/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4746928]

is using AO technique a good way to do full rendered pieces?

[Anonymous No.4746932]

Tbh, I’d probably make it to the second step, maybe 3rd or 4th, and say “yeah, that’s probably fine”

[Anonymous No.4746933]

>>4746932
> Tbh
(You)ing myself, but I thought desu was word filtered, desu

[Anonymous No.4746934]

>>4746932
I was doing some reading up on World War 2, and the more I read about this Hitler guy, the more he comes off like a real jerk desu

[Anonymous No.4746935]

Seems like a lot of layer faggotry when you could just do this all procedurally on at most two or three layers

[Anonymous No.4746937]

>>4746928
This looks like such a chore

[Anonymous No.4746941]

>>4746928
AO is synonymous with soft edge because thats all at is. also doing all those steps is a huge meme too.

[Anonymous No.4746943]

>>4746935
The good thing about this process is that if your client want some changes on colors you can iterate rather quickly before the polishing phase.
Up to step 3 it's also a good way to quickly validate composition and poses with the client and quickly apply changes.

[Anonymous No.4746952]

>>4746928
>selection layer needing its own entire time consuming step because photoshop cant into magic wand

[Anonymous No.4746965]

>>4746952
While I find the selection layer a bit over the top, it's very helpfull to keep separated layers for different materials, let's say skin, leather, metal etc.
Photoshop has ctrl click on your layer if you keep them separated, no need for the magicwand

[Anonymous No.4746975]

>>4746952
>entire time consuming step

Paint bucket tool nigger.

[Anonymous No.4747016]

>>4746975
how do you do that without trashing up the lineart layer?

[Anonymous No.4747020]

Artist?

[Anonymous No.4747021]

>>4747016
Do it on another layer?

[Anonymous No.4747023]

>>4747020
Johannes Helgeson

[Anonymous No.4747028]

>>4747021
Why are you asking me? Or are you implying its super obvious? Because its not. If you copy paste the lineart layer and bucket into that, the lineart becomes noticeably thicker thus losing lineweight detail and you have no quick way of erasing the lineart on the bucketed layer.

[Anonymous No.4747031]

>>4747028
What program do you use? In Krita you can make the fill tool sample all layers instead of only the current layer, so that you can fill line art that's on another layer. Can you not do that in your program?

[Anonymous No.4747033]

I've tried a similar approach before and I ended up scrapping the rendering layers because the result felt overworked for me.
I like the idea of AO layers and all but I've yet to figure out how to pare it down to something good.

[Anonymous No.4747035]

>>4747028
There's an option to consider every layer when you use the paint bucket so you can fill a separate layer within the limitations of your lineart, without altering it.

[Anonymous No.4747040]

>>4747028
>that one anon who can’t use a reference layer for paint bucket.

[Anonymous No.4747043]

>>4747040
More like, that anon who uses art software which have functioning wand selection tools that bypasses all of that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4747047]

>>4747031
I use krita, but it has a decent magic wand so I just use that to select within my lineart.

[Anonymous No.4747050]

>>4747047
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.4747051]

>>4746952
It's called clown pass, Sam Nielson teaches it on his course, the point is keeping things in order on complex illustrations, but you are a wojacker so probably you didnt knew, or even draw at all.

[Anonymous No.4747061]

just paint it lol. this is a hindrance

[Anonymous No.4747079]

>>4747043
That one anon who shills for muh magic wand without realising there are many ways to procede and that software, brushes and tools don't matter.

[Anonymous No.4747093]

>>4747051
I know what it is and Ive used it before when I worked in photoshop, while its a creative workaround its annoying to have to set up when competing art software have far easier shortcuts. Software is all about shortcuts and making your workflow just a bit easier, and while stuff like >>4747079 says is correct, its useless to point out because of shit like pic related.

[Anonymous No.4747130]

>>4746928
niggas will spend 30 hours doing all this then be like "lol just a quick doodle!!!"

[Anonymous No.4747147]

30 years ago you'd be done at step 5 and everyone would love it.

Digital isn't making work easier if you reinvest the time you saved tenfold into increasingly autistic and banal renderfaggotry.

