Study Thread

[Anonymous No.1760369]

I'm gonna do this one, if anyone else wants to, feel free.

[Anonymous No.1760370]

I'll post a few alternative References

[Anonymous No.1760371]

>>1760369
Wtf why is she naked? Is this some weird fetish thing?

Grab a photo of someone actually wearing proper armor.

[Anonymous No.1760374]

>>1760371
b-b-b-b-but bewbs ;w;

[Anonymous No.1760377]

>>1760371
>on an art board
>asks why there's nudity in a reference

[Anonymous No.1760378]

>>1760371
I'm not studying it for the armor.

Btw I'm sorry my refs are mostly chicks, if anyone has anything else feel free to post an alt image

[Anonymous No.1760380]

>>1760374
Christ even Brad Rigney, who loves his fucking boobs, says it is bad practice to do studies of naked women all the time since you will never be asked in your professional career to paint it.

[Anonymous No.1760381]

I introduce, Samantha Swords

[Anonymous No.1760382]

>>1760380
I was just shitposting there, but yeah.

Honestly, I find that it's less useful to paint naked women than it is with naked (fit) men, as males have a better muscular structure which is helpful for learning anatomy. There's a reason why anatomy books use males for the most part.

These references are boring as hell.

[Anonymous No.1760383]

>>1760378
Most of mine are males. Here's one.

[Anonymous No.1760385]

>>1760377
No, I'm asking why she is naked but with armor on her arms and legs. It looks like some retarded sex thing since it obviously serves no purpose other than to show off her goods. The image would be much more useful if it were a full suit of armor.

[Anonymous No.1760386]

>>1760380
Dude, there's all the time, and then there's doing one study, it isn't a big deal.

Here's something a little manlier

[Anonymous No.1760388]

>>1760385
It would be more useful if you were practicing painting knights, but from a technical standpoint it gives you a good balance of metal and skin. I posted that one because it's the one I'm doing, feel free to do any other one.

[Anonymous No.1760393]

>>1760369
WHERE THE FUCK IS SHE GOING DRESSED LIKE THAT.
More importantly... How did she hold a deadly serious straight face long enough to take a picture? Whilst dressed as neckbeard wet dreams. Who the fuck took this photo?
This image rouses more questions than it will ever answer.

More to the point.
Why would you use it for a study?
What kind of sick, fucked up, basement-dwelling creature are you?

[Anonymous No.1760394]

>>1760393
for the pose? You CAN put armor and clothes on her yknow....

[Anonymous No.1760401]

>>1760385
>>1760393
>Get to study armor and a bit of the female form in one image

If you don't think you personally will benefit from studying said image, then decide so on your own quietly instead of looking like a dipshit on 4chan, contributing the usual less-than-zero content with your whining.

At least there's enough information in the fucking image to learn something from; instead of the usual low-res, washed-out, poorly lit shit that gets posted sometimes.

[Anonymous No.1760403]

>>1760369
I will anon. I fucking will.

[Anonymous No.1760427]

>>1760393
it's a porn shoot you fucking dingus.

Being scared of naked bodies is so passe.

[Anonymous No.1760430]

>>1760393

>implying it's only a wet dream for neckbears

Kek.

[Anonymous No.1760440]

>>1760401
lol u madd bro?

>>1760430
>neckbears
Anyone got a neckbear for ref? I want to study that.
Is that like a Yao guai?

[Anonymous No.1760444]

>>1760385
Is this your first day on the internet? Are you surprised that there are softcore photoshoots with various stages of undress? Do you consider this to be fetish material?

Are you surprised that there's shit to learn other than historically accurate armor designs? You could study outdoor lighting, anatomy, materials, specular and diffuse reflections, etc.

[Anonymous No.1760459]

>>1760378

Where do I start?

[Anonymous No.1760464]

>>1760459
Lets hold off on posting any more refs.

[Anonymous No.1760568]

Here's my sketch

Tried posting it like an hour ago but apparently I entered the wrong captcha.

[Anonymous No.1760678]

>>1760369
i did this one, but without the clothing

[Anonymous No.1760694]

>>1760678
Interesting. You should finish it.

Still working on mine. Anyone have tips about brush economy?

[Anonymous No.1760697]

>>1760678
Don't copy the outlines, build up the figure with form. Go through the sticky

[Anonymous No.1760714]

>>1760697

>Don't copy the outlines, build up the figure with form.

I think that's poor advice, anon. Both building 3d forms and copying 2d shapes have a place in an artist's toolbox, and both are useful when trying to reproduce an image accurately, as in a photo study.

[Anonymous No.1760719]

>>1760714
those aren't shapes though they're lines. you're in no place to be saying what people should do

[Anonymous No.1760722]

>>1760369

So we're just dropping all pretense now and going straight for the softcore huh?
At least the other ones are tasteful.

[Anonymous No.1760724]

>>1760722
If you don't like it then don't draw it. Go back to tumblr if it upsets you

[Anonymous No.1760726]

>>1760722
Why do you people feel like you have to call out on everything that bothers you like it matters to others? Its as if someone hanged the photo on your room, /ic/ is not your fucking house.

[Anonymous No.1760727]

>>1760722
OP here, I just posted the one I was doing. I really like the ref, it has a pretty noble looking pose and some good lighting. Having her not have a full set of armor may not be a historically correct thing but it is a pretty good reference to study in my opinion, it gives me a good chance to study metal, skill, and cloth.

Do you agree?

[Anonymous No.1760729]

>>1760727
except the fact that studying from photos is worthless, then yes go ahead

[Anonymous No.1760730]

>>1760729
Why is it worthless?

[Anonymous No.1760734]

>>1760729
Are you legally retarded, or do you just like to act that way?

[Anonymous No.1760765]

>>1760730
less recall. If you learn something from images you will still retain them as a flat surface in your memory. This is ok if you just want details (how does a temple built in this country I don't have access to etc.)

