/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.1869611]

ITT: i share with you my collected screengrabs, info and notes i have stored in my 'ressources' folder in an attempt to make /ic/ a slightly better place.

this is not about tutorials or step-by-step process images, although i might drop one or two of those if i thought they were excellent for whatever reason. enjoy.

[op No.1869613]

[op No.1869614]

>>1869611

example of how the appearance of day/night is controlled by managing light sources and contrast in value blablabla

[op No.1869618]

>>1869611

example of how to plot a geometrical wireframe before rendering an object. every plane could now be a specific brushstroke changing in value as the face away from the lightsource.

this is taken from myron barnstones guide.

the exact name for this process i believe is triangulation, but i might be wrong.

[op No.1869619]

>>1869611

example of the same scene in many different lighting situations

from nathan fawkes

[op No.1869620]

>>1869611

sample face broken down using the riley method

[op No.1869622]

>>1869611

constructing a perfect ellipse in perspective

[op No.1869627]

>>1869611

illustrated collection of trends/styles in graphic design through the ages

(in hires. this would even make sense to print out and hang in your room, can see it being useful and inspiring)

[Anonymous No.1869628]

>>1869611
Lurkan

[op No.1869630]

>>1869611

example of a technically proficient illustration that suffers from being rendered into absolute multioblivion.

might be a cultural thing though, asians seem to love this kind of thing. maybe some asian d/ic/ks can chime in.

[op No.1869631]

>>1869611

ultra high res jaime. great for studying and reverse engineering his brushwork

[op No.1869632]

>>1869611

some biz info courtesy of ben mauro

[op No.1869633]

>>1869611

some more

[op No.1869634]

>>1869611

bizwisdom courtesy of tehmeh

[op No.1869637]

>>1869611

gavril a. klimov dropping in on a kotaku comments discussion to teach some guys about the reality of things.

[op No.1869640]

>>1869611

example of how you can manually (as in by painting, not by slider) change contrast of an image, yet get the same read as long as the value relationships are intact

[op No.1869641]

>>1869611

guide of movies with great visuals or design (i assume?). can confirm that those of these i have seen are absolutely amazing and should inspire any aspiring artist.

[op No.1869644]

>>1869611

for the comic aficionado, or aspiring comicbook artist.

[op No.1869645]

>>1869611

great design exercise. everybody knows the context (chess) so anyone can immediatly evaluate how well the individual figures function is described, while keeping the theme of all figures homogenous and appealing.

this is by mr jack

[op No.1869646]

>>1869611

interesting post by feng. one could argue though, that he has low credibility as he is not in the business of concepting anymore but in the business of running a school that teaches future concept artists.

[op No.1869648]

>>1869611

illustration prices, i believe this is from the artist guild pricing handbook (or whatever it's called).

[op No.1869651]

>>1869611

for those who want to draw smut for money

[op No.1869652]

>>1869611

example of just how insanely technical one can be, if one were crazy enough to want that.

[op No.1869654]

>>1869611

obligatory reminder of how low contemporary art has sunk.

[op No.1869655]

>>1869611

sample interactions of some layer modes ontop of a greyscale drawing.

[op No.1869657]

>>1869611

example for how significant perspective is for the brain to read form and depth.

[op No.1869658]

>>1869611

gavril rant on working for free (reaction to a studio disguising a request for free work as a contest)

[op No.1869659]

>>1869611

patterns in a jaime jones composition

[op No.1869661]

>>1869611

example of construction in isometry (non-perspective)

[op No.1869662]

>>1869618

just researched it. the process of breaking down a shape into tiny simply planes is called 'TESSELATION', not triangulation.

[op No.1869664]

some random notes on freelancing:

>FREELANCE NEVER UNDER 400$/300€ A DAY A DAY

>if you accept payment on a per-illustration basis MUST INCLUDE MAX REVISIONS IN CONTRACT!

>One more thing to consider is that in the employee position you always earn, pay tax, and then spend (in this order). If you're incorporated you can earn, spend and then later pay taxes. This simple difference in the cashflow is very important. Many full timers are a paycheck or two away from being screwed despite having good incomes, while being incorporated it's much easier to save 50 to 100k for a rainy day as you won't get taxed on every dollar in advance.

[op No.1869665]

notes i made reading the mullins pdf

>- big shapes
>- start working very very small, then scale up
>- shape design, shape language. stop the obsession with surface and turning of form
>- value gap between illuminated value areas and shadow value areas
>- watch and think more, draw/paint less
>- high value key, low contrast makes a scene look bright
>- make sure that the lightest area of shadow is clearly different from the darkest area of what is in light. The problem is “halftones too dark.” This applies to only areas of similar local value, though. The lit side of a black cube is darker than the shaded side of a white cube.
>- Beginning artists gravitate to detail and contrast like moths to a flame. It takes years for them to realize that that amazing pectorals they spent three days rendering is not sitting on the ribcage. “I meant to do that!, that’s my style!” Why I don’t teach anymore.

[op No.1869668]

mullins reply on the photobashing incident regarding his cutout of a waugh painting


'This is commercial art, made to illustrate an idea. It is not fine art, nor is it an exposition on my abilities as delineator. Whether or not I could paint some of these objects from scratch is not relevant. What is relevant is it would take more time to do so, and that time could be spent toward the end goal of illustrating an idea or feeling.