[Anonymous No.4747153]

>>4747147
To me this seems more like a case of sacrificing time for a veeeery meticulous project, not about making things easier

[Anonymous No.4747428]

>>4746928
The final looks kinda muddy. Probably would have been better off leaving it flat.

[Anonymous No.4747442]

>>4747428
how so? i think it looks pretty cool

[Anonymous No.4747518]

>>4747442
The shadow passes are adding a lot of gray I guess. Maybe they would be better with a little more color. Not sure, never tried working this way. The final also just looks muddled and hard to read to me. I guess I prefer things to be a little more simple and clear.

[Anonymous No.4747602]

>>4746952
Photoshop literally have the most advanced selection tools on the market

[Anonymous No.4747622]

>>4747428
This.

[Anonymous No.4747628]

>>4746928
really loving how it gives off the completely generic artstation style that nobody is gonna look twice at. Great job!

[Anonymous No.4747639]

>>4747602
For selecting through transitions of colour for photo editing, sure. Since its photo editing software, hence the name, photoshop. But the use actual artists have (fuck photography) with it is fuck all if you cant quickly and cleanly select within lineart.

[Anonymous No.4747647]

>>4747518
Where the fuck are you seeing grey you fucking blind Dunning Kruger faggot, holy shit if you don't know what are you talking bout please spare us reading your mental barf, learn what are relative temperatures and desaturated colors first, and yes, i'm buttnuked by your idiocy.

[Anonymous No.4747657]

>>4746928
I tried this process months back, it's very much an unnecessary chore. BUT if you need to have a certain level of polish, I think it's good. I prefer to keep a max of 8 layers

[Anonymous No.4747722]

>>4747428 I'd go even further.
This >>4746928 is the best panel for me and looks complete enough for the 5 seconds people will spend looking at it.

Do I have to be able to do the full detailed drawing process in order to achieve a result like this in my sketches?

[Anonymous No.4748380]

>>4747722
By the way, I reduced the composition layers to 5, then further to 3, and I think it looks way less generic.

Thots?

[Anonymous No.4748413]

>>4748380
>thots
Yes, please.

[Anonymous No.4748428]

>Ambient Occlusion
>Backlight
>Ambient light
>Secondary fill light
>Specular map
>Atmospheric perspective
Is there a book or material that explain these concepts and how do they work in art in detail? I do not understand any of this.

[Anonymous No.4748445]

>>4746928
ITT: People who will never make it because they don't understand what "industry standard" means.

[Anonymous No.4748578]

>>4748428
Basic sXXI color theory. It's hard to explain and you should Google every term individualy

[Anonymous No.4748600]

>>4748578
wtf is sXXI

>>4748428
http://theartcenter.blogspot.com/2010/03/sam-nielson-painting-process.html

[Anonymous No.4749050]

>>4747518
actual retard doesnt know simple lighting, ambient light affects all the objects the same way, so if its desaturated a little, guess what? the rest of the drawing should read that way.

[Anonymous No.4749062]

>>4748445
Sure it's industry standard, but not everyone wants to treat their painting like a knockoff 3D render

[Anonymous No.4749102]

>>4746943
all of that work just for some big suit exec making gillions of dollars to say no...

[Anonymous No.4749121]

>>4747639
What program has good selection tools for the line art?

[Anonymous No.4749343]

>a gorillion steps for something that can be done in 3-4 layers
kek

[Anonymous No.4749361]

>>4746928
I just gave up on coloring black and white with adjustments and learned to paint the colors directly on that shit, fuck it.

[Anonymous No.4749365]

>>4747028
>If you copy paste the lineart layer and bucket into that, the lineart becomes noticeably thicker thus losing lineweight detail and you have no quick way of erasing the lineart on the bucketed layer.
If you actually knew what you were doing, you'd know this is 100% your fault and totally avoidable.

For a board full of so called "digital artists", a lot of you retarded morons don't seem to know how to use these programs beyond the absolute basics.

[Anonymous No.4749368]

>>4748428
>I do not understand any of this.
You do not necessarily need to know any of these, depending on the work you do. Regardless, the tedious method outlined in the OP is crazy stupid and totally unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.4749374]

>>4749365
can you explain how to do it correctly please? not him but I only started with digital a month ago and would like to know how to do this

[Anonymous No.4749405]

>>4746928
It's a crutch. It takes longer to work that way but it minimizes the opportunities for you to fuck up when all elements are neatly separated.