But if you study from life instead you will retain a much higher quality image. You'll find that things spoken to you at the time will let you reclaim the things you've learned etc.

Then draw the things from memory - what did they really look like. This doesn't mean that you look less at the model you set up, but more. You do many little studies inside the room that you have the study set up in. Then when you go to your work station where you have your canvas set up you take none of those studies with you.

Eventually you will be able to draw out anything that you've seen previously using the methods developed here. (see kim jung gi)

This is why I think photography is useless. It is simply the fact that you less queues to pull the memory from. While if you study from life habitually. (And that is to look at the subject then draw what you saw) You will develop many more hooks. Everyone can develop ediatic memory you just need to practice.

For kicks try drawing your bathroom a few times this way. You'll quickly remember every single bathroom you've ever used in your life.


Isn't that better? Or are you going to be a slave to refference for the rest of your life. It is good to have photos I take photos and look at them but I never draw from them.

Hope that makes sense!

>>1760734
Relax buddy I guess I didn't explain fully. Do you still think I'm retarded? That's fine, stay in your comfort zone of copying flat shapes. :)

[Anonymous No.1760781]

>>1760727
I like the reference, the pose is nice and the armor is a nice break from gesture drawing.

[Anonymous No.1760799]

It's not good or accurate, but it's something

[Anonymous No.1760804]

>>1760765
Not those anons, but would you share some of your work?

[Anonymous No.1760805]

>>1760799
It's something... Something bad.

[Anonymous No.1760807]

>>1760765
>>1760804
Yeah this, can you post something, the only other guy I know of that was so against photography is leyendecker

[Anonymous No.1760819]

I want femnazi's to leave.

[Anonymous No.1760839]

>>1760380
You are however asked to paint pretty women showing lots of skin all the time if you consider working in illustration.

You seem to be twisting Brad's statement here. Obviously, you shouldn't study only naked women all the time, but you still SHOULD study them a good amount of time to be 100% confident and competent in drawing and rendering the female figure.

[Anonymous No.1760840]

>>1760765

Considering both of you aren't doing any life drawing at this very moment, he is learning a lot more by doing this photostudy than you are by writing some wall of text about shit you have no clue about.

[Anonymous No.1760842]

>>1760805
give them time, with practice and patience, they will bear good fruits.

[Anonymous No.1760843]

>>1760694
Nice! Looks fine so far.

>>1760839
Not the guy you were responding to, but I agree. I'm really not that type of person who would draw boobs and porn all the time, but (un)fortunately most clients want their women to be half naked, even if it makes no sense.

Anyway, I'm gonna do the study later!

[Anonymous No.1760844]

>>1760839
does brad rigney heavily use references or trace?
some of his pics look like he just straight out applied a filter to a person and incorporated that

[Anonymous No.1760848]

>>1760844
no one in the pros use ref anymore, they're pros man, they'll tell you and beginners to use ref but in reality they'll laughing at you for using one.

[Anonymous No.1760861]

>>1760844
Yeah, he uses a lot of refs and he does use photo elements in some of his paintings, he's pretty open about that kind of stuff. He often mentioned on his cghub gallery whenever someone asked him about it, that he doesn't like to artificially limit himself and instead tries to create the best possible work with all tools available to him.

>>1760848
I know you're just trolling, but you're still fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.1760864]

>>1760861
yeah, i am not blaming brad. he is good and he is a concept artist and especially in the field of concept art it's not uncommon to use photos and put them together to a complete whole.
also at least he is honest.

anyone has some pencil sketches that he made? or at least non colored pics? i am curious what a drawing of his would look like.

[Anonymous No.1760867]

>>1760393
this guy lel

who are you?

where do you live?

i want to marry you

[Anonymous No.1760895]

>>1760380
>all the time
How often do you come here?

[Anonymous No.1760896]

>>1760393
You need to stop thinking like a horny teenager and start thinking like an artist. You might only see an inappropriately dressed chick and for some reason that offends you. An artist on the other hand sees an opportunity to study several different materials under a natural light source.

You need to start using your brain and extract things from reference that can be useful to you while discarding other aspects that are not.

[Anonymous No.1760927]

>>1760867
>guy
you're in for a surprise

[Anonymous No.1760935]

>>1760719
>those aren't shapes though they're lines.

oh jeez

> you're in no place to be saying what people should do

well, if you want to be a prat, post your art, and I'll post mine, and we'll see what's what. But you have to do it first, cuz no one here has ever reciprocated after I post mine.

[Anonymous No.1760940]

>>1760459
Mind uploading or sharing where you got these?

[Anonymous No.1760966]

>>1760393
Are you retarded? The answers to all your questions can be found if you use your brain for 5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.1761021]

>>1760864
I never seen it, not even a study. I always wanted to see the studies he did when he was trying to reach pro lvl, but I think he never posted any.

[Anonymous No.1761033]

>>1760386
Great ref, very challenging

[Anonymous No.1761044]

>>1761021
the only thing i found was this

i think that's as close to a drawing he will ever get

[Anonymous No.1761045]

>>1761044
and this

[Anonymous No.1761072]

>>1760804
>>1760807
I don't see how showing my work defends or detracts from my statement. I can show it, doesn't matter all too much to me.

This is just my opinion that I have from personal experience, that photo studies give zilch compared to a proper memory study.

But I'd really like you to play around with the idea though, why are you doing a study in the first place?

To improve drawing ability and to hopefully put the things you learned to use in your drawings from imagination. Right?

We all agree that drawing from imagination is to recall things from our memory and reshape them into new form -yeah?

What is the stronger memory then? The one that is a flat surface but perfect detail (a photograph) or the one where you can recall the visual you had when you think of the feeling of grass on your feet, the environment the smells even the taste on your tongue...

Then drawing from life and subsequently drawing from memory play into one another in a different plane than simply if you had drawn from a photo.

Cues that can help you remember the photograph: The photograph details themselves and your work space environment.