The most difficult aspect of repainting from a different angle is the complexity of these objects and scenes. There is a LOT of stuff in there. Constructing them in perspective is very time consuming. The majority of these images are constructed, however.

I prefer not to use photos like this, but I solve the clients problem faster, easier, and cheaper this way. The current method of working in concept/digital mattes is 3-d/photo composites with varying amounts of paint. It has been trending this way for the past few years, and it is very obvious when this technique is used, for better or worse. There is no intent to deceive or misrepresent. If this lessens your respect for work done this way, I completely understand and partially agree. But if I don't use these powerful tools, I will be at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. I do ask clients if they would allow a more "painted" look and the answer is almost always no. Maybe if I was a better painter the answer would be different.

Given the purpose of concept art there is little reason to reconstruct things that already exist, other than my (or a minority of others) preference, or an artistic machismo. This makes things more expensive for all involved. The time saved can be put into areas that do have to be constructed, which is the great majority most of the time.'

[op No.1869671]

daniel chavez setting the bar for refless creative drawing high as fuck

[op No.1869675]

>>1869671

musculature of the torse. great guide for directional brushstrokes to get even more form out of your shapes/muscles.

[op No.1869676]

>>1869611

and THAT'S ALL folks.

i'm gonna go buy some aspiring now because this fucking headache is killing me.

>>1869628
cheers! didn't even notice

[Anonymous No.1869678]

>>1869651
The only problem with this guide now is the existence of the chargeback option, which can fuck over any porn artist without their control.

[Anonymous No.1869686]

You are doing gods work op. I have the feeling however that most of this board is not interested in the professional side of things.

>>1869678

Intredasting. Might wanna add that in there and maybe update that image.

[New school in town? No.1869687]

Great stuff here OP. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.1869689]

Thank you so much OP, some of those things really helps!

I don't have much to contribute, but this might motivate some

[Anonymous No.1869811]

bless you, op

[Anonymous No.1871485]

lurkin

[Anonymous No.1871730]

>>1869620
what is this crap? someone just circled every symbol on the face they see... they even circled the fucking hair...

[Anonymous No.1871734]

>>1871485

ahahaha i love johnny sins.

[Anonymous No.1871752]

>>1869646
>instead of doing a 30 min sketch, we want 30 hour paintings
Wait, what? Isn't doing multiple thumbnails/sketches better than polishing one turd? Or does he mean it only technical-wise?

[Anonymous No.1871755]

>>1871752
>Wait, what? Isn't doing multiple thumbnails/sketches better than polishing one turd? Or does he mean it only technical-wise?

He's assuming that you're skillful enough to make awesome doodles and he's just saying that he wants them to be complete pieces of art, not the one sitting speed paints that are so popular now a days.

[Anonymous No.1871966]

>>1871730
riley rhythms
they do look like a mess of circles at first, but they describe basic rhythms of the face that correspond to major plane changes and help a lot with portrait drawing

[Anonymous No.1871974]

>>1869665

>shape design, shape language. stop the obsession with surface and turning of form

wtf? why? this is what ive been told to do so ad nausea..
jeff watts urges tons of contour drawing which is basically surface mapping.

[Anonymous No.1872467]

>>1869655
>Dat drawing though

[Anonymous No.1873080]

>>1871974

i don't know what to tell you anon. guess you'll have to decide which one of these masters advice you want to follow. mullins is advanced as fuk and very concerned with light and composition, jeff watts is incredibly technical and an incredible draftsman. however jeff watts doesn't paint narrative stuff from imagination. atleast not primarily.

[Anonymous No.1873183]

>>1871966
"rhythms of the face", right. how about we don't post this pseudo-science crap. those circles absolutely fail to describe the forms. I mean look at it -- slits for eyes? jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.1873207]

>>1873183

lol. it's a system to find features in relation to eachother. not more not less. and it's not pseudoscience anon, got nothing to do with science nor does it claim or try to.

[Anonymous No.1873209]

Does anyone have a pic for the proportions for drawing children?

[Anonymous No.1873232]

>>1869671
>daniel chavez setting the bar for refless creative
>Daniel Chavez
>Daniel
>NOT Wes or Marko
KEK

[Anonymous No.1873265]

>>1873209
There's a section about the children's facial proportion in Drawing the Head and Hands book by Loomis

[Anonymous No.1873275]

>>1871974

You're somewhat misunderstanding him. He's saying that a clean shape that reinforces the form is of greater importance than the transitions in rendering. Remember, shadows form shapes.

Jeff Watts urges you to do contours so that you *understand* the forms, which then inform the shadow shapes he draws. Look at the way he exaggerates the terminator of shadows. He practically outlines them.

[Anonymous No.1873323]

>>1873183
>>1873207

The interesting thing about the Reilly method is how applicable it is to 3D modelling. Faces animated horribly until modellers started laying vertices like Reilly's rhythm lines, especially the mouth. Seems obvious now, but it was a breakthrough 20 years ago.

[Anonymous No.1873323,1]

so you can actually reply in here? woah