work at the edges and other painterly choices like line work. You'll notice by starting hard and without texture, you can be very selective about their placement at later stages.

Side note, I would recommend that you ignore artifacts left over from casting when doing studies.

>>3876780
going from bw to color like that is interesting. I know painting stricly in a "color" blend mode can be a bad idea though, what steps do you go through to color making sure the values are preserves?

>>3876833

Think of overlay over b/w as laying down an initial color palette, rather than painting. Once you get the range of colors you want, then you can color pick from it and paint over on a top layer.

This may seem extraneous for those who paint directly with color, but this is an easy way to get a full range and natural color palette without consulting a reference.

>>3876780
Forgive me for saying this anon but I really really hope you stick around on /ic/. This board is in desperate need of competent artists willing to give advice.
>Side note, I would recommend that you ignore artifacts left over from casting when doing studies.
What do you mean by this, exactly? I'm not sure what casting means, are you referring to the edges of the figure because i used the lasso tool and it looks kinda jagged?

>>3877397

I'm referring to this part which I believe is called a runner or a sprue (maybe a sculptor can chime in). If this is a cast, then that is the remnant of a hole through which the metal flowed through the mold. Or maybe this is a sculpture and that was left there for structural support. Either way, I don't think you should include that in your study.

>>3877412
Oh I see, I just included it for the sake of accuracy, but you're right.
I tried blending but I'm a little scared I went overboard, and everything is kinda too soft edged. I don't have much control over combining hard and soft edges yet. Maybe it's also that I didn't use a brush with density dynamics (I think flow is the equivalent for photoshop, I use CSP) and instead did everything with a hard round brush + blur tool for blending, and the occasional airbrush.
Thank you very much for your help by the way. This method feels a lot faster and accurate compared to the mess I was doing before. I will try to use it in imagination work

>>3876126

So i can usually thrash this stage out really well, however i have no idea how to blend or what is meant by blending?

What tools best to use in photoshop? Hard opacity or a gradual opacity and joust going over and over it again and again?

>>3876780
Damn, how do you give this colors ? I never manage to make good looking colors from b&w. How do you do that ?

>>3877653

There are couple of different methods. Nowadays I use CSP, but as gay as it may sound I found sakimichans blur brush with scatter to be rather good for blending. I'm sure it's in one of her brush packs

>>3877880
Brilliant, I'll take a look, whats your opinion on CSP? I've got Corel painter, Photoshop i find it Annoying picking up new software but i think other software have better brushes, Corel painters Dry brush is epic, a real paint on canvas feel.

I'm trying to just find a light weight but powerful piece of software to use on my Wacpm Studio (Mobile) because Photoshop at large canvas sizes slows down.

I have Kyles brush pack and when selecting one of his brushes even on a 1920x1080/300ppi the brush is huge!

Just a fyi I've not stuck my nose into software at all, i just chuck linea down or tone and paint. No layers.. ever

>>3877759
https://mega.nz/#!rQ5BhKwa!xWY6AX-vIWPvQGQeMgyKOfA-TMS8qhGudUxAORAgCeQ

>>3878823
not him, but thank you so much for this

>>3878823
you're a god

>>3878823
Holy shit

>>3876780
What the fucking fuck
who are you?!

>>3876780
I want to paint like you some day.

>>3857751

I think you forgot to attach your overpaint, anon.

>>3845253
Linran spends a lot of time on his pieces, whatever you imagine you're likely underestimating how long it takes. Try spending a month replicating the effect before you come back for advice

I'm pretty sure this is a photo study of a sculpture which shaves time off every lighting decision. The tools used are fairly obvious in the less refined areas. Looks like a mixture of a wet round, a soft brush for the final shading (you'd be surprised at what you can pull off with numerous passes of a small soft brush) and a light bristle texture brush. Be careful with the near blacks, dark values don't lend well to skintones

>>3883693
Yeah I realized at a later point that it's based off a photo. Still impressive.

On another note, here's what >>3852504 ended up like before I scrapped it, might as well post it since thread's still alive. It turned out too lame considering all the nights I spent painting it but it was still a good lesson in terms of value/shape stacking and edge. Still don't know why I went with a 20 gray for the darkest value instead of 0.

I feel like I should maybe drop the textured brush for the pure painting stuff for the time being and focus on getting good value shapes instead. I've spent some time just looking at good painters' paintings and I realize more and more the power of shape/value/edge (no shit)

>>3883723
Also forgot to mention: I used to be the type who would crunch one drawing in one night (unhealthy) but my mind was blown when I watched that Ruan Jia seminar/whatever on YouTube and he casually scrolls through all those revisions of huge awesome paintings that he must have spent weeks working at. Since then I've started trying to spend more time on my works. That's also really obvious on an intellecual level but you understand it really well when you see it like that.

>>3883728
Please gib ruan jia link

>>3883723
I think not putting 0 as the darkest was a good idea. Linran also recommends you to stay away from 0% and 100%

>>3883723
This is nice, anon! I would keep pushing on this, that cat face in the background is really effective and I'm curious to see how much further you can take the rest of it. Well done.

>>3878823
Thank you so much for sharing your work, this is really useful! BW -> Color has always been a mystery to me.

>>3876780
best thread on /ic/ for a long time, this is appreciated.

Holy shit, this thread is GOLD.