Ok, but the benefit of drawing from life is that you're presented with so much information you have to choose which details you even select in order to not be overwhelmed. The benefit it also that you can walk around the object and see for yourself what causes what. A lot of photographs have unexplained bounce light that aren't really helping you if you just copy the shapes and call it done.

I am not completely against photo studies, they are great for details and stray light effects. But I think you're doing more work than you have to if you do them (in orders of how much you improve per study)

(cont)

[Anonymous No.1761074]

>>1761072
(cont)
If you're really set on doing photo studies try this:
Set up a canvas so that your drawing area is right next to the refference, the refference on a seperate layer. Now construct the main masses - gesture head placement torso direction. And disable the refference layer work ontop of your construction for 10-20 minutes and now enable your refference. Now you can see the faults in your translation of your constructions, where you exagerate or de-exagerate. Look at them both and compare for 4-5 minutes without working on the study at all, just look and note what and how you're going to fix the issues.

Now disable the reference and repeat.

This at least forces some spatial thinking.

Doing it from life would involve you having your study in a different room, here you do sketches and small studies to get the detail, when you feel confident that you understand what you're looking at - go and paint it from memory, when you're in doubt go back and study from the model.

No studies are to be brought into your work space where you do the memory study itself.


Eventually your recall will be so good you only need to look at things once before you can paint them by rote from memory.

That is the real power.
Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Shereshevsky

But in your mnemonics you bring a painting easel.

Hope that makes sense.

>>1760840
Yeah I'm learning (Teaching is a good way to explain things for yourself). I only do life drawing (involving naked people) mondays and thursdays though.

[Anonymous No.1761095]

>>1760380
>you will never be asked in your professional career to paint it.

HAHAHA jokes on him
half people here are porn comissioners

[Anonymous No.1761110]

>>1760369
How can you draw Bree Daniels nude without wanting to jack off?

[Anonymous No.1761132]

Am I doing it right?

[Anonymous No.1761136]

>>1761074
No, I no longer think you're legally retarded. Your argument however is near incomprehensible and you never demonstrated that drawing from photos is "worthless" like you originally said. Instead, you even showed ways where drawing from a photo can be useful.

[Anonymous No.1761138]

>>1761132
You've made the head too small and you broke the torso and the hips in a few places.

[Anonymous No.1761161]

>>1761132
Better?

[Anonymous No.1761172]

>>1761136
Yeah true.
Any study > no study

But are photo studies really the most effective tool in teaching yourself?

I guess I'll have to figure it out for myself before I can properly explain it. Articulating that mess made me figure something out, so it wasn't for nothing.

[Anonymous No.1761184]

>>1761132
You need to get more flow between your forms. You are drawing it all lumpy like the michelin man, but you need to connect those forms more. I did a quick line drawing over it to show a bit of what I mean and what you should look for.

[Anonymous No.1761190]

>>1761161
Ah fguck didn't refresh the page so I missed this before posting >>1761184

it is better a bit but still can use more work. Take careful note of the angles of things and what direction the rhythms flow. The weight bearing leg for example has incorrect gesture in yours which is making her feel very awkward and not like she is supporting herself.

Also, I wouldn't just hide your linework like that since you lose a lot of information. Just create new layers above it and keep working and painting until there are no lines.

[Anonymous No.1761192]

>>1761184
a flow in a figure is not artificially smoothed out forms. if a hip juts out in the reference, that's because bone is poking out as it naturally would. don't just add fat or cut away bone if it doesn't flow to your liking.

[Anonymous No.1761194]

>>1761172
>But are photo studies really the most effective tool in teaching yourself?
Probably not, but they're incredibly useful for drawing what's inaccessible.

The general rule I go by is:
-If you're thinking critically, you're learning.
-If you apply what you learn, you'll retain it.

[Anonymous No.1761208]

>>1761192
>flow in a figure is not artificially smoothed out forms
That's actually pretty much exactly what it is. It is a rhythm that runs through the major form and ignores the small lumps and bumps. If you miss this main flow you miss the whole thing. Once you get the flow blocked in like on the blue draw over I did you can add in the secondary forms like the bit of glutes that shows on the left side of her hip, and you can cut into the form a bit on the other side where the belt is pulling in a bit and there is a slight concavity between her iliac crest and great trochanter.

Anyways, when you focus on those secondary forms first you get an image like the one before he drawover, which feels disjointed.

[Anonymous No.1761238]

>>1761184
GJ doing a paintover thats anatomically wrong. This isnt one-minute pose study (where shit like this is passable), this is a proper study.

[Anonymous No.1761239]

>>1761208
that pic is stupid

check out the proko video on gesture.

[Anonymous No.1761248]

>>1761238
The whole point of a 1 minute gesture is to be able to capture that main gesture. Since he missed that main gesture it is important to step back and reanalyze it from a very basic standpoint, then you can begin to detail it and correct minor things. But the core of the image is locked within that main simple gesture. I could have done a perfect drawing for him fixing everything, but that would teach him nothing since that same information is in the photo and he still missed it, so I showed a simple step for him to grasp the concept then work from there.

>>1761239
That pic is Kevin Chen's explanation of Reilly's teachings, which is the same shit that Prokopenko was taught in school.

[Anonymous No.1761251]

>>1761248
proko teaches them differently though

[Anonymous No.1761255]

>>1761239
what,
iirc proko looks at gesture in the exact same way.
register the larger flow first before caring about the small bumps along the form.

[Anonymous No.1761258]

>>1761251
Eh, I haven't watched his videos but I have drawn in class with him a couple times (granted it was like a year or two ago now) and he was making us do a simple lay-in figure like the one I did in my draw over, and was teaching the same shit that is in that infographic I posted.

Regardless of what he teaches now, the fact of the matter is that you can't simply dismiss an entire approach that quickly. The Reilly Method has a good track record and there is no reason to shit talk it when you have nothing backing you up.

