[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   
File: 504 KB, 1300x800, comparison.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1644703 No.1644703 [Reply] [Original]

I don't know if I got any better but I think I stopped being so lazy.

What do you guys think?

>> No.1644710

2009 version > 2014 version

>> No.1644711

I prefer the 09 version, I consider it more pleasing to look at.

2014 has some very jarring issues imho:

-Eyes aren't expressive at all
-Lost implied detail (texture, hair)
-Planes are less defined, overall it looks very plain -Blurred background

>> No.1644716

>>1644703
All you did was change your style. You haven't learned shit.
You're still the same
You're still lazy
You're still shit

>> No.1644717

>>1644716
>>>/b/

>> No.1644719

>>1644703
I like the new one - forms read much better. The first did have a lot more character though. You should be able to combine the strengths of both fairly easily.

>> No.1644723

You got worse and lazier.

>> No.1644730

You let fear stop you.

>> No.1644799

>>1644703

that kind of improvement can be made in a month :o

hope ur not an aspiring pro

>> No.1644809

>>1644703
I prefer the first, much more painterly, it's just more interesting. The spots, for example, and the hair. The 2014 version is much too smoothed out and looks like early 3D CGI shit, which I'm personally not incredibly fond of. The first has a great contemporary illustration look. Even that subtle blue reflected light on the side of the head is great.

>> No.1644818
File: 1.95 MB, 400x319, 1385837761541.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1644818

>>1644703
first is so much better. this is so obvious. In fact...it actually looks good enough to be in one of those oficial books.
second...
so un-interesting. like your brain got raped by CG-forums and some modern videogame-design crap so you for some reason decided to turn bright inspiring character into some kind of random faceless aline because
>muh videogame cg needz more realism cause its coool
remember what made you better back then and combine with your new knowleges.

>> No.1644836

you honestly got a lot worse. there is nothing appealing about that zoidberg on the right at all.

>> No.1644837

let me guess, you stopped for a while?

also is this zoidberg?

>> No.1644859

I like that you are definitely learning to draw form.

Combine the fun on the left with the knowledge of the right.

>> No.1644892

>>1644837
>is this zoidberg?
Have you been living under a rock or are you just 12 ?

>> No.1644895

>>1644892

>The game

>> No.1644912

the first one is much more interesting, in particular the texture, the 14 one looks to smooth and generic it lost all its character

>> No.1644920

>>1644703
Dude the second is leagues worse than the first. But If you had been drawing from that 2009 photo till now, regularly, you could see that. The fact that you don't know shows that you gave up drawing for a while and your "eye" ability pretty much died. Looks like you have years to catch back up to your 2009 self again... what a shame.

>> No.1644957

>>1644920
that's not how that works. so shuddup.
>>1644703
the newer one is certainly leagues better in terms of how it sits in space, the textures and weight. the old one is just more charming. the old one looks like a character, the newer one looks like a still-life of a movie monster mask.

i can't help but think if you had just kept the pupils in there it might of been more well received.

there's still some lazy bits here and there though. mainly around the chin and neck,

>> No.1644959

>>1644957
Wat? It just wasn't the pupils... almost everything is wrong. All the life is gone in the second drawing, not to mention the colors are desaturated and boring, lighting is worse, the silhouette is awful, and most of all the texturing is just WAY worse. Just so much wrong with the second.

>> No.1644986

>>1644959
how's that bandwagon working out for you?

>> No.1644989

>>1644986
Mate, he's right. The second one looks like a failed attempt at looking pro. "oh look, no pupils, plain colours, it's so serious !" The first one feels more humble, in my opinion; the colours are pleasant, the details look pretty good.
Do you seriously prefer the second one ?

>> No.1645005

>>1644986
Bandwagon? I saw how shitty the second was before I read a single comment in this thread.
Nice argument though. "I CAN'T ARGUE A GOOD POINT SO I'M JUST GONNA SCREAM BANDWAGON."
Go be a hipster somewhere else.

>> No.1645050

I’m glad this generated different opinions and, to tell you the truth, I like the 2009 version a little more in terms of design and character. However In this new version I tried a very different approach. Yes I tried to give it a more realistic look and I didn’t want the brushstrokes to look so evident. You could say I was based too much on the reference I got from the internet. This is Admiral Ackbar by the way.

What I don’t like about my first design is that in general it looks flat, its rich in texture but it lacks depth. Those are technical aspects of the drawing but it is what I wanted to improve. I think what some of what you said is true, I should combine element of both pictures.

>> No.1645052
File: 41 KB, 360x480, Ackbar_HS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1645052

>>1645050
by the way this is OP. Thats the reference I used.

>> No.1645053

>>1644703
How do you get worse over time?

>> No.1645062

Seriously OP, what the hell?

>> No.1645063

op i swear to god you better be trolling, because the first one is way better.... is this the result of /ic/? because i dont want to progress into something worse.. fuck now im worried.

>> No.1645066

>>1645050
>>1645052

I feel like your definition of depth, takes away from style, which nowadays is more important (realism art gets you no jobs). Your 2009 drawing holds strong because you took Ackbar and made it your own in your (old) style... very strongly even... what ever you think you need to do to add depth... don't... because the right one has less imo.

>> No.1645072

>>1645063
Dont go to /ic/ for critiques, in fact dont go anywhere on 4chan for critiques. You'll generally get comments like "Seriously OP, what the hell?" that contain no real critique at all and instead leave you pondering what you did wrong. Most people here have massive superiority complexes or no real knowledge of art at all.

>> No.1645073

>>1644703
Dear god the 2014 one looks like an amateur who started painting in photoshop 2 months ago...
Yet 2009 looks like a strong artist who's been going for 2-3 years and developed a style.

So in 2009 you had something many people struggle finding, a style, or at least the start of one.
And in 2014, you have dog shit. How could you get THAT much worse in 5 years? Dear god. I need to abandon /ic/ quick...

>> No.1645075

OP. What do YOU think?

>> No.1645077

>>1645073
OP: its alright mate. I almost never visit /ic/ anymore so it is probably the opposite of what you think. I have distanced myself from the art community.

However I don't feel bad at all. I am noticing most of the hate towards the second picture is based on the idea of "Realism doesn't mean its good or better" and other prejudices around realistic CG stuff. I guess I am just experimenting with styles and painting methods. This was a bad comparison because the first one was more like a detailed caricature (more charming in a way) while the second one looks more like a render.

What I get is that I guess I should go back to develop a style rather than focusing on the rendering part too much.

>> No.1645086

>>1645077
Almost every artist eventually gets to the point where it can copy something realistically... so it's not that special (except for blowing the minds of family members and non artist friends who think you're a god) yet it's still important and needed for an artist personally achieve, so don't stop trying. What most artist struggle with is finding a strong style to make them stand out from the sea of artists, not achieving realism because that just comes to everyone with time, which is why people are flipping their shit in this thread.

>> No.1645091

>>1645077
You shouldn have never abonded the style developement. Skill and style need to go hand in hand.
It almost looks like you were listening to /ic/ who cry about muh style all the time and stopped developing it.

>> No.1645117

You shouldn't really worry about trying to find a style. Paint and draw however you want to and something will develop that people will call your style. I think both portraits have strengths and weaknesses and a combination of both may give you something that you are looking for in the development of your artistic growth.

>> No.1645160

You're going through a phase. First you have imagination and no skills, then you have no imagination and good (and constantly improving) skills. What comes after that is up to you.

>> No.1645296
File: 2.76 MB, 1869x1168, sick style bro.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1645296

>>1645091

>> No.1645301

>>1644703
I like the old colors better. Seems you got better at rendering and at doing shadows, but the colors in the old one look way better . Also the old eyes with the yellow and black look better than a solid sphere.

>> No.1645303

>>1645296
Idiot.

>> No.1646641

>>1644703
You got worse ;f
Lets start with the first thing that is worse in 2014 version.
Form readability.
I honestly cnat tell how far in the space ins the chin, the chin spikes, and the neck, or is it a uniform wall of stuff. I can tell in the 2009 one.

Face anatomy and structure.
Where is his neck ending and where is it connecting ?
Where does his jaw go, where it ends ? In the eye ?
Old one was easy, it goes under the eyes, here ? I have no idea.
Where are his eyelids ? The old one has them.

Detail and rest balance.
2009 version has focused detail areas, eyes, nose, moth, rest is clean, your eyes automatically get drawn to the eyes.
2014 version ? Top is smooth but the whoel middle are is a mess of detail and form, i have no idea where to look., the neck is over detailed draws too much attention, the eyes seem empty, the nose is kind of there.


Overall, really weird, i would tell the left one is 2014 and the right 2009.

>> No.1646953

>mfw all the people yelling OP got worse
While this may be the case in the comparison picture, it's in no way any evidence that he's actually become any worse.
I want to see more comparisons.

>> No.1646975

The real dilemma is that you don't show form well enough. Left image is more flattering because the angle of the character shows more shape and had more interesting forms for you to work with, so even as an older image when you were less skilled, the subject is simply more interesting--thus looks better.

Right image is less flattering because of the reference image you chose takes on an angle where the characters head just looks like an egg. You couldn't define this egg properly, because you aren't showing the subtle shapes.

In other words, your rendering improved, but your understanding of how things work hasn't. I'd say don't focus so much on painting, but learning shapes, perspective, objects and form.

Notable example is the chin and all the danglies on his face. In the reference image, notice how thin and shapely they are. Notice how in BOTH your images, left and right suffer from making them solid, thick cones. It's kind of the equivalent of drawing sausage fingers, rather than real fingers. It doesn't matter how much you try to render your sausage fingers, at the end of the day they're still not going to look like fingers.