|
randie posted:Kind of debatable. There's no one right way to do it, and while I definitely recommend flatting, there are absolutely other ways to go about it, especially if you're in early, experimenting stages. Multiply is what a lot, if not most professional comic colourists use. It's also why having clean flats is important. I'm just stating what myself and others use professionally.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 02:48 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 05:56 |
|
|
Redjenova, I love the way you're drawing their feathers! The only criticism I have is that the kiwi on the right has a "stripes" effect going on because the feather pattern becomes very regular on his belly.Kismet posted:I don't have much to give in the way of criticism, but good god, I love your handwriting. You obviously have a taste for line and flow, and evidenced by the swooshy tree and octopus, so I'd say this is something you could be incorporating into your life/reference sketches more. I see a lot of sketchy lines around the mug in particular, which is a good way to pin down form but also a good way to avoid committing to a stroke (god knows, this is the pot calling the kettle black). Work on more confident sketching and I'm sure you could improve your hand-eye co-ordination to the point where that elegant line quality comes through. Thanks for the advice! I'll try to keep it in mind. The comment about my handwriting is kind of funny to me, since when I'm not actually trying to be careful with it, it's nearly illegible. I wish I was one of those people who can write nicely and quickly. I wish I had more to say about other people's stuff, but I don't really have the background or knowledge to offer anyone advice. 
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 02:50 |
|
|
Thanks for the tips guys, and I'm glad there's disagreement, because that just means there's so much nuance. I'm going to try all methods suggested to me, and I hope you guys don't mind if I kind of spam this thread with my poo poo every now and then.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 03:30 |
|
|
Here's my try for this weeks challenge. I had time on my hands so I went ahead and drew it. I have some severe work to do on better drawing faces and what not but I think it came out okay for someone that only doodles normally. I've been using that figure and gesture website thing a lot to help my poses and the female form which, I'm terrible at. I'm currently using: Conda 2B, 4B, and 6B pencils, a Sharpie pen, and Crayola Twistable colored pencils, all on a Conda sketch pad. I feel almost I should stop drawing when posting after some of these phenomenal works of art above me lol. 
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 04:02 |
|
|
34 years old, no formal art education. I have been involved in doing design for bands and festivals/comics/magazine in Asia for years. Recently moved home and for some reason find myself hitting a wall artistically. I keep getting afraid that it is because I getting older and it is starting to fade. Or maybe its because I am back in a country where I don't really know anyone anymore and every time I try to contact or deal with other artists I find they have no interest in cooperation or strange about the work I have done. Anyways really glad to find this thread and I hope to contribute over the next little bit. I am currently doing some paintings with mixed media. I like very bright colours, I like surreal and strange, I think mostly I have to figure out some techniques and collaborate with other artists. I have a art blog etc and will leave the address if asked. I would say that my art is very strange.
Poohat666 fucked around with this message at Oct 20, 2011 around 05:23 |
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 05:03 |
|
|
Nessa posted:Multiply is what a lot, if not most professional comic colourists use. It's also why having clean flats is important. I'm just stating what myself and others use professionally. I'm not trying to argue with you, but again, I disagree. Using sweeping generalizations like 'a lot, if not most artists do it this way' is a fairly limited mindset, especially when talking about something as fluid and varied as illustration, be it comics or children's books or logos or commercial advertising. I don't know you, and I don't know what sort of professional work you've done. I can't judge you, and I don't want to because you can work whichever way you like--artists should always find what works best for themselves. However, telling someone who is just learning to draw or shade or colour that there is one specific way of doing any one thing because that's the way professionals do it is mildly baffling. There's nothing that keeps a new artist from exploring different techniques better than the ingrained idea that you need to do everything the way professionals do. Amxkapool posted:Here's my try for this weeks challenge. I had time on my hands so I went ahead and drew it. I have some severe work to do on better drawing faces and what not but I think it came out okay for someone that only doodles normally. Figure/gesture sites are indeed helpful, but I've noticed that a lot of sites (like posemaniacs) have a lot of very plastic looking poses, as well as plastic looking faces. If you're using it, you can just as easily use websites like  Photo References for Comic Artists and/or Human Anatomy for Artists , or any resources listed on the first page of this thread (I think there were quite a few). Not only are pictures of real people less mannequinesque, they also have facial expressions and features that are much less lifeless (and in the case of posemaniacs, have skin!).Also, you're using crayola twistables--I've never used twistables personally, but I've used some of crayola's generics way back in the day and found them to be extremely waxy. If you're finding that they don't go over top of each other very well, I recommend picking up a basic pack of prismacolours (can be found pretty cheaply at Walmart), especially if you want to mix them together.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 13:36 |