[Anonymous No.1761263]

>>1761258
he does trach the same stuff, even in his videos. dunno what that anon is smoking. proko does it exactly this way even in his figure drawing videos.

[Anonymous No.1761281]

>>1761238
>>1761239
That's some poor quality b8 there, but anon did fall for it.
7/10

[Anonymous No.1761306]

>>1760799
Good work man, keep on practicing.

[Anonymous No.1761390]

ITT "the model's anatomy is wrong"

[Anonymous No.1761410]

>>1761390
I dont see that in this thread at all

[Anonymous No.1761452]

>>1761390
Are you reading the same thread mate?

[Anonymous No.1761529]

>>1761306

Thanks, didn't expect any kind words, will do.

[Anonymous No.1761582]

[Anonymous No.1761628]

>>1761582
are you me

[Anonymous No.1761657]

>>1760382
>>1760380
>>1760371
>>1760383
>>1760385
>>1760393
>>1760722
faggots/feminazis detected. Go back to your respective containment boards plz.

[Anonymous No.1761679]

>>1761657

after you

[Anonymous No.1761685]

>>1761657
>Responding to the tumblrfag
plz stop

Just do the fucking study and ignore the faggot, faggot.

[Anonymous No.1761686]

>>1761657
>feminazis
lol how embarrassing

[Anonymous No.1761716]

>Study thread
>92 posts of arguing about boobs, 3 posts by people actually doing the study

God dammit, /ic/. Get your shit together and fucking paint something.

[Anonymous No.1761785]

>>1761716
Riiiiight?
still working on mine lol, i've been getting distracted.

[Anonymous No.1761857]

>>1761716
Some of it discsusses on how to do studies, are photo studies really efficient?

There should be a meta thread some day with ideas on learning to learn. I think it could be interesting, since we never reallly discuss ways to go about things.

I guess it comes from the personal nature of art.

[Anonymous No.1761898]

>>1761857
Make it happen brah

[Anonymous No.1761921]

>>1761716
I'd rather point out that you guys don't have an original bone in your body.

[Anonymous No.1761937]

i tried :(

[Anonymous No.1761941]

Since not a lot of people are posting studies anyway, here's where i'm at right now, working on the metal pauldrons right now, never had to render metal before. . _.

[Anonymous No.1761947]

>>1761941

Nice work on the metal so far brah

[Anonymous No.1762005]

>>1761941
The bellybutton is huge. Otherwise good job.

[Anonymous No.1762019]

>>1761937
Try harder. Measure the body in relation to the head, because the head is way too small for the body and the extended arm is way larger than what it should be. Don't just draw in terms of "here needs to be a head, neck goes down a bit, upper body tilted sideways" etc. draw in angles where everything is going and also draw lines for the relationship of the body parts (how high is the elbow drawing a horizontal line, in relationship to both shoulders etc.). Do it slowly and do it properly.

[Anonymous No.1762031]

took me half an hour, i feel like i have no idea wut im doin...should i go on?

[Anonymous No.1762054]

>>1762031
yeah dude, keep going.
Damn I work slow.

[Anonymous No.1762063]

>>1762054

alright then.. heres a webm of my process, im a complete noob btw, only done 2 fully finished digital paintings so all tips from pros appreciated

[Anonymous No.1762095]

>>1761898
see u sometime next week

[Anonymous No.1762109]

>>1761582
DON'T LOSE YOUR WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

[Anonymous No.1762131]

>>1762031
It's not that bad. You should have started with a gesture and construction instead of just starting painting. Also, use some more crisp edges, everything is too undefined.

[Anonymous No.1762134]

I have a few of these.

[Anonymous No.1762160]

[Anonymous No.1762185]

>>1762160
the face looks terrible

[Anonymous No.1762222]

>>1762185
genetics

[Anonymous No.1762239]

>>1762054
Your flesh tones are a little dead. Your missing some reds and pinks, as well as some blues and greens from the environment. I say establish the vibrant red of the cape right now so that it's easier to judge the rest of your colors.

[Anonymous No.1762246]

>>1761074

This is a really cool exercise. Just tried it and found out how much I suck when I dont have visual guide to fall back to and to copy directly. Doing the even more hardcore version of just analyzing ref for a couple of mins, disabling it and then starting your drawing seems also interesting.

Good stuff man.

[Anonymous No.1762307]

>>1762239
I will work on that, could you point out where some of these dead spots are?
Thank you for the help

[Anonymous No.1762324]

>>1762307
Most of it is around the stomach and hips, but there's a bit everywhere:
-Chest needs some more pink
-Front of the stomach needs more color and needs to shift towards red.
-Side plane of her torso, butt and leg that face the red cape should pick up much stronger red bounce light. Your leg for example is darker and greener where it should be lighter and redder
-Her torso/pelvis area that faces away from us should be darker with much clearer blue sky bouncelight than you have it right now.

A lot of it is pretty subtle. Again, once you establish your vibrant reds in the cape the lack of reds on her skin will become much more apparent.

[Anonymous No.1762334]

>>1762324
Okay, thanks for the help bud. will post updates later.

[Anonymous No.1762441]

Doing bug studies, organic shiny shapes are annoying.

[Anonymous No.1762444]

>>1762441

and the ref.

[Anonymous No.1762446]

>>1762444

Fuck oops, wrong beetle.

[Anonymous No.1763622]

Slow bump.

Come on guiz, do some studies.

[Anonymous No.1763662]

>>1760369
I tried. Recently started getting back into art, so not a complete beginner which is sad. It's been about a 3-4 year gap since I last dat down and really drew anything of worth.

[Anonymous No.1763875]

Did this a while ago, it's nice to see the ref popped up here.

[Anonymous No.1763878]

>>1763875
Hi redjuice guy

[Anonymous No.1763898]

>>1763875
no offense, but it's really not even close. you probably could have just redone the study and posted that, rather then repost this.

