/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2597021

That's the start of it, but it's still surface. That's the "how", now figure out the "why". The "how" will let you do it just as he did without regard to suitability or appropriateness, the "why" will let you understand why he did it that way so that you can approach it however you want, with whatever you want.

The "how" and the "why" together would be this; you look at a reference shot and by squinting discern the effect of certain foliage. To imply this effect, you start with a texture brush proper to that foliage to lend some noise which feels like crossing ferns, or tangled dried branches, or leaves upon the ground.

Then, you think about how important this section is in the piece - will it fall under viewer scrutiny, or be in their periphery? If it's the section I posted, when compared to the full piece, it's actually somewhat negligible - so why would we add highlights to draw the eye? If that area falls under any extra scrutiny it'd probably fall apart, so it probably would not be to draw the eye. Instead, we would be adding just enough information with the little highlit portions and leave it at that.

Most importantly, if you're tired and you know you're tired, then rest. Don't be rough on yourself. Hard work ethic means nothing if it'd take you 4 hours to learn something tired as opposed to an hour well rested. Look at this again tomorrow with fresh eyes. For when that time comes, here's another painting with the exact same principles, done in a completely different manner. In this, a section of foliage is the actual focal point, so take that into account as well.

>>2596818
>>2596957

Before anything in the way of an explanation, you've answered your own question in a few different ways. If anything short of reverse engineering won't help you learn how to go about these things, why not reverse engineer it? Anything you learn will be infinitely more valuable because you took the time to figure it out, and in this case it's doubly important because implication of detail is useful to know with any subject. What are some steps to take when you do reverse engineer it? You said it yourself; don't draw every individual blade of grass. You know that Mullins didn't, but it looks like he did, which only leaves a few possible outcomes of what he actually did. Luckily for you, it's all right there in front of you if you've a fresh set of eyes to see it with.

I won't take a chance to learn away from you, but there are a few things you can watch out for. Learning the exact technique he used is besides the point - it makes as much sense for a writer to memorize really great sentences from his favorite books to use in his own, word for word. Instead, try to take into account the purpose of each area before you learn from it; the bottom-right in the segment that you posted, for example, is of middling importance to the piece. It's not the focal point by any means, but it is the foreground, and it will go a long way to set the stage for the rest of the environment. It's rendered appropriate to it's importance to the piece, as opposed to other areas which range from being looser to more refined - he does the exact same thing with the figures.

With that in mind, here's something small from the same piece. All I did was blur out the high lit portions. Take from that what you will. For comparison, look at the full piece from what you posted, and the stock photo here. Look at the photo, squint your eyes heavily, then lightly, then not at all, and then look at the Mullins bit. Don't squint at the Mullins bit. Connect the dots.

Best of luck!

>>2300601

looking lovely so far. be sure that you're getting what you want out of it instead of copying it inch for inch. otherwise you'll end up with something very pretty, by virtue of the source material, but ultimately ineffective in finding its way into your own work.

try to revisit it again a week later to see if you have any further observations beyond recalling what you learned along the way.

>>2300835

it looks well enough from a technical standpoint, but it feels like you're too focused on painting paint as opposed to finding the most economic way to paint what you've observed. the rendering is a slave to itself instead of serving a higher purpose, if that makes sense.

it's also entirely possible that i'm missing the point of the piece, but even a technical exercise should be in preparation for finished work.

>>2300844

see if you can simplify these a bit more by taking the time beforehand to plan out the composition of each. in the top right piece you've separated light and shadow well enough, but you've muddied the overall design by bringing too much frenetic light in to the dark. if you left only 30% of the best parts of the light that's in the shadow, the piece would be better off for it and you would have saved yourself some time to boot.

>>2301222

the piece and intention needs to read clearly before anything else can help.

>>2301335

you'll save yourself a lot of grief if you take a few hours to decide where you want to take this piece and how you're going to do it. as for now, it feels like you've set the stage near the lower middle of the piece - you can use those foreground elements to block it in better, but ultimately you'll need the point of the piece before you can start building everything to support it.

>>2208517

neat.

>>2208517

neat.

>>2197033

Where do you want it to go? It's hard to give constructive feedback without knowing what it is you want this piece to say or feel like.

>>2193950

My goodness, gem of a thread by /ic/ standards. I agree with a lot of the points already made and to be honest, I don't know exactly what you're looking for if your question hasn't already been answered. But, edges do not trump values, since edges are essentially just the progression of values by either visual mixing (noisy brush texture) or by smooth gradation.

In the end it's all just representing what you see. Edges are a component of values, but they're also a part of draughtsmanship and technique. In those regards, they're important, but they don't "trump" values. Edges can be used to wonderful effect though, like how a hard edge between two similar values can make them feel separate, or a soft edge between two different values can make them feel closer together. Also, harder edges tend to arrest the eye, whereas soft passages let you skip over stuff - but again, this goes in tandem with drawing focus in value contrast. You can see a ton of both happening here >>2194572.

>>2193577

I can see why. I tried to keep the tones grouped within a limited range to help the mood, but I probably went overboard if it didn't occur to me to mix some dark flecks into the foreground for the sake of depth.

>>2193655

hahaha I see, I see. I naturally tend towards solitude, and so freelance naturally fits that, but it's very hard to balance things that way. I've heard a lot about studio politics and that it's sometimes pretty hard to get things done, but I think having the opportunity to work with other artists on a team is worth that. I mean it's probably that the grass is greener, too, but I can always go back to freelancing if need be.

>>2194974

It's in my top three art books, for sure, and I think it's because it answers a lot of the why in artwork, instead of the how. Nothing about the proper drawing of the forearm, or the simplified muscle masses of it, or even of composing an image, except in that everything you do in a piece should serve an ultimate thing to be said. Find it online and try reading through the first chapter or two - I should also say that it's definitely more my cup of tea, since I lean a lot more towards ~feeling it~.

>>2195089

y-you too.

>>2193364
>>2193424
>>2193439
>>2193168

I think it's just keeping in mind that in the end, details like that are enthusiast-level considerations that don't have very much ground in any plausible professional situation aside from academia, like an anatomy/figure drawing professor.

Always something to be said about knowing yer shit, though. Especially where your passions lie.

>>2193080

I don't think you've done your research all too well. Making a living from freelance isn't terribly difficult, considering that your work fulfills a need, you have a thimble's worth of social grace, and you get your work in on time.

I mean judging from personal experience, most freelancers I know make more than people who have studio jobs - given, you have to cover your own health insurance, manage your own time, and learn to market yourself somehow.

I'm in the same boat as >>2193116, though. I've secured three larger clients, so it's a bit easier on me than it was when I was starting out.

>>2193522
>>2193527

There's pros and cons to each. I'm starting to build up some work to weasel into a studio when I can - freelancing has been fun as all hell, but working towards a greater project, with other artists to learn from, and having an AD with even a smidge of interest in your improving sounds like it could be lovely. Also, an obvious delineation between "this is your professional work time" and "this is your free time" sounds nice, but that's more about my fault in not being able to separate working time from personal time.

I'm also pretty sure that if, up until now, I had been in a studio, then I'd be looking at freelance with the same amount of romanticism. c'est la vie.

>>2189230

I don't have any personal experience with American and European ateliers, so I suppose I can't speak on it. It does seem dangerous to be taught how to see by another, more skilled artist exclusively, though it's the responsibility of the student to train himself in tandem.

Also, if you quote it and cut it off mid-sentence then it does seem like hippy bullshit, but you're arguing against a statement that doesn't exist on its own. Still, it does make me want to get my hands on those Repin academy books, or that chinese book on Serov's drawings.

>>2186515

Ha, I spent maybe 10 minutes looking through the thread and wondering which point is worth replying to, and which are just defeatist bits of temporary disillusionment.

>>2185873
>>2188091
>>2188096

I don't understand, you're so focused on "gettin gud" and the masters of the past that you can't find any enjoyment in your own work? That you won't be happy unless you're the best of all time and because you can't go to Russia or China that's no longer an option? There's so much useless mysticism behind improving your work and what makes a great artist, so many of y'all just whip yourself out of despair at your situation, convincing yourselves of why it's no longer possible for you.

Great artwork is just something worth saying, said clearly. All of it. Without technical skill, it's great intention muddled by lack of fluency and direction in technique, drawing and composition. Without an experience, story or emotion it's just a directionless technical exercise with grand execution. Both of these things can be sought with hard work - whether or not it's something too uncomfortable for you to seek is up to you.

Yes, the Russian masters were amazing artists, but the source material remains unchanged - human experience, the human body, landscapes. See what they saw, and how they translated it, and let it be exciting for you to follow down that path and make your own observations fit to you. All the beautiful work of the past is your legacy, any artist can be your mentor and teacher if you've the ability to set yourself aside and really look at their work, at their sketches. Not just seeing brushwork, or the very singular solutions to the needs of the picture, but actually looking at the why of things. Look at decisions made, look at how it deviates from the source material, look at how it benefits that special thing to be said in the piece, and learn. It's that simple.

>>2169224

Here's hoping that the drawing is yours, or else this might not be very pertinent.

Try standing in front of a mirror and hold your arm out sideways, palm downwards, and examine the contour - long, unbroken lines with only slight deviations within to describe minor forms. Then bring your arm in directly towards the mirror and watch what happens to those lines. They grow shorter, a bit more dramatic, and they become extremely descriptive as to the volumes they represent. The silhouette of your arm just became way smaller, so every little line and angle change becomes that much more important to describing the form correctly.

