|
MadSketcher posted:Hey, thanks everyone - I appreciate all your comments. I personally like the highlights, wayfinder... just a difference of opinion there. I get what you mean about the highlights looking too scattered, though... I kind of wanted to create a lighting effect. The actual image that I sent to the client has no background, gloss, or text in it. It looks a lot more simple. It does have some light shadows and highlights on the characters. The glossy atmosphere was just for me. I love your line work. I lurk in the draw every day thread and I love seeing the stuff you do there. I think the stuff on top of the line work just clutters it up and distracts from the piece, though. Her forearm is so bulky that it seems masculine and distracts me from the rest of the piece. All of her other details are very feminine, so that even the exaggerated bend of her legs doesn't seem out of place. I would smooth this over a little, if you want it to still be exaggerated. The lollipop stick is sort of unconvincing with the way that it intersects with the actual candy part. The stick is supposed to go through the candy to hold it, but it looks like the candy is just sitting on top of the stick, unconnected. I was going to bring up that lollipops like that tend to also consist of one long strand of candy wrapped up into that shape, but I think I like the way yours looks more like several shorter strands wrapped around each other. It gives it a rose-like feel. If that's what you were going for, props. I agree with Recycle Bin that you should add some cooler colors. The easiest thing I would imagine would be to just turn the purple highlights in her hair and her lollipop bluer, but you might also want to see what happens if you put some unexpected colors into the lollipop as well. That might help lead the eye there more?
|
| # ? Sep 29, 2007 17:39 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:43 |
|
|
CataraX posted:My eye tends to land at her elbow, although I have doubts that is an intended focal point. I'd be for having it look like we're seeing the figure from just a tiny bit further toward his front. This way we'd see more of his body so it'll be clearer what we're looking at and it would also allow the rear of the tank to recede that much more and make the perspective more interesting and noticeable. edit: oh, and yes to your three questions.
|
| # ? Sep 29, 2007 22:47 |
|
|
CataraX posted:Originally I thought you were going for a sort of fisheye effect. It might still be a good idea to look into that if you're wanting to exagerrate perspective with all of these elements involved. Ok, now what is wrong with this:  My usual litmus test for this type of thing is to reverse it using a mirror or light-source and that usually shows up any massively glaring errors. However, when I do that with this I don't see anything particularly tell-tale (I thought it actually looked better reversed). Additionally, when I hold it up against a reference picture, it still holds up pretty well, although I couldn't find one with this exact angle (the picture was done without reference because of this). It may be that her left eye is slightly too large, to low, too far away from the bridge of the nose, or all of the above, however I was actually less satisfied with the sketch when I moved it. Perhaps they're the wrong shape. Perhaps I've just been looking at it for too long. I dunno, what do you think?  EDIT: Here's a revision:  Now I look at the original it looks obvious.  Hopefully found the proper spot for the eye after a bit of puzzling there. That and getting rid of the lashes puts me more at ease about her. Can anyone see anything else? Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2007 around 04:00 |
| # ? Sep 30, 2007 01:36 |
|
|
Pandaman posted:Originally I thought you were going for a sort of fisheye effect. It might still be a good idea to look into that if you're wanting to exagerrate perspective with all of these elements involved. The revision is better, but the bridge of her nose is still very wide. Try moving her left eye a little bit closer to the nose and giving a little bit more definition to those plane changes in there. also, drop the inside corner of the eye down a little, right now here eyes are doing a  Thanks for the crits guys, I was trying to push into a bit of a fish-eye, and I think showing more of the front of his body will help. I will be changing his head design to a more gruff, goggled guy (instead of a gasmask) smoking a big cigar instead of cigarette, and I'm not too happy with his hand right in front of his face.
|
| # ? Sep 30, 2007 08:47 |
|
|
This is my first digital painting. It is for my photoshop class and I'd like some advice before I turn it in. The process worked like this: 1- I drew a few abstract sketches with markers and graphite 2- I scanned all of them and stretched each one of them on separete layers 3- I changed the blending modes and opacties of each layer 4- I zoomed in and looked for interesting shapes, color palettes and compositions, still playing with the layers. 5- I extracted 10 thumbnails and refined them. 6- In the end we had to chose one of them and make it a finished painting. (I chose two and combined them) And here is what I've got so far: 
|
| # ? Sep 30, 2007 23:07 |
|
|
Heres another piece I'm working on it's due tomorrow night, anything catch the eye? Im a bit worried about the chairs getting lost/being too busy. While I'm at it, here are some revisions on the tanker sketch:  I want to bring his left arm up and out, with the possibility of holding a conductor's baton ( like the symphony type) trailed by the first few bars of Ride of the Valkyries. edit: godamnit, on GF's account, this is CataraX. 