[Anonymous No.1763912]

>>1763875

The eyes are off, her left eye is looking at the viewer and the right eye is looking forward. Good job otherwise man.

[Anonymous No.1764560]

>>1761921
It's true. I'm a hack.

[Anonymous No.1764562]

>>1762160
I think the line shading on her torso looks weird. Implying a texture that shouldn't be there, you know?

[Anonymous No.1765003]

Sorry for chicken scratch

[Anonymous No.1765005]

>>1765003
It's not that chicken scratchy, probably anything that looks bad is more a result of working on a tablet than anything else really.

Anyways, the torso you shortened a bit and the arm is rather thick. You also can redraw the boob on the left, it looks in the wrong perspective.

[Anonymous No.1765068]

QUESTION!

When breaking down the body into geometrical shapes, should I be able to use perspective stuff to make sure they're correctly placed? (without taking anatomy into account, though I know it's already off.)

Sorry if I worded the question weirdly or stupidly, I'm still having trouble with what I want to ask, actually.

[Anonymous No.1765071]

>>1765068
You could use perspective, sure. I think you may be over complicating it though. Just get the right angles and proportions.

[Anonymous No.1765076]

>>1765071
Thanks for the reply. yeah, I'm kinda aware that I'm probably doing too much. I just want to practice the "math" of building a body that IS correct rather than the usual "eyeballing" and mainly relying on guess n check.

[Anonymous No.1765083]

>>1765076
You might want to find a better mannikin then. What you are using is rather strange and not a good representation of hte human body in my opinion, especially when it comes to the pelvis.

[Anonymous No.1765087]

>>1765083
Unfortunately I don't have a manikin nor was I referencing one but I get what you're saying nonetheless. Thanks a lot, anon.

[Anonymous No.1765105]

>>1765087
When I said mannikin I did not mean a literal object. I just meant a simplification of the human body, an abstraction, a simple poseable breakdown of the body. Most systems have a simple version of the human form using geometric shapes, some are better than others and some depend on your taste and preferences. Try looking up what Vilppu does, what Hogarth uses, what Loomis uses, what Bridgman uses, what Steve Huston uses, what Kevin Chen uses, what the old masters used etc etc. and then see what resonates with you. Maybe it will require combining a few, or modifying one.

[Anonymous No.1765117]

>>1765105
Good idea, anon. Thx for the names, I sure as hell could use tips from the pros and vets.

[Anonymous No.1765128]

Wish i had the patience to study more, this was really helpful

[Anonymous No.1765145]

>>1765128
Your metal reads really poorly, try to focus more on materials

[Anonymous No.1765369]

>>1765128
This stylization is adorable. Site?

[Anonymous No.1765528]

>>1763622
It seriously pisses me off how fucking good you make the pauldrons look. Because I know there's no use in me even trying. Fuck

[Anonymous No.1765530]

bumping b/c i have to go to sleep but I really want this thread to be here in the morning

[Anonymous No.1765561]

>>1760382

>men
>better muscular structure

>better

Muscular structure is muscular structure. There's different stages of body fat percentage, if you mean that. If you mean muscle definition, it's better to study both male and female at low body fat.

[Anonymous No.1765563]

>>1765530
First time on /ic/?

[Anonymous No.1765579]

>>1765530
smells.....new

[Dr. Dude !!xYApC7v7+j4 No.1765582]

>>1760371
>B-but Anon-san, this girl is a q.t. 3.14! I want her to be my kawaii-desu waifu! I just wish I could lick her feet...

Yeah, /ic/ can be a little obvious with their study choices. Just think about this the next time they give you shit.

Also, the face is nice but the body is kinda gross. You dudes have some pretty low standards, lol.

[Anonymous No.1765590]

>>1765579
not him, but why does people seem to jump on the occasion and post something about someone new guys finding /ic/, I really don't understand the logic here, it's actually a good thing this guy seems enthusiast about it, instead of ranting that being "new" is something to rant about and show people you're an oldfag as if that was something to be proud of.

oh and btw, you're just an old new too.

[Anonymous No.1765591]

>>1765582
You are the one who seems to be judging the model based on her attractiveness instead of what could be studied in the ref. Grow up and stop being a horny teenager. Artists do studies of half-naked, half-dressed women in life drawing all the time because it offers a direct contrast in surface material between skin and metal / fabric. Just because the reference was probably from some erotica or softcore porn photoshoot doesn't mean you as an artist have to treat it as such.

[Anonymous No.1765597]

Am I the only one who doesn't see anything sexual about that picture? I mean, she's just standing there. she's not doing anything suggestive. Yeah she's half naked, so what? It's not like you don't get to see a bunch of naked guys and girls posing while browsing for refrerence pictures.

[Dr. Dude !!xYApC7v7+j4 No.1765598]

>>1765591
I've done many nude studies and have gone to multiple figure drawing classes. Believe me, I know there's nothing sexual about it.

But the OP is just silly, because it really is, as you said, an erotica or softcore porn photoshoot. The way the light reflects off the metal is fascinating, along with the cape physics, but that's it. >>1760370 & >>1760378 are much better examples of nude references, which do what they need to in either a sexual or non-sexual way. >>1760369 seems more like a weeaboo's wet dream.

>>1760382
>>1760380
>>1760371
>>1760385
>>1760393
>>1760722
These guys get it. This ref would be way better if the woman was completely covered in armor.

[Anonymous No.1765600]

>>1765597
It would've been less provocative if she was completely naked (see second, third pic in the thread)

[Anonymous No.1765630]

>>1765598
>This ref would be way better if the woman was completely covered in armor.
but then how would we know that it's a woman?

[Anonymous No.1765635]

>>1765598
>This ref would be way better if the woman was completely covered in armor.

Depends what you want to learn from it. If you are looking to study armor design or want to just study rendering metal, then clearly it's not a very good ref. If you want to study the human figure, gesture and anatomy, then it's not ideal either. But if you want to study various different materials under one natural light source, then it's a better ref than a completely naked or armored woman would be.

