/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4565519]

Post examples of reality that would like a mistake if it was art

[Anonymous No.4565551]

>>4565519

[Anonymous No.4565563]

>>4565551
beg go back to loomis

[Anonymous No.4565568]

>>4565519
God should really study foreshortening and perspective more.

[Anonymous No.4565571]

>>4565519
At first glimpse it looked like she was holding the remote under her arm like a football and her body was all kinds of fucked up.

[Anonymous No.4565574]

>>4565551
At what point are "mistakes" really mistakes and not deviations from an ideal standard present in the art world? A drawing of an ugly person could look shitty but still be completely devoid of actual mistakes, even an average person that happens to have bigger eyes than average could look like a proportional mistake in a drawing

[Anonymous No.4565575]

Post that painting where it was literally traced and some asshole said "the anatomy and perspective has major problems"

[Anonymous No.4565576]

>>4565575
Are you talking about firez painting?

[Anonymous No.4565578]

>>4565551
I don’t get the issue here.

[Anonymous No.4565580]

>>4565576
Yeah

[Anonymous No.4565582]

>>4565578
Eyes too big, jaw too small
Needs more Loomis

[Anonymous No.4565583]

>>4565551
This pic is shooped to hell and back, of course it's going to have broken anatomy. That or she sold her jaw bones.

>>4565519
Why just post examples? Let's draw and fix that shit. This is an art board

[Anonymous No.4565593]

>>4565580
Here you go, should be the new banner.

[Anonymous No.4565594]

>>4565593

>tfw I was in that thread

tempus fugit

[Anonymous No.4565599]

>>4565574
That's the point of the thread you fucking autist. Do you not know what you think unless you type it out?

[Anonymous No.4565604]

>>4565583
It's not shopped. Korean girls shave their jaw bones. It makes them look younger when they use thot photo trickery but if you look at them head on you can tell there is something unnatural about their facial proportions. I chose a perfect example picture for this thread.

[Anonymous No.4565611]

[Anonymous No.4565615]

>>4565611
loomis and read the sticky /beg/ also study the placement of the pelvis and where bones connect to it.

[Anonymous No.4565624]

>>4565593
I went to an archive to see the replies. It’s literally a bunch of crabs and not even a hint of someone saying something positive. I don’t get it.

[Anonymous No.4565635]

>>4565519
the top she's wearing makes her right shoulder look dislocated and the foreshortening and weird pose throws her anatomy off balance
overall, the pose is very non-artistically appealing

[Anonymous No.4565668]

>>4565635
>the pose is very non-artistically appealing
It’s one of those things where if the original reference looks like crap then any drawing of it will also look like crap if it’s a 1 to 1 copy. You’d have to use some creative liberties with her right arm and the pose itself to transform it into something more appealing.

[Anonymous No.4565682]

>>4565624
Link?

[Anonymous No.4565723]

>>4565611
There's literally nothing wrong with this one.

[Anonymous No.4565750]

>>4565682
It’s easy to google but I’ll spoonfeed just this one time just so you can see the crabs.

>>/ic/thread/S1808615#p1811245

[Anonymous No.4565754]

>>4565593
Remember. NEVER take advice from /ic/.

[Anonymous No.4565762]

We need to kill off the realism faggots
Just buy a DSLR
This is called ART
We DRAW
we can CHANGE stuff that's why we study anatomy
Just make things more clear

[Anonymous No.4565767]

>>4565593
>Here change the pose to make things way more clear to help the viewer
>It was a photo CAUGHT U
>Okay that's great but here are the things you can do to make the drawing better
>It's a PHOTO IT IS REAL so you lose
The retards in /ic/ I swear

[Anonymous No.4565885]

[Anonymous No.4565902]

>>4565767
You know god damn well that's not what the guy who did the paintover was thinking. "Wrong on quite a few levels, especially when it comes to anatomy and perspective" does not mean "you should make the pose more clear". It means exactly what it says it means, it means "wrong". A photograph of a real human cannot be "wrong", therefore pointing out that the painting was a 1 to 1 copy of a photo was a perfectly valid way of btfo'ing that guy.