[Anonymous No.4749412]

>>4747639
I'm too used to photoshop to actualy care about other software but I never had any problems selecting within my lineart.
To get a selection that goes within my line I just use the fonction that dilates my selection for a certain number of pixels.
I macroed this function so i don't have to go in the menus and I never had any troubles.

[Anonymous No.4749479]

>>4747428
I wouldn't call it muddy but yeah these colour flats look really nice. Unironically this has soul whereas the final piece looks soulless.

[Anonymous No.4749495]

>using multiples layers for the same entity

[Anonymous No.4749498]

>>4746928
HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA
Oh god it's so ridiculous. Tradfags were right. These subhumans could never do good coloring in one layer.

[Anonymous No.4749511]

lol

[Anonymous No.4749519]

>>4748600
esl for 20th century, guessing s is siglo

[Anonymous No.4749524]

>>4749511

>14. Check Perspective

The mystery of Sakimichan, solved.

[Anonymous No.4749605]

>>4746928
This is why beginners should start traditionally and practice with it for at least a year before going digital. When you start off with digital you go down a rabbit hole, get slammed with all kinds of random info, start following a bunch of tutorials like this, and pick up stupid habits like OPs pic. A solid understanding of color theory and some plein air studies would save the artist in that pic from making a gazillion layers just to paint light on objects.

[Anonymous No.4749759]

>>4749511
all that work for some ugly ass feet

[Anonymous No.4750457]

>>4749605
I kinda both agree and disagree with you. On the one hand, all of this can be done without using the multitude of bullshit in OP's pic. You can certainly do this in digital with just one layer.

But on the other hand, digital is digital, right? There's absolutely no reason for you to carry your traditional methods into the digital world. If digital can do this, allowing you to make changes without having to repaint a section, why wouldn't you use it?

I feel like this falls into a subset of the "natural is better" fallacy. There are things digital does better, and layers is possibly THE biggest benefit. So why would you be against that?

But also I see where you're coming from. There's something to traditional methods of painting - in digital that would be using just one layer - that adds a whole lot more life to the final product.

I don't have an answer.

[Anonymous No.4750469]

>>4749511
>not checking perspective in step 1
lmao

[Anonymous No.4750485]

>>4749374
Not the guy you’re asking but what program do you use? In Procreate you can designate a separate line layer as a reference layer and paint bucket into a clean layer. No copy paste or magic wand needed.

[Anonymous No.4750506]

>>4746928
They should have stopped at step 2.

[Anonymous No.4750621]

>>4750485
I am using photoshop and it is very confusing to me so far.

[Anonymous No.4750628]

>>4749121
Sai and CSP have very efficient wands, Kritas is okish but still needs tinkering for best results.

[Anonymous No.4750639]

>>4749365
I dont understand how you can be so confused and snarky while writing a post so utterly clueless. Im not going to reword it, Ill just repeat it and I hope youll understand it this time.
If you copy paste the lineart layer and bucket into that, the lineart becomes noticeably thicker thus losing lineweight detail and you have no quick way of erasing the lineart on the bucket layer.

I dont even fucking use photoshop anymore, I just find it hilarious how they dont have efficient selection tools. Yes, there are workarounds, but they ALWAYS take more time than just a single (1, one) wand click. And the 10 pounds a month is always hovering above it, my friend.

[Anonymous No.4750640]

>>4750621
Yeah I tried Photoshop for a bit and it was too much for me. I’m very happy with Procreate, though.

[Anonymous No.4750654]

>>4750621
You can easily change the colour of the lineart layer in Photoshop by locking the transparency of the lineart layer and using the bucket tool to fill the lineart with any colour you want. Alternately, you can create a new layer and set that as clipping mask over the layer (not recommended) or use the blending options of the layer to apply a fill.

As you might have noticed, it's easier to do lineart in programs other than PS and then bring that into PS. For example I do lineart in CSP and shove that into PS to work.

[Anonymous No.4750658]

>>4746928
> rough: soul
> final render: soulless

[Anonymous No.4750809]

>>4746928
They're missing metallic reflection, fresnel reflection, and subsurface scattering

ngmi