[Dr. Dude !!xYApC7v7+j4 No.1765650]

>>1765630
You can sometimes tell by the shape of the armor. Or you could also have her completely covered without a helm. But would the gender really matter?

>>1765635
That's one way of looking at it.

[Dr. Dude !!xYApC7v7+j4 No.1765651]

>>1765650
Also. for you fellow history buffs.

[Anonymous No.1765653]

>>1765650
neat
i'll use that picture for study later

[Anonymous No.1765662]

>>1765651
Yeah, that guide is really made for and by retards.
>what is an artistic approach to entertainment armor design?

[Anonymous No.1765664]

>>1765651
>women wearing the same heavy plate a man does

top kek, my friend. top fucking kek

*tips fedora*

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140127/NEWS/301270047/Marine-Corps-struggles-challenge-making-women-do-pullups

http://youtu.be/MF-YeWnIJfU

[Anonymous No.1765684]

>>1765664
he never said they do....just one that has no booby lumps

if you think about it..boobs on armour would just mean more steel to carry..

[Anonymous No.1765689]

>>1762160
well that's awesome, mate

[Anonymous No.1765690]

Got bored halfway through and messed with it a bit, ref: http://www.bestcybersexpornsites.com/free-sites/BAREM/warrior-woman-shakti/fantasy-warrior-babe-1/fantasy-maidens-pics/fantasy-warrior-babe-06.jpg

>>1765650
Wish i had that pic before i started painting this. Maybe next weekend, if this thread's still here

>>1765145
You're gonna hate this one too then; i need to copy some real armor or i'll never nail it

[Anonymous No.1765692]

>>1765664
From wikipedia - "A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15-25 kg(33-55 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body." So the same as a heavy rucksack like a 16yo schoolgirl can carry for hours at a time.

[Anonymous No.1765713]

>>1765692
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft

[Anonymous No.1765728]

>>1762246
>>1762246
Good to see that you get use of it.

The whole point is to see for yourself, your weak spots & points.

Practicing memory is so important! It frees you up in ways you wouldn't imagine.

If you're having trouble painting things from memory practice perspective for a while till you get really good at the box theory. Everything loosens up after that

[Dr. Dude !!xYApC7v7+j4 No.1765740]

>>1765662
I'll admit, the scent of /b/tard is thick in the air with this image. Still useful, though.

>>1765653
>>1765690
Remember that a female would have either short hair or a bun. whether or not they have a helm on. In a fight, someone could yank on your beautiful long locks and cut your head of/slit your throat. Also, loose long hair would be scrambled all over the inside of your helmet.

If you want more stuff about ancient armor and weapons, I suggest watching Lindybeige or Skallgrim on Youtube.

[Anonymous No.1765742]

>>1765662
more than dick appealing, however you can work on the armor making her look more appealing with our without it .

But yeah, that's the way the industry is right now, so fuck it.

[Anonymous No.1765764]

>don't draw for a while
>all my shit gets fucked

I need to relearn everything, the problems I can visibly see are that the head seems a little small, the armour doesn't match and my paint is sploging everywhere.

[Dr. Dude !!xYApC7v7+j4 No.1765774]

>>1765764
>tfw out of practice.

[Anonymous No.1765775]

>>1765774
kek

[Anonymous No.1765864]

>>1765713
Who gives a shit dude my point is that a woman could also wear full plate armour.

[Anonymous No.1765878]

>>1765689
Thanks. Been obsessing over ballpoint pens lately.

[Anonymous No.1765895]

>>1765775
xDDD

[Anonymous No.1765898]

>>1765895
:^0

[Anonymous No.1766577]

>>1760386
well sheeit, this fucking pose.

spent way more time on the lines than i thought i would, had to use some lines to help.

[Anonymous No.1766701]

>>1766577
first time trying not to use color picker

[Anonymous No.1766742]

>>1766577

If the intent is to just study light/rendering, just trace it.

[Anonymous No.1766761]

>>1766742
I don't think anybody on this board should do that, as most tend to have drawing issues not painting issues. I'd advise against skipping over an opportunity to practice drawing, but that's just my opinion on the matter.

[Anonymous No.1766784]

>>1766761

Maybe. But I always though the ability to draw is better than the ability to accurately copy something. The time to actually match a drawing, measuring it, can be spent developing your foundations to make better drawings from imagination. Unless you're goin for a old masters classical/traditional study thing...
I'm not saying is a bad practice, as probably every pro artist already did it someday, I just don't think it's good to spend too much time with it, what I call "Algen syndrome".

[Anonymous No.1766788]

Thoughts so far? Also, any tips on drawing hair? I can never seem to get it down

[Anonymous No.1766789]

>>1766784
Stop posting

[Anonymous No.1766795]

>>1766784
>But I always though the ability to draw is better than the ability to accurately copy something. The time to actually match a drawing, measuring it, can be spent developing your foundations to make better drawings from imagination.
Being able to copy accurately is a prerequisite to being able to draw from imagination convincingly - it shows that you are able to observe accurately and control your tools accurately, which are cornerstones in good picture making. Accurate observation is a foundational skill.

>I just don't think it's good to spend too much time with it, what I call "Algen syndrome".
And I think it's necessary to spend as much time practicing drawing as possible because it is a more basal skill than painting and modeling form with values. Just as proficiency with painting with values is a more basal skill than painting with color. One builds off the other, but if the base is weak then everything will suffer as a result.

[Anonymous No.1766813]

>>1766795

I agree with most of what you're saying... I'm not really sure about drawing x painting, but I see the relation. I'm not talking out of my ass, I have some experience. Maybe I didn't express myself so well... But I'm sure working from imagination was what made me improve far more than doin studies all day long.

There's tons of ways develop your drawings skills others than doing long figure studies.