[Anonymous No.4565906]

>>4565723
I agree, but if someone made it into a painting, it would be shat on because of her weird legs.

[Anonymous No.4565932]

>>4565551
SHOO SHOO gains goblin

[Anonymous No.4565935]

[Anonymous No.4566041]

>>4565902
Photographs aren't 1 to 1 reality
The only thing you can truely trust is your eye.
The photograph can be distorted so yes the anatomy can be wrong and the pelvis can be popping to much etc etc idk the draw over is too small to see what he changed.
You can play around with distortion in your drawing to make it seem more interesting but again you need to think about anatomy and making things clears for the viewer.
For example a photograph can make someone seem like she has 3 head long ribcage but doesn't make it "right" no matter how much u point at a distorted photograpgh claiming it is correct BC it is "reality"
So much of you fuckers are so lazy and so into realism that all this study of anatomy and value etc goes no where because all you care about is how realistic it looks compare to appeal

[Anonymous No.4566111]

>>4566041
>trust your eye
you were never going to make it

[Anonymous No.4566152]

>>4565519
It's bad composition and arrangement, of course it's going to look bad as a painting or illustration.

[Anonymous No.4566162]

>>4565611
the legs are fine, the issue is the ellipse of the skirt makes us think they are at an impossible angle

[Anonymous No.4566219]

>>4565935
kek

[Anonymous No.4566237]

>>4566041
>Trust your eye
But how can mirrors be real?

[Anonymous No.4566240]

>>4566041
The level of cope is unreal.

[Anonymous No.4566246]

>>4565519
>

[Anonymous No.4566287]

>>4566041

Inside the mind of a crab.

[Anonymous No.4566308]

>>4565902
In illustration being technically correct is meaningless unless it also looks correct. You're being blindsided by "winning" and "losing" an internet argument that you failed to see the bigger picture. The redline improved his illustration, regardless of whether it happened to be a 1:1 copy of a photograph.

This is why the theory of art fundamentals exists in the first place. It is not so that we can recreate reality 1:1, but so that we can suck out the essence of what makes something feels real and maximize that feeling even more, to the point that it looks better than the real thing itself.

>It means exactly what it says it means, it means "wrong". A photograph of a real human cannot be "wrong"
Yes it absolutely can. You're arguing on a pedantic position that holds no practical value in illustration.
Look at this picture >>4565635
Does it being technically "right" contributes any positive value whatsoever to the illustration? No it doesn't. Calling it wrong is perfectly acceptable in this case.
It's like someone adding a Habanero to a sugary fruity desert and then explaining that it is technically a fruit when they get rightfully criticized.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it a duck.
Likewise in illustration, if it looks wrong, it is wrong.
Don't even reply to this post unless you have a substantial argument.

[Anonymous No.4566327]

>>4566308
I don't feel compelled to respond to your post at all because you're obviously just trying to cover for a guy who got horribly btfo'd and everyone thinks you're dumb. As for your motivation for doing that, I don't know, it could be because you're one of those people who likes to leave drive-by comments about how people's "anatomy" and "perspective" is "wrong" and this post demonstrates how utterly baseless and arbitrary those criticisms can be, which makes people less likely to take your posts seriously, but that's just speculation.

[Anonymous No.4566330]

>>4566327
based based based

[Anonymous No.4566345]

>>4566327
You're still blindsided with a tribalistic "us vs. them" mindset which is weird because
>who likes to leave drive-by comments about how people's "anatomy" and "perspective" is "wrong"
is the exact kind of position that I'm arguing against.

I'd recommend you take a breath and re-read my post.

[Anonymous No.4566356]

[Anonymous No.4566434]

>>4566308
I think you are confusing "good" with "real". And "real" with "right/correct".

