[ 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: 992 KB, 2592x1936, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1729746 No.1729746[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What do you guys think of my portrait of cara deli so far?

>> No.1729747

nose is decent. eyes are terrible. mouth is terrible. face shape is almost decent

>> No.1729749

>>1729747
This except the I hate the nose aslwell. Maybe portraits aren't for you...

>> No.1729754

>>1729749
>>1729747
Those are some hot opinions guys, but try offering OP something other than the usual nondescript "X Y & Z sucks" posts. They're worthless drivel coined by amateurs who aren't at a technical level to muster up any sort of actual critique or feedback.

>>1729746
Don't be afraid to push your dark values in this piece OP. Charcoal is a very forgiving medium so it's okay to be a bit loose with it. It looks like you're micromanaging every nook and cranny, which is crippling your value scale in areas such as the nostrils and inner lip/teeth.

>> No.1729762

>>1729754
im offering my opinion that he is complete shit at anatomy, whats the problem?

>> No.1729767

>>1729762
"hur dur anatomy is shit" grow up anon op is asking for crit not your insecure opinion

>> No.1729768

>>1729762
Because it's the worthless opinion of a fucking amateur. I know you're one, your post reeks of it.

This is /ic/ - Artwork/Critique. If you don't have the skill or knowledge to help the artist with actual feedback then you should just shut up instead of blabbering on about how you dislike X, Y, and Z. It serves the artist in exactly zero ways when you do. You people are going to be the fucking death of this board. If you can't contribute, don't try.

>> No.1729769 [DELETED] 

>>1729747
>>1729767
>>1729754
>>1729768
samefag is maaaad

>> No.1729770

>>1729762
The problem is you're offering a shitty opinion instead of a critique.

>>1729746
I second the critique on your values, definitely should push them more.

The eyes could use some work, her left isn't so bad but her right has a cartoonish "stuck-on" feel. Particularly I'm not seeing her eyes as orbs, they look flat and typically the corners of the eyelids meet a fleshy part that is not the eye itself.

>> No.1730106
File: 190 KB, 351x819, ghostlyrobes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1730106

Those are some snazzy ghostly robes she's got there but for what purpose?


(Why haven't you drawn the who thing?)

>> No.1730349

>>1729749
That's some shit advice. Don't tell OP to quit trying after see one single drawing. They're genuinely asking for advice and clearly want to get better.

>>1729746
Anatomically, her head looks kinda lopsided, and like the other anon said, push those darks out more. The whole face is feeling really flat, the features have no feeling of depth and are just kinda blending into the face, especially around the eyes. Looking foward to seeing the end result though :)

>> No.1730676

>>1729746
What would help, take the photo and flip it horizontally in a editor. You'll suddenly see oddness. Its decent, hate the face she has though. Good lucK!

>> No.1730681

>>1729746
It's too early to say anything constructive. You're working from a photo and all you've done is the rough sketch, partially blocked in the face, and played around the eyes, nose and mouth. And to top it off, you haven't said anything about where you're going with this. And you want a fucking critique?

Here one: It was planned poorly. The composisiton is stupid, the head is too close to the top making the sides and the bottom a void. The head is flat with a face rendered on it. The shoulders are ridiculously broad for a woman. The theme and its representation are clichéd and crass.

Enjoy your day.

>> No.1730694

By covering up the paper's tone, you miss out on a lot of value options. Using it as your mid tone would really help the over all look and keep you from wasting a lot of time mashing in copious amounts of white charcoal.

But in general, I get the feeling that you immediately jump in to full rendering mode as soon as the initial sketch was finished. Remember to take your time and block in basic values before getting to the details.

>> No.1730711
File: 78 KB, 500x590, tumblr_mjlerjStQQ1r0kcd6o2_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1730711

It's a portrait, if I saw the reference picture, I could help more. With a bit more value and adding some maybe not yet added defining lines, you'll add a lot more depth into your portrait since quite a few of her features look a bit flat and cartooned, especially her eyes. Good luck, OP

>> No.1730799

>>1729746
if you hadn't said that the picture was cara delevigne, i don't think anyone would have guessed which is very hard to do considering she has an unusual look. her face has much more character from the side anyway. scrap this one and make a better one. Also, why waste time adding values before the portrait is recognizable?

>> No.1730801

>>1730799
In all fairness, I'll often toss in values to 'feel out' what I didn't capture in contours.

That said, I can't excuse all that blending.

>> No.1730809

>>1730801

I recognised who it was immediately, you've captured her likeness and she's also known for pulling faces in non-editorials.

The photo you used lacks the values everyones telling to push since it's a Terry Richardson pic right? I think you've rendered her soft features really well already, but they'll pop more once the hair and jumper are finished.

Someone else pointed out the shoulders are too broad, and I'd agree.

>> No.1730816

>>1730809
"pulling faces" isn't a true likeness, if this portrait was changed to a relaxed natural face it would be all non-descriptive proportions without much character. To be fair though, the models have most of their characteristics muted to get the model look (they kept her eyebrows, though to make her unique). do i need to post a comparison photo so you can see how strong the tip of her nose and chin are among other features?

>> No.1730818

>>1730816
as an addendum; the OP looks a bit like Megan fox (mid-transformation into Jolie) especially in the eyes because of how light they are + she also has thicker, darker eyebrows.

>> No.1730820
File: 1.89 MB, 478x358, 1400063415526.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1730820

>>1729746
is she that model that does the faces

>> No.1730826

>>1730820
A'ight, I lost it watching that.

Thanks for the laugh anon.

>> No.1730835
File: 1.20 MB, 2000x1329, facial_expression1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1730835

>>1730820

>> No.1730836

>>1730820
That was amazing.

Thank you for this, dear anon.

>> No.1730844

>>1730816

I'm not not saying pulling faces = likeness. It's characteristic of the her (shove goofy after her name in google and check the articles, it's always mentioned) , and being well drawn means I registered from the thumbnail who it was immediately. I think the most logical reason for lacking depth and bleaching out most of her features is due to the ref being a Terry Richardson photo.

I guess the best comparison I can make to explain my point better maybe is the same way we can recognise a silhouette of someone just by a pose, Freddie Mercury for example. It's characteristic. Does that make more sense?

>> No.1730845

>>1730844
well the point of front lighting, to flatten the photo. that's why they're lit like that. to make them more graphic.

>> No.1730878

>>1730844
ah, i found the picture; OP is really accurate, maybe it was the craning of my neck that skewed my perception. p good OP