I know it is important to copy accurately to improve you imagination skills, but I don't think it's fundamental to be a printer. Being able to use the most of a reference while still maintaining your style is way better than knowing how to render like a photograph.

Also, old masters didn't had half the resources we have today to cut some of the laborious work. I don't think you'll really use all your measuring skills you developed for so long. You can see plenty of awesome artists who didn't go the classical route and are doing great. (I'll probably see a shitstorm for stating this right now)

>>1766789

If you don't have any arguments stop shitposting. Also don't come with a parrot opinion you saw somewhere if you don't know how to do a stick figure.

[Anonymous No.1766817]

>>1766788
Lower body is really out of wack. It should be thicker.

[Anonymous No.1766827]

>>1766813
Always the ones with the walls of text, have the least to say

[Anonymous No.1766844]

>>1765068
Beginner here. I just used what I learned from Right Side of the Brain for this one. I didn't go too deep on this like you did.

[Anonymous No.1767008]

Welp, I think I'm getting somewhere. Breaking down shit is a lot easier than it was a day ago and actually started into adding delicious meatchunks.

>>1766844
Wish I had the patience to actually had read it long ago. Save me all this over-thinking grief. Shit was so simple compared to what I made it out to be, I could slap myself.

[Anonymous No.1769043]

>>1766844
>Beginner here. I just used what I learned from Right Side of the Brain for this one. I didn't go too deep on this like you did.
what exactly were the techniques you used from that book?

[Anonymous No.1769170]

>>1766701
like it, very nuce!

[Anonymous No.1769171]

noone else contributing?

[Anonymous No.1769172]

noone else contributing?

[Anonymous No.1769201]

>>1760381
first color study ever
mostly did freehand scetches and b/w stuff so far
some advice and general direction pointing would be great!

[Anonymous No.1769202]

>>1769201
forgot file...

[Anonymous No.1769203]

>>1769202
>>1769201
lol
working on two different screen really makes a different...

[Anonymous No.1769230]

>>1769172
Bretty gud

[Anonymous No.1769353]

>>1769172
Excellent. Keep up the good work, anon.

[Anonymous No.1769362]

>>1769202
I'm on the same boat as you, anon.
trying to move on from greyscale studies.

I guess this is more of a rendering/coloring study for me.

[Anonymous No.1769363]

Speaking of, any of you guys do studies actually in grayscale (meaning turning source image grayscale too temporarily) and then apply color on top? Seems like a very good exercise also with coloring if your normal painting process starts in grayscale.

[Anonymous No.1769366]

>>1769363

Sadly it's not as easy as just applying colour mode layers on top. Wish it was.

[Anonymous No.1769380]

>>1769363
even if you are shit with color like me, it still usually looks better than coloring greyscale image

most o the time it's really obvious.

But then, there are people like Kekai Kotaki and Dave Rapoza that make it work awesome so i guess try it and do whatever works for you the best.

[Anonymous No.1769388]

>>1769172
Blurry edges. You need to paint at a higher opacity and be more confident with your shapes--the entire thing reeks of uncertainty. It looks okay in a thumbnail since things are put in the right place with relatively right value/colour, but it crumbles when viewed fullsize.

[Anonymous No.1769394]

>>1769388
i kinda liked the softness actually
but i see where you're coming from

[Anonymous No.1769399]

>>1769394
I DON"T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE
I DON"T LIKE SOFT CORNERS. NOW FIX IT, FIX IT FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.1769402]

>>1769399
d-dad?

[Anonymous No.1771120]

>>1762063

The way you are constructing the painting is hindering your growth. You should construct the image with lineart first so you get a good understanding of the forms, and then color underneath and atop the linework. The way you are approaching it isn't wrong per se, but it makes it so you are more copying the image as opposed to understanding it.

What software are you using to record this btw? I have tried a few screen capturing programs but the quality is never very good. My computer can handle pretty much anything.

[Anonymous No.1771126]

>>1771120
Wow. You are a godsend. Thanks for sharing this fun information!

[Anonymous No.1772959]

>>1760371
it's from a porn site called bare maidens. Yes it's a fetish thing

[Anonymous No.1772961]

Holy crap this thread is still up.

[Anonymous No.1772962]

>>1772961
you must be new here.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1772964]

>>1765740
the problems with long hair is kind of overrated. I mean yeah it's not that good when everything is covered with hair but there are more than enough people out there who proved you can still fight with long hair without any serious drawbacks.
but yeah, common sense says to put it under a padding hat or something.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773487]

also if you guys need more armor pics (on itself or with women or men inside it) I can post a few

[Anonymous No.1773579]

>>1773487
Want, do post

[Anonymous No.1773590]

>>1773579
cool

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773609]

>>1773579
do you have any specific request or should I just post random stuff?

[Anonymous No.1773631]

>>1773609
If youre feeling generous maybe you could just upload what you have somewhere and drop us a link?

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773639]

>>1773631
my folder is totally unsorted mess, or abomination, whatever you like to call it. Armors, weapons, paintings, photos from larps, cons, sometimes shit tier, sometimes funny stuff, sometimes "what the fuck is the maker thought when he made this" and shit tier stuff of course.

Also it's kind of not small

[Anonymous No.1773646]

>>1773639
>30gb of larp

Damn man. Can you point out some good sources for this kind of stuff? Is this all hoarded from DA, Tumblr and Pinterest or are there some good sites/forums with larpy stuff?

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773652]

>>1773646
only half or 2/3 of it is actually larp, the rest is reenactment, weapons and armors and other stuff I mentioned.
A lot of the larp pictures are from games I participated in.
But most of the stuff is from /tg/, only a small part of the folder is from anywhere else (but then again it had to be find it's way to /tg/)

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773710]

anyway, back home from work so I have time for a few pics

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773713]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773714]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773715]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773716]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773720]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773725]

also two larp pictures just so you know if you want more of these kind of stuff or not

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773728]

[Anonymous No.1773749]

Thanks anon, good stuff

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773769]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773772]

[Anonymous No.1773777]

>>1773609
>do you have any specific request or should I just post random stuff?