[Anonymous No.4566468]

>>4566434
It's less that I'm confusing these two things and more that I'm saying that the definition of "right" and "wrong" that some people here hold is entirely irrelevant when it comes to illustration. This definition can have some merit when it comes to, say, scientific illustration or maybe speculative paleontology but not when it comes to commercial pinups like this. It's clear that people are simply arbitrarily insisting on this pedantic definition because they care more about defeating the evil boogeyman and less on improving their art.

>And "real" with "right/correct"
Can you elaborate this?

[Anonymous No.4566643]

>>4565885
Shit. I thought his head and shoulder were an ass and his ear was like a butthole. Disappointed desu

[Anonymous No.4566742]

>>4566308
I feel like there are 2 different conversations going on here. We have a discussion about how good and accurate the digital painting is to the original photograph and we have a discussion about what can be done to improve upon the photograph in a digital painting medium.

I’m terms of the first conversation, I feel that the original photograph is well represented by the digital painting. I’m not going to say it’s a perfect 1 to 1 replication, there are differences if you look and compare them side by side for long enough. However, the fact that this step has to be done implies to me that the digital painting is at least good.

On the second conversation, I get what the argument is trying to say but it gets muddy when looking at the original photograph here >>4565750. I feel like people are implicating that the original photograph isn’t good as a reference which I disagree with if that’s the argument being made. Comparing it to OP’s image is a poor argument because OP’s image is legitimately a bad reference. That remote hand looks genuinely weird because of the perspective but I can’t say similarly for this original >>4565593. Honestly, the redlines that we’re drawn 6 years ago now barely modify the final digital art in any significant way and saying “if the artist used the redlines, the art would have went from bad to amazing” is pure bullshit.

Still on the second conversation, maybe the argument is doing extra things to make the art pop and look better from the original reference while still capturing its essence. At least in the final posting, nobody replied with a good suggestion on how to do that. The responses that can be constructed as criticism are the redline (which does little to actually improve) and 2 anons not liking the shading on one of her legs and her elbow.

I’m for improving a drawing over the reference that still captures the essence of the reference but the suggestions made 6 years ago are minor at best.

[Anonymous No.4566769]

>>4566643
genuinely could not even consider any possibility other than “woman laying a baby under a man’s ass” until I read your comment. That’s one hell of an illusion

[Anonymous No.4566836]

[Anonymous No.4566852]

>>4565578
it looks like her shoulders are super wide

[Anonymous No.4566871]

>>4566742
>We have a discussion about how good and accurate the digital painting is to the original photograph
Well no, it's pretty well-established that the painting is a very accurate copy of the photograph, I don't think anybody is arguing about that.

>and we have a discussion about what can be done to improve upon the photograph in a digital painting medium.
Well again, not really, your discussion is getting into the quality of the redline itself, which might be worth discussing but not what I was talking about.

My post is a response to the implications that you simply cannot criticize or correct the anatomy of the painting because it's a perfect copy of a photograph which I think is an absurd notion.

And to be clear I'm responding to the posts in this thread and not the ones on the archive.

As for the quality of the redline itself, I do think it improved the drawing in some ways. I certainly don't think the original painting is bad. But one of the things that really stuck out to me in the photograph is that her torso looks disproportionately long and thin, making the proportions feel awkward and unnatural. The redline imo improved this particular aspect, making the curves flow more gracefully.

You don't need to have OP-tier of a weird reference for it to be worth correcting. The human body makes awkward shapes all the time that doesn't necessarily feel natural or intuitive. That is where your experience with construction and anatomy can be useful, so that you can re-introduce sanity and visual logic into the reference.

[Anonymous No.4567014]

>>4565935
Looks like one of those fucked up renaissance painting babies

[Anonymous No.4567116]

any of these "double take" photos from buzzfeed really

[Anonymous No.4567437]

[Anonymous No.4567438]

[Anonymous No.4567441]