|
|
randie posted:I'm not trying to argue with you, but again, I disagree. Using sweeping generalizations like 'a lot, if not most artists do it this way' is a fairly limited mindset, especially when talking about something as fluid and varied as illustration, be it comics or children's books or logos or commercial advertising. Colour above the lineart layer? Tediously remove the white from your lineart layer yourself? If you have good clean (2 bit) lineart I guess option 2 would work, but the problem with colour bleeding through wouldn't exist in the first place. If your lineart is scetchy and full of greys it's going to look awful without some sort to transparency anyhow. Multiply just ensures that it makes whatever's below it darker in all cases. Experimentation is fine, but I don't see the harm in knowing the best practice when it comes to greyscale lineart. Multiply layers are only 'a bad habbit' when you rely on them for shading instead of making your own colour choices.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 14:10 |
|
|
The general alternative to multiply is to ink digitally about the lineart layer yourself.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 14:27 |
|
|
Giant Boy Detective posted:I want to achieve this- Go to Object > Expand Appearance. This will seperate the fill shape from the stroke. You can then use the Direct Selection Tool to pick a piece of the line between two anchor points and delete it. (You get the round ends under Stroke tools). Giant Boy Detective posted:9) Is there a way to make the Eyedropper tool only transfer the color of the stroke OR the fill, and not BOTH?  Giant Boy Detective posted:10) Does Illustrator have a window like the History panel in Photoshop? Since I prefer to adjust things one tiny step at a time, if I decide I didn't like the changes I made, being able to go back 80 steps ago in one click is such a boon, and then I can click back and forth between those two distant steps to instantly compare. Hitting Ctrl+Z 80 times is amazingly terrible. Giant Boy Detective posted:11) How do I convince the Blend option that I the two objects I'm blending are the exact same object, but rotated? I just want the in between steps it produces to be that same object rotated at different angles along the arc. Instead I get this: - Create an object (like your vines) - Drag it to the brush palette and create a scatter brush. - Change the rotation to "relative to path". Result:  Giant Boy Detective posted:12) If two different sized strokes converge on a point, how do I make the transition look less abrupt? In the case below- Sounds like you're looking for the Stroke Width Tool, which is new in CS5. Here's a tutorial: http://vector.tutsplus.com/tutorial...tribal-designs/ If you don't have CS5, this isn't possible other than by working around it (Expanding appearance and modifying the line by hand, or using the pen tool to draw around it). Angry Avocado fucked around with this message at Oct 20, 2011 around 16:47 |
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 16:29 |
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:Tediously remove the white from your lineart layer yourself? It's been a while, but in Photoshop the Quick Mask tool makes that take about three seconds. Just create a quick mask->paste the lineart->fill tool.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 17:53 |
|
|
Everybody talking about the whole scanned line art thing! I just remembered one of the best photoshop tutorials I've ever seen in regards to getting really crisp line art from your scanned drawing. He also mentions the multiply method and some downsides to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDq426DMC04 It is very photoshop specific, but I wouldn't be surprised if other programs could approximate the technique.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 18:26 |
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:What exactly is the alternative to using Multiply in this case? Yes, to all these options? You can use the sketch as an underpainting sort of layer and roll right over it. You can ink over it on a new layer with solid blacks. And it is far from tedious to clean whites from lineart in the digital age. You can easily wipe out the white in most line drawings with Select -> Color Range and tweak to leave just the lineart behind. I've seen a dozen or more actions around the web for automating just this sort of lineart cleaning down to a button press. Photoshop is a really powerful tool and it's easy to find a ton of options depending on where you want to go with it. WuChou fucked around with this message at Oct 20, 2011 around 18:43 |
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 18:36 |
|
|
Edit: I'm a moron and thought this was about painting over top of the lines with multiply brush and using that to pick your lights and darks instead of separating line art. ;P Didn't mean any offense Nessa, sorry if it came off wrong. Reading comprehension fail on my part. Well that and I really wanted to talk about swarms of bees...