Could you post some more of the nordic/vikingr stuff if you have those?

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773779]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773782]

>>1773777
not my strong point but yes. Anything more specific?

[BotNfag No.1773786]

>>1773652
Not so much LARP, but the Facebook page of Battle of the Nations and the various national teams have some nice photos.

[Anonymous No.1773790]

>>1773782
Mainly interested in

>full body with equipment
>action poses if there are any, shieldwalls etc.
>shields

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773807]

>>1773790
don't have too much shields and shieldwalls and those I have mostly low resolution pics but I will although probably there will be a few varanginas too and I can't say how authentic will be most of the pics

[BotNfag No.1773811]

>>1773786

>>1773790
Not Nordic, I'm afraid, but it is actiony.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773813]

>>1773786
yeah I know, I marginally look at botn pics but mostly at the videos

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773817]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773820]

[BotNfag No.1773823]

>>1773813
Meant to reply to
>>1773646

Still, yeah. Re-enactment has nicer armour but BotN is better for action poses, I'd say.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773825]

kind of related

[Anonymous No.1773832]

>>1773813
Thanks anon, this is great stuff.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773834]

>>1773823
for full blown action, although you can rarely can see good poses on the pictures and all the tabards to distinguish between the teams makes the individuals less interesting I think.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773836]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773846]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773848]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773855]

[BotNfag No.1773857]

>>1773834
True, though we value practicality above all else so the armour doesn't always look pretty.
Sometimes you need the casual stuff or the photos from the individual teams to get character.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773862]

>>1773857
I can understand that, not a fan of shiny armor either, I like the munitions grade stuff and similar things, have one too.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773863]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773864]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773868]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773872]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773874]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773875]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773880]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773887]

>>1773880

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773893]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773899]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773934]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773937]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773938]

[BotNfag No.1773947]

>>1773862
Ah, the Sutton Hoo helmet. Nice.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773953]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773955]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773958]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1773962]

[Anonymous No.1773964]

>>1765582
You have ridiculous standards for women.

[Anonymous No.1773970]

>>1773962
Thanks for uploading all of this, very useful.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1774323]

I think we had enough vikings for now, anything else you guys want?

[Anonymous No.1774499]

>>1774323
superior nipple steel

[hungarian LARPfag No.1774535]

>>1774499
you want katanas or japanese stuff in general?

[Anonymous No.1774544]

>>1774535
I changed my mind. Forget japan. Show some mediterranean, or something. Katanas aren't very interesting.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775303]

>>1774544
what time period? or anything goes?

[Anonymous No.1775309]

Couldn't you assholes have made a new thread for the ref dump? This was such a nice study thread.

[Anonymous No.1775311]

>>1775303
I request for something Japanese. if possible share your folder anon.

[Anonymous No.1775312]

>>1775309
>This was such a nice study thread.
>A third of it being a clusterfuck over OP's image choice.

[Anonymous No.1775314]

>>1775309
B-but this has become a better r-ref thread

[Anonymous No.1775319]

>>1775314
This board isn't exactly so fast and high-traffic that it couldn't handle a separate reference thread.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775326]

>>1775311
folder is still unsorted huge mess see here >>1773639

but let's see what kind of japanes stuff I've got
(I will be slow as fuck because I have work to do)

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775329]

[Anonymous No.1775331]

Hey LARPfellow, you don't happen to have archers and shit like people drawing a bow, do you?

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775335]

also fun fact: spanish helmet that the japanese bought and pimped up to match their stuff. There were a few armor like this, mostly helmets and breastplates.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775337]

>>1775331
have a few of those, and crossbows too. And of course paintings

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775340]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775343]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775346]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775352]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775356]

although for the archery stuff a little plus info: it really matters how strong is the bow, because if you want to shoot with a stronger one you need a totally different stance and stuff like that. You really cannot draw the strongest one with the wrong stance and the wrong method, etc

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775358]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775363]

and addition to the beforementioned bow thingy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnPcyGjYZmc

[Anonymous No.1775383]

I remember doing this years ago.
Naked armor is the best kind of armor since the enemy starts to fight with his boner instead of his sword.

[Anonymous No.1775570]

>>1775356
>>1775363

Awesome! Very informative, and thanks for the pictures.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1775630]

>>1775570
little plus info to clarfy things: as you can see on the photos I posted people doesn't really shoot in the stance as they do it in the video. Basically because they are using smaller and weaker bows.
The reason is that as I said for a strong bow you need all of your muscles, you don't just draw with your arm but with your back and several other muscles too. this happens around 150 pound strong bows. As it gets weaker it needs less strenght to draw it so you don't have to care as much about the stance.

[Anonymous No.1775665]

Jesus Christ you all spend more time arguing than producing anything.

[Anonymous No.1775686]

>>1775665
You spend more time complaining than producing anything.
Do a study or two and come back when you can talk, faggot.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777620]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777621]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777622]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777623]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777624]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777625]

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777626]

[Anonymous No.1777627]

>>1777625
I've got a folder of over 2000 samurai photos. Mostly guys outside in armor, some museum stuff, and some that are castles and shit. Not the best resolution but still useful I suppose. Can upload if there is interest.

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777629]

>>1777627
do it

[hungarian LARPfag No.1777630]

[Anonymous No.1777662]

>>1761529
I wouldn't, either. Pretty much everyone on this board is an elitist twat.

[Anonymous No.1777672]

>>1777627
That'd be great, I don't have many photos of samurai in armor that are good reference shots, would help a lot.

[Anonymous No.1780992]

can i get an advice or critique?, this is my second "serious" female nude btw, all the rest are "non nude", low tier crap or something totally different, now i want to draw some "serious" shit and i just want to know if a have any chance cuz i think i have one, thanks if you read this piece of garbage :D