Do you see how the lines in the drawing are all similar? It works for the torso, because you're describing forms from a flatter viewpoint. When used on foreshortened limbs it looks extremely exaggerated because the way you're representing information isn't changing, it lacks the finesse, fine-tuning and accuracy that is required to state things clearly.

Hope that makes sense. It's how I think about it, at least.

lovely stuff. saved a few, so may as well contribute.

>>2140206

Oh, alright, will do. If you have more than a few then just ask on here though, I doubt i'll check my dA again in the next... few months, or so.

>>2140444

No, he has a point. Given it's a nightly sketch, but I should've solved this before moving on to anything rendered.

>>2140237

I see what you mean, and I agree with the problem, but not the solution. In most work, I don't feel like anything can really guide the viewer's eye besides areas of contrasting elements, visible eyelines or spokewheeling the first focal point. It's just an issue of balance that's thankfully not as pronounced because it's not a horizontal divide, but having a light area on the left hand side, in the shadow, would have helped immensely.

>>2140182

Howdy, and yeah, I have been for about a year now. I've nestled myself in with a few larger clients, so I sometimes have more than I can do - but at the same time, it doesn't mean that all the jobs I get are amazing. Still, it's work and I make enough to be comfortable, so it's all lovely.

Also, can't answer how much I make for business-like reasons, but I charge daily and half-daily rates, since I think flat rates are rather heavily imbalanced against the artist.

Thread's dead, so this'll most likely be my last post. Got to get to work besides. Bother me over on tumblr if you need anything else, though.

>>2140170

Don't worry about it. If you have any more questions feel free to bother me over tumblr or something.

>>2140150

I suppose I should clarify that you have to get clients before you can keep them.

>>2140169

He didn't ask for critique, silly goose.

>>2140051
>>2140113

Even by /ic/ standards, this thread turned into a trainwreck pretty darn quick. Still, an actual answer may help.

Finding work online as an illustrator isn't as difficult as people would make it seem, but it does take a very different set of skills that you'll need to develop. I think the biggest part of that misconception is that people are very afraid to send their work out there out of fear of not being good enough, and that honing these skills involves a social risk that can be uncomfortable for a lot of artists.

As far as finding work, it's all about sending your work to the right clients, and regularly. Keeping clients involves at least two of the following three things; being skilled, being a pleasure to deal with, and being consistent.

Hope this helps.

Well that was fun. I'll do another tonight, it's a good exercise.

>>2112868

I'd agree that I get caught up in brushstrokes too often enough, but in this case it actually is just crooked.

>>2108775

I don't understand how this could become more proper.

>>2110756
>>2109072

Lovely work.

>>2112517

Also very well done, though the color regions seem a bit blown out right now.

why not.

painted it from a mirror.

>>2054788

In general, no. Of course it depends on who your client is and what you're going for, but most times I'd advise against it strongly.

A huge part of it is just the tendency for college graduates to pad their portfolios with academic pieces to make up for lack of consistent application in finished work, and even if it's unfair that the connotation exists it'd be silly to not try to avoid it. Along with that, if your studies are applied successfully and you've a decent hand at life drawing then have it show through your finished work - no need to bash them over the head with it twice. If your studies look better than your finished work and it's hard to connect the dots between them, then it's kind of misleading in the first place.

If you have an interested client/recruiter and they ask - they do, sometimes - then show them. Keep it in its own section on a website or something. But don't go out of your way to shoot yourself in the foot by putting it in beforehand.

>>2026063

It's coming along nicely thus far, but it's hard to critique without knowing what the exact purpose is. I could talk about it, but what's the point in critiquing the rendering if it's more about the design of the armor? Or if it's about the character herself, then I wouldn't want to go too in depth about the armor and focus more on her posture and what everything she has says about her.

>>2026718

A few things are off, and again this is without knowing the intention of the piece so take what you may. The costume you have on her right now obscures a lot of her form, so it's difficult to see what exactly is happening - and right now it's to the point where we see her hands, think "wait, what?", and then leave the world of the image. With it being so hard to give information about the pose - like where her shoulders are, where her upper arms are going, and why her hands are meeting up like that - you need to take every opportunity you have left and give us a very definitive statement as to what's happening. If you took her cloak and had it bunched up in the crook of her arm as well, you could use the folds to say everything you need.

Also, it may be an issue of it just not being finished, but pay a lot of attention to your rim light. It's going to give us a lot of information, so be very deliberate of the weight/edge of it as it travels around the figure. Also, push the values you have underneath it to be at least a tone or two darker, if modelling is something you want. Right now it's like you have a very hard, cool light directly above her, and a somehow brilliant fill light directly up front.

>>2028313

You've modeled out the figure too heavily, and neither of your lights are obviously dominant. For the modeling, look at the work of Carlo Dolci as compared to Velazquez and see how much stronger a figure can read with fewer values and stronger statements in broader planes. For the lights, look at George Hurrell's portraits.