phenyl fucked around with this message at Oct 1, 2007 around 10:52 |
| # ? Oct 1, 2007 10:45 |
|
|
Hackuma posted:The process worked like this:  The textures stay intact in your piece, but you haven't tightened it a whole lot. The color variation on the figure on the left makes it look like from a bad cameraphone, what with the color noise and all. Maybe the pick of thumb wasn't the best, can you post the other 9? Don't be afraid to go above and beyond what the school wants - more base drawings, more possibilities. You can introduce calculated bits of non-abstract imagery through new base drawings, which can result in more immediately useful shots. For example, here are a couple of the marker images I started out with: http://yfinder.de/random/markers.jpgAnd here some of the shots I got from them: http://yfinder.de/random/frames.jpg And two thumbs that I took a bit further: http://yfinder.de/random/frame6.jpg and http://yfinder.de/random/frame4.jpg wayfinder fucked around with this message at Oct 1, 2007 around 18:36 |
| # ? Oct 1, 2007 18:33 |
|
|
Hackuma posted:This is my first digital painting. It is for my photoshop class and I'd like some advice before I turn it in. I see Cthulhu. Might be neat to use some hosed geometry in the background to make it look like he's spewing out of Rl'yeh or something. Either way, the darkness of it works nicely if you go with the Cthulhu route. He's meant to be terrifying and imposing, which light colors just don't convey very well. I'm sewage flavored.
|
| # ? Oct 1, 2007 21:16 |
|
|
wayfinder posted:Ah, we did that too
|
| # ? Oct 1, 2007 23:37 |
|
|
Edit: double post.
Chernabog fucked around with this message at Oct 2, 2007 around 00:04 |
| # ? Oct 1, 2007 23:58 |
|
|
Well, it's october, but what the hell. Acyrlic on canvas.
|
| # ? Oct 2, 2007 03:33 |
|
|
webster876 posted:Well, it's october, but what the hell. That is totally awesome. Here is one of mine, acrylic on canvas: 
|
| # ? Oct 2, 2007 06:46 |
|
|
I'm working on putting together some business cards, and I would love to get some critiques on these. as of now, I am not happy with the illustration on the back (bottom image) as it really isn't my strongest piece but for the mock-up, it works. I am going to put together a new piece specifically for this card, something that will blend into the card, sorta bas-relief in style. the logo on the front is going to be re-drawn, right now its plagued with jaggies.
 (please don't call me unless you want to throw money at me)
|
| # ? Oct 2, 2007 21:20 |
|
|
^^^^^^ I think you should probably make the logo bigger, leave the back without illustration and make all the contact information either all red or all white. I'm also not very fond of the uneven way in which the contact info is arranged, but maybe thats just a personal opinion. Perhaps you could align it with the bars on the left. Here's an update on my painting with an all new creature design. I'm working on losing some of the background texture and improve the light that is coming into the cave. Any advice?
|
| # ? Oct 3, 2007 00:36 |
|
|
I'm doing some posters for someones indy film. Does anyone have any tips on getting this paper texture out without washing out the colors? edit: whoa it matches the background 
The NPR Store fucked around with this message at Oct 3, 2007 around 07:50 |
| # ? Oct 3, 2007 07:47 |
|
|
digital scalene posted:I'm doing some posters for someones indy film. Does anyone have any tips on getting this paper texture out without washing out the colors? Choose "Whites" from the drop down menu and set the "black" slider to the leftmost position (-100%). Tadaa: 
|
| # ? Oct 3, 2007 08:31 |
|
|
wayfinder posted:Photoshop: Image > Adjustments > Selective Color. na, see it messes up the colors. Levels and upping the saturation does a better job, but I think im just going to rescan it a different way. thanks though
|
| # ? Oct 4, 2007 20:42 |
|
|
 cd cover for a mixtape i dont usually do graphic design, and this was pretty quick and dirty, but i'd like to get some opinions
|
| # ? Oct 5, 2007 01:48 |
|
|
strangebutohwell posted:
That illustration is cool, the lettering kinda gets lost in the background though, the "I wanted to be the greatest" looks painfully like a font. If I were to suggest something, I would say separate the lettering and do both titles in shades of grey to stand out against the background and match the baby part. And maybe lose the transparency on the illustration.
|
| # ? Oct 5, 2007 06:32 |
|
|
 I run through cyclic phases of being able to draw and not being able to draw. This was about 3 years ago at the end of the last cycle.
|
| # ? Oct 5, 2007 15:56 |
|
|
strangebutohwell posted:
I don't like the stroke around the sentence, but I have a prejudice against stroke around script. If you have Indesign I would say to play with the script font, skew it and such because you might find something that works better. "Once" gets lost in the background because of the closeness of the font color against the background. It took me a while at first glance and "I wanted to be the greatest" is what I read first. I agree with losing the transparency on the illustration. I really do enjoy the overall composition and the placement of the text. Also, the illustration is bad rear end.
|
| # ? Oct 6, 2007 02:56 |
|
|
cheese eats mouse posted:Also, the illustration is bad rear end.
|
| # ? Oct 6, 2007 06:41 |
|
|
wayfinder posted:Yeah, got any more where that one came from? Could be a great design resource. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/h...ies/browse.html found it linked from boing boing. def. a great resource, but i had to spend some time cleaning it up and making it pop.
|
| # ? Oct 6, 2007 16:10 |
|
|
digital scalene posted:I'm doing some posters for someones indy film. Does anyone have any tips on getting this paper texture out without washing out the colors? The drawing of the woman's face is really amateurish, and not in a good way. I wish it wasn't there because the colours and brush texture looks pretty cool.
|
| # ? Oct 6, 2007 16:16 |
|
|
strangebutohwell posted:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/h...ies/browse.html
|
| # ? Oct 6, 2007 19:23 |
|
|
strangebutohwell posted:
Well, I do like it. In fact, I like it quite a bit. The red stuff going on in the background really caught my eye first for some reason. Neat stuff, there. However, that rope thing in front of the baby bothers the poo poo out of me. The only thing I'd change is removing that entirely but that's just me. I would also consider changing the text that other people have mentioned, but no big deal. It'd likely look cooler if it were handwritten or something. Anyway...I've been doing more impressionist landscape...stuff... 
I'm sewage flavored.
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2007 00:36 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Anyway...I've been doing more impressionist landscape...stuff... Theres too much of the same color throughout. Impressionists paintings typically are overflowing with color. You're not capturing light and shadow in any way either. Your perspective is off. Hey guys I'm going to be posting some paintings soon. My digital camera broke so I have no means of getting them on the internet right now.  
INFERNAL INTERNAL fucked around with this message at Apr 9, 2010 around 23:46 |
| # ? Oct 7, 2007 02:05 |
|
|
For anybody who didn't see these in GBS in The Great Art Giveaway, here's two of the three paintings I painted for people and mailed to them (I'm not extremely happy with the 3rd, you can go see it for yourself if you want, though.)  Comments, suggestions, critiques are appreciated!
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2007 07:23 |
|
|
Hernando posted:The drawing of the woman's face is really amateurish, and not in a good way. I wish it wasn't there because the colours and brush texture looks pretty cool. well I'm pretty amateurish, is there something I could do immediately to it that might make it look better?
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2007 07:34 |
|
|
peterickson posted:Theres too much of the same color throughout. Impressionists paintings typically are overflowing with color. You're not capturing light and shadow in any way either. Your perspective is off. This. I would also suggest making your darks darker and your lights lighter. You could also consider using atmospheric perspective (Things that are far away get desaturated, light and blurry). Edit: It said "lights darker". I mean "lights lighter". Chernabog fucked around with this message at Oct 8, 2007 around 03:22 |
| # ? Oct 7, 2007 09:05 |
|
|
guys... what can i do to make this more... camely (not comely, that'd be weird) cleek fur beeg (it's a palindromedary)
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2007 10:39 |
|
|
digital scalene posted:well I'm pretty amateurish, is there something I could do immediately to it that might make it look better? Sorry, I can't really say since it is practically permanent from a reductive point of view, but it just matters that you recognize the problems.. The thing with faces is that any and all discrepancies you make in the proportions or believability will always stick out pretty badly. Her eyes are askew and tilted to the right, the difference in the size of the nostrils is awkward; it would be OK if the rest of everything else on her face was diminished in prominence because of a strong light source, but it isn't the case when you look at the right side of her lips or her eye. Her eyelid is also too thin, and her lips are wobbly. This is just me trying to put into language some intuitive feelings I have when looking at it, I mean, I don't want to insult you by pointing out these things, but sometimes it helps to have someone show it to you since you might get so caught up in your own drawing that you don't notice... when doing portraits I need to take a break from my drawings to see what my mistakes are. If it's an aesthetic you are interested in and you think might work with your style, try looking at creating caricatures or comic-style drawings of faces, with an economical use of lines. That way, you can get away with not trying too hard in defining complicated shapes like the nose, and lips, and still have it look good and interesting. Although, I understand the stylistic continuity you were going for in your piece.
|
| # ? Oct 7, 2007 16:33 |
|
|
 still not happy with the font. i'll have to steal the font collection from the graphic design computers at school. on the right track yet?
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2007 02:39 |
|
|
strangebutohwell posted:
Yeah, the font is no good, but your biggest problem is that the red stuff, the illustration, and the type, are all vying for attention as the focal point... it's really not resolved. Those clear tentacle things are out of place, too. The drawing is really quite great (it is unsavory to me, but that's beside the point), I would probably make that a lot bigger and make it the undisputed focal point of the image, maybe with the red stuff still at that intensity but as the background, and a tiny version of the script front that you used at the bottom.. try it out, play around with it a bit more.
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2007 02:56 |
|
|
More work on my tank driver, trying to bring out a bit of Ron Cobb in it. I still have a long way to go.  edit:  Done for tonight, not sure how I feel about the camo, it certainly does it's job. CataraX fucked around with this message at Oct 8, 2007 around 07:21 |
| # ? Oct 8, 2007 03:15 |
|
|
Hernando posted:I see what you're saying, I really do need to work on that. I think I just put the face down quickly and thought it would look messy and it would work, I didn't think it would be that glaring that I was bad with realistic portraiture. I should have payed attention to it. I'll try to do those sorts of things more stylistically until I can make it look right. thanks CataraX posted:
I kinda liked the musical notes thing you were doing earlier, i was really over the top, and looked good with the rest of the picture. without that its a little hard to tell what hes holding, I thought it was a screwdriver at first. The NPR Store fucked around with this message at Oct 8, 2007 around 08:56 |
| # ? Oct 8, 2007 07:31 |
|
|
digital scalene posted:I kinda liked the musical notes thing you were doing earlier, i was really over the top, and looked good with the rest of the picture. without that its a little hard to tell what hes holding, I thought it was a screwdriver at first. Yea I noticed that myself as soon as I continued inking, but I just couldn't find a way to make the music look good without looking WAY too busy. As it is, the camo is already a bit hard to look at. 
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2007 23:40 |
|
|
CataraX posted:Yea I noticed that myself as soon as I continued inking, but I just couldn't find a way to make the music look good without looking WAY too busy. As it is, the camo is already a bit hard to look at. I realize it's probably too late to do so, but I'd say lose the camo and add the music. The music fills that empty space in the current draft, and the camo is frankly pretty distracting (and doesn't look like camo).
|
| # ? Oct 9, 2007 01:27 |
|
|
These are some from the past few weeks. I'm interested in explosions. Probably an effect of videogames and movies. I also love spontaneity, organic shapes and color. These are all a mix of oil, acrylic and spray paint.    This one really has to be seen in person for the for experience. The detail is infinitely small. Its not because I have really steady hand but more because I'm using turpentine and other chemicals. The colors are subtle in some parts and bold in others. When you look at it closely you'd notice that almost every color in the spectrum is somewhere in this painting. From farther away some parts look like flat colors but theres actually a wide range within them.  I don't feel like measuring them all so heres me in my studio with the paintings to give you an idea of how big they are.  I should mention that the colors you see are not entirely accurate. I didn't compare the image I was adjusting in photoshop side by side with the paintings. Some of these might be a little less contrasty as well. I also slightly sharpened all of these just so the detail was a little more apparent CRITIQUE ME!! INFERNAL INTERNAL fucked around with this message at Oct 9, 2007 around 19:15 |
| # ? Oct 9, 2007 15:42 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:43 |
|
|
pete, I would say that the first one is the weakest, chiefly because of that flat red spray paint, although the element of deep, dark splatter and grades of washy red go well together. My favourite would be the second one, it has a good colour palette and that dash of red is mmm delicious, and that growthy organic stuff going on is cool and it is nicely contrasted by the smudgy stuff, but yeah I just like how it looks. The third has some questionable colours and colour combos (a bit icky, I might say), and the white spray is awkwardly composed and too dominant in the 4th (looks a bit better in the studio pic tho), but besides that there's some kewl things happening on it.. again I'm not that big a fan of the colour palette I feel weird critiquing these JPGs of them because your work positively begs to be stared at up close and to be in their presence... I am only offering my thoughts on the general aesthetic of them. There was this guy at an art show that did these huge canvases where he used paints and solvents and sediments and all sorts of things like that so he got a ton of really detailed random colours and shapes. Then he had a vertical and horizontal bar to which a camera was mounted and hovered over the art, and there was a TV monitor and a joystick with which you could move the camera around and you'd see a closeup of this dope-lookin' delicacies of the chance process... it was clever, even though the technological stuff was an eyesore.
|
| # ? Oct 9, 2007 19:08 |
|