typ0ninja fucked around with this message at Oct 21, 2011 around 06:02 |
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 18:56 |
|
|
Recently bought a budget tablet with a view to doing some concept art. I have no artistic background apart from a few drawings when I was in school. I know little bits here and there and tend to look up things when I want to achieve an effect but I want to start being a bit more "proactive" about learning to draw now - I'm enjoying it. I did a few drawings just to get used to working with the tablet and the programmes (currently using SAI after Corel failed me). They are simple pics really - I posted them in the wrong thread a few days ago - but I've done a new one today I wondered what people thought of it:  It was a tracing exercise for the outline with some freehand modifications, I then tried to colour and blend it all in with the brush. I'm particularly pleased with the cockpit but I'd appreciate any comments and criticisms. Linked in case the thumbnail has failed me: Here. I messed around some more, drew myself a moon and star field. Kind of pleased with how it came out but wishing there was an easier way to get that stuff in. Linked: Here. Meltdown321 fucked around with this message at Oct 20, 2011 around 20:58 |
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 18:57 |
|
|
A tutorial I made a while ago about how I separate lineart in Photoshop.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 18:59 |
|
|
Holy hell, I didn't know using a "Multiply layer" for lineart would be such a scathing issue. Sorry I even brought it up. I didn't think there was any harm in mentioning how I was taught to do things.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 19:25 |
|
|
neonnoodle posted:A tutorial I made a while ago about how I separate lineart in Photoshop. Oh poo poo! This is great. Thanks everyone! I'm trying to get a hold of a wacom tablet as well. I made a couple of doodles today, and this was one of them (wish I had seen this thread again before I started on this):  "Appropriating cultures, appropriating people" I separated the color layer and tried multiply, but mostly I just need more patience with coloring and cleaning the lines. This is a situation where everything but my main focus looks like poo poo. EDIT: I forgot to mention what prep work I was doing in Photoshop in my previous drawings - I used a smart sharpen filter haha. EDIT: Just did these doodles of my friends:    Stroszek fucked around with this message at Oct 21, 2011 around 10:39 |
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 20:08 |
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:What exactly is the alternative to using Multiply in this case? Here are a few, off the top of my head: 1) Use this photoshop action to separate your greyscale art from the white of the paper. It isn't tedious--to install, drag and drop the action into photoshop. Either activate it using Shift+F2 or activate it manually from the actions panel if you've already got Shift+F2 programmed as a different shortcut. It literally takes two seconds to remove the white from, and you can colour on layers underneath. There are no white artifacts, and all not completely black pixels are transparent to the value of the shade of grey. Here's an animated gif of the last pencil sketch I ever coloured:  The first frame is the line art after I scanned it, the second is the line art sans background, after I ran the action, the third is the picture coloured on layers underneath the lines, which are definitely not on multiply, and the 4th is the coloured version with slightly coloured lines (an effect achieved by locking all transparent pixels on the lineart layer and colouring or using gradients directly on them). 2) Like WuChou said--use the sketch as a guideline for digitally painting over top of it. 3) If you have a tablet, ink on a layer above the lines! If you have a mouse, use paths to ink. I have never personally used this method to ink, but there are a lot of youtube videos out there that will show you how. I agree, there's no harm in knowing what works for other people, but what works for you is not necessarily going to line up with that 100%. Digitally, I mostly use the Hue/Sat adjustment tool, quick masks and gradients to colour, and the results tend to generally look like these:    I don't use multiply on line art layers. Does that mean I'm doing it wrong? If it works for me, then I'm doing everything right. Does that mean that everyone else should do it exactly the way I do? Absolutely not. I'm mostly trying to stress that telling a beginner that this is THE way to do anything in regards to art is doing them a disservice. There are things that everyone should try and learn as quickly as possible about photoshop (separating line art, how layers work, some useful shortcuts, save for web), but when it comes to colouring and shading, everything depends on what kind of look and feel the artists themselves are going for, and unless the artist explicitly states these things, we can never know. That's why blanket statements like 'this is how all professionals do it' don't work when people are learning and figuring out how they want to develop. neonnoodle posted:A tutorial I made a while ago about how I separate lineart in Photoshop. Haha, that is actually step for step how that action works! Excellent and straightforward! Nessa posted:Holy hell, I didn't know using a "Multiply layer" for lineart would be such a scathing issue. Sorry I even brought it up. I didn't think there was any harm in mentioning how I was taught to do things. It isn't a scathing issue. It's a topic worth discussing, for sure, or else a pile of people wouldn't have come out of the woodwork to talk about it and ask for alternatives. Like I said in my second response to you, I can't judge you, and I don't want to because you can work whichever way you like--artists should always find what works best for themselves. it's good that you have a way of doing things that works for you. Just don't think or say that they're the only way of doing things when they definitely aren't, that's all.