I have a ton of tests this week so I can't practice this soon, how can I save this thread for future reference?

Hey OP, could we make a general rendering study thread for value studies like this? Master anon was so kind to impart his knowledge to us, I think more people would surely benefit from this.

We could do studies from statues and help others get better at it too.

>>3884501
Just go through the thread and screenshot the best advice. It's what I do most of the time.

>>3884076
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX1Qr6vmzMU
I think it was this one.

>>3884086
I also read that once and I think it makes sense generally, but I'm not sure how literally you're supposed to interpret it, and if it always applies. For example, OP pic by the guy himself has a background that is really dark or black at the bottom. Pic related by RJ that I like also has a few well placed blacks, many of his paintings do. It'd be fun with people's opinions.

>>3884095
Thanks. Might do some alternate version of the girl and cat in the future. The cat in that pic was originally a cliff and I think it shows in how the foreground and background feel disjointed (at least for me). I was also unable to solve the background, I just put down a bunch of 20 gray and dust. Now that's probably not how you're supposed to use your maximum darks.

>>3884507
I'm flattered that you'd ask me but I'm clueless at value studies (hence this thread) and have no ref pics so I'm probably not the guy to greenlight/lead that effort now. This thread magically worked out because skilled anons deigned to post and people didn't shitpost. I think someone needs to lead by example or it'll become the usual image dump. Maybe try it if you feel lucky?

Could someone help me?

So I did this, following master anon:
>no opacity brush
>tried a 5 value scale
>built the ref using those values

I already had difficulty here because theres just so many shapes and the values aren't very clear to me, so this looked like complete garbage.

>unfazed by being garbage, I moved on
>tried blending everything
>again, hard to deal with shapes
>tried the temp layer approach master anon referenced to some success
>tried the overlay layer but I have absolutely no idea how to use it

Any tips will be highly appreciated, I was in flow for like an hour trying this, this was very fun even though I'm complete shit at it.

Also resources or couses on doing this type of study too.

>>3885481
There's Bargue plates to work on to help you get going on measuring and modeling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znr1OY-aHhM&list=PL3aPoNPQSJnSJVw2_GUVR7jC0nbnksq6F&index=5
In a study like this you probably don't care about measuring though so it's fine to trace over the picture for the line work/masking. It looks like a painting or filtered render of a 3D sculpt with weird lighting. It isn't the best reference, there's some odd bumps here and there, so not really great imo for copying.

To see the values more clearly, don't squint but close your eyes enough to blur and compact the shapes into a shadow (you can try something like a black and white, then posterize filter if you're really lost, save it for after to "check" but remember it's only an algorithm). There wasn't a need to blend it when what you started with was rocky. For starters, your background is much lighter than the source which throws off perception of values in your own work.

As practice, grab an inking brush and use that as your line for mapping shadows. I like using it to practice jitter of line weight, dexterity, and inking. Start with a filled midtone and then laying solely shadow. When you're good with that try adding the highlights. Do a bunch of 2 or 3 value sketches, getting used to adding and subtracting the ink by painting over it with the midtone to develop the shapes you want. Good shapes are more important than your rendering right now, convincing shapes sell the believability of the piece. This is a quick sketch I did with the left image originally in color, and I posterized and monotoned it after for this comparison. I'm using Kyle's ultimate rough inking 2 in PS, I added that lighter grey background to distinguish my blacks from getting lost. I'm not thrilled with it, but it's ok because you can still change a lot at this step. Forms are going to be tough to design sight/size if you don't have the anatomical understanding of where they are in 3D space.

>>3885632
Thanks!! I appreciate your input. What reference would you suggest?

The thing about the background, I'll remember it in the future, try to match the background of the image to not be thrown off by my perception of relative value.

I'll practice with the ink brush and do 3 value studies from now on until I git better.

Really, thanks a lot anon, I hope you all the best.

Lastly, do you think I should use the lasso tool to help me design the shapes? Or just temp layers to paint and merge for each shape?

>>3885982
>Lastly, do you think I should use the lasso tool to help me design the shapes? Or just temp layers to paint and merge for each shape?
You're overcomplicating things. Make a mask or mask layer for the body or object you'll be painting, fill that with your midtone (similar to flatting process). Make a layer above and clip it to the masked layer. With hard edges there shouldn't be a need to select or temp layer. If you want to refine a shape, subtract away from it with the color surrounding it. In the image I posted, if I want to reduce a black shape I'll color pick the midtone and then draw over the black. It's a fundamental painting method, you don't need an eraser or temp layer when you can cover it in more paint. You don't have to be so precious at this stage and if you make a mistake, you can undo or do it again. If you've done it once before, it shouldn't be "lucky" to be able to do it again.

This thread is the perfect example of what /ic/ could and should be. Thanks, and Godspeed, you rare bunch.

>>3851915
>Values were bushed using an overlay layer

What do you mean by this? I'm assuming it's a typo bushed=brushed, but what are you using overlay for?

>>3859676
alright sure but there's like a million dirty low opacity brush strokes ruining it

>>3886473
Thanks!

>>3886721
"Pushed."

Black on an overlay layer gently lowers value and increases saturation of whatever is underneath.

do i use soft brush for soft edges or hard brush with low opacity

Found the ref.

>>3888301
yikes, it's not directly traced for the entire thing but certain parts match up perfectly when you size up and move the image around