|
| # ? Oct 20, 2011 20:26 |
|
|
The diffence between your method and the multiply layer setting is that yours deletes all the non-multiply data while the layer setting meerly hides it. I can definitely see the advantages of your way of doing things, especially if you plan on colouring the lineart directly, but there's no practical difference if you plan on leaving that layer untouched. Regardless, this argument has spawned a bunch of very useful and informative posts and I regret my tone in my previous post. It seems that seeing you tell someone to 'never use multiply' (especially in one of the few cases that multiply isn't a horrible idea) annoyed me for a lot of the same reasons that compelled you to post it.
|
| # ? Oct 21, 2011 05:21 |
|
|
Mr Phillby posted:The diffence between your method and the multiply layer setting is that yours deletes all the non-multiply data while the layer setting meerly hides it. I can definitely see the advantages of your way of doing things, especially if you plan on colouring the lineart directly, but there's no practical difference if you plan on leaving that layer untouched. If that's how it came out, I apologize--not what I meant at all. My exact words were 'Multiply is one of those tools that only really looks nice if you know how to use it properly. If you're just slapping it on top of your colours, and you don't actually know how to colour yet, you're going to find that your line art looks really uneven because the colours on layers underneath it are uneven. Avoid multiply--it's a bad habit that you're going to have to teach yourself out of otherwise.' To clarify, I meant that if you know how to use multiply and are really familiar with photoshop, then by all means use it. I also never said to NEVER use it, I just advised avoiding it, at least until you know photoshop a little better. When I was first learning photoshop, I absolutely fell into that trap, and I stuck with it for years. Multiply isn't a fix-all solution, but I treated it like one because someone told me that that was THE way to do it. There are so many factors that can completely mess up an attempt to use multiply, including things I never thought about as someone who didn't have a lot of experience with computers at the time. Even something as simple as a high contrast monitor can hide major flaws from you, and it is very easy to THINK that everything looks fine only to view it on someone else's computer to see that it isn't.
|
| # ? Oct 21, 2011 12:47 |
|
|
 Putting this in as this week's assignment. I feel I should have planned the background more, at least the perspective. I'd say the contrast on the runner is much higher than the rest of the image, so it looks a bit incongrous?
|
| # ? Oct 21, 2011 13:52 |
|
|
Withers posted:
It looks like the building on the left of the runner has got a windowfront and it looks like it's diffracting the shadow of the runner. Nice touch! It also looks like he's turning as he's running at high speed, like he just rounded a corner. I think that would be made more evident if he was moved back a little. Right now the positioning tells me the trajectory of the movement of his center of mass would clip the corner of the storefront. I'm not sure if any of these things are things you were going for, so apologies if I'm interpreting your work wrong. Also I thought he was holding an xbox360 at first which is funny to think about. Good work!
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2011 17:20 |
|
|
If the shadow is going through the window, it should show partially on the surface of the window as well, because glass isn't 100% transparent. I was confused for a moment as to what was going on, and I shouldn't be.
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2011 18:54 |
|
|
quote:
The sense of proportion in this is pretty good, but I think you could push your values a lot further too. The highlights look fine, and I do see (slight) variations in the midtones that indicate that you're paying attention to them, but you've limited yourself hugely by restricting your darkest tones to quote:
There are all sorts of little details in this that I like. The boar is probably my favourite part - it's got a nice balance of realism and stylisation, and you've done a nice lighthanded job of showing its mass with the hatching. The scar tissue on her shoulder is another nice touch, which brings her from being 'generic snake woman' to suggesting there's some kind of story behind the image. I also like the way you handled the transition from her torso to the snake body, with a very consistent centre-line and the curve of her stomach echoing the curve of the belly plates beneath it. Other areas could use tightening up - her facial anatomy is noticably off, with her right eye drifting out of place, and I think firmer knowledge of the way the human spine works in particular could loosen up her torso and play into the snakiness of her body. The boar is strikingly realistic compared to the other animals, and you could bring them up to the same level with heavier use of references. Finally, I do like the way you're playing with line variance and it really does bring the whole thing to life, but I think you still need to get your line weight under control. There are a few places where it seems too heavy (her hair) or too light (background animals), and I guess that's just something to keep experimenting with. quote:
This is super sweet. I like that you picked on a really varied assortment of shapes, and that there's even a sense of spatial relationships between them. I know it's a tiny thing (and just a personal one), but I also like that it's on brown. Warm colours make drawings on mid-tone paper so much more lively. If I were to nitpick, I'd say that some of the volumes are just a little inconsistent - especially noticable on the round shapes, like the loop in the pipe thing, and the linked rings. That stuff is really tough to get right freehand, but practising drawing circles and ellipses in perspective would help. The other tiny thing is that there are little blips in the directional light. The shadows on the circles in the top right indicate that the light source is between us and them, which would suggest a more rounded specular highlight. If the source is beyond them, the shadows should extend further on our side. Similarly, given the curve of the arches at the bottom, I'd expect to see a shadow cast against the left inner face. Again, just little things to keep track of when drawing from the imagination. For the most part, the lighting looks pretty solid. quote:
I've been watching a lot of the stuff you've posted in the Daily thread, and it's really cool to see you steadily branching out and improving. DurianGray is right, your referenced drawings look so much more lively and solid, it's definitely a route you should be pursuing. There are technical things like proportions which are always helpful to be visually reminded of, but also the balance of weight and the springiness of the human form come through in these drawings and make the characters feel that much more real. These are the sorts of things which people start to pick up and learn through familiarity with anatomy, but there's nothing wrong with referring back to a photograph or model until you gain that familiarity. Keep up the life drawing, and - again, like DurianGray said - use references wherever you can, for animals and objects and physical spaces. It's a really good way to grow your visual vocabulary. By the way, and this goes for anyone who might have had similar thoughts: using reference material is not cheating! Unless you have a photographic memory, nobody has the kind of visual imagination that can accurately invent details or work them out off the cuff. The human brain just doesn't work like that. Using reference doesn't just mean copying from a photo, either. It can mean going out and filling a page with sketches of birds, then coming home and referring to those sketches to draw a bird from your imagination. It can mean taking a look at your legs in the mirror to see what shape they are when you stand on tiptoes. The point of reference material is to fill in gaps that you've never looked at, or that your memory just has no reason to hold onto. It's a vital, vital tool that practically all accomplished artists rely on, and there is no way anybody - least of all learners - should feel bad about using it.
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2011 18:57 |
|
(etceterability)
(DurianGray)
(Hypothetical Mcgee)
(Nessa)
|
I started drawing again recently for the first time in years, and I'm super pumped about this thread and doing some drawings again. Here's my progress for the "Breaking the Law" assignment this week. I went with a "breaking the law of gravity" theme. Dis broad done started floatin' out of her bathtub or some-awt. I can't figure out how to draw her feet without them looking insanely wacked up which is weird because I feel like I don't usually have problems with feet. Maybe it's the bizzare angle. Also I'm sorry for my crappy web-cam picture of this drawing but I don't know how else to get it on here. And if there's any other glaring problems with the anatomy that you can see let me know. ----- vvvv So I cut the page out of my stupid sketchbook so that it's not all distorted and wonky when i take lovely pictures. Ok, so I tried to so some more and lengthen her right leg and completely re-did her feet but they still look small to me and a little poopoo. Also I didn't think about the fact that I never ever draw backgrounds for anything except for when I took an art class once and we had to draw landscape. It really takes me out of my comfort zone to draw in-organic things. So I think as boring as it is for me to do that I'm going to start drawing more random stuff, and background scenery etc.  Astro-Zombie fucked around with this message at Oct 23, 2011 around 01:08 |
| # ? Oct 22, 2011 21:05 |
|
|
Her hands are bigger than her feet, which is a bigger problem than the feet themselves. Her right leg looks too short. I was gonna critique how you can't tell if she's falling or jumping or what, but then I realized that's the point. Then I read your post where you explain that that's the point. So good job at doing what you wanted to do!
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2011 23:37 |
|
|
I'm 28 and apart from a phase in my teenage years drawing manga I've never once tried to be good at drawing. I've never taken a class, never tried to teach myself anything , in short I suck. Well, no more - count me in! Here is my submission for Breaking the Law. I've included the picture I used as a copy guide. I've never really tried to copy a photo before, and I lost it when it came to the legs because I can't imagine a decent pair.   Feeling confident I decided to try copy another photo - off topic, just a still life. Those feet, those hands, my God!  http://i.imgur.com/YYUgv.jpg I really have no idea what I'm doing. Believe it or not I spent ages drawing sticks and balls for the arms and legs without really knowing what I was doing. Seemed to help a bit as I realised the knee on the girl needed to be kinda in line with her elbow.. I think? edit - is it really necessary to link and NWS an artists life model? I don't want to risk a probation or anything, it's just this is a thread about learning to draw and naked bodies are pretty much a given. I fail to see how a pencil drawing of a naked women is work safe but a photo is not?  OK
Dr Scoofles fucked around with this message at Oct 23, 2011 around 12:04 |
| # ? Oct 23, 2011 09:53 |
|
|
Uh, you should probably link that last image and tag it with .
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2011 11:35 |
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Feeling confident I decided to try copy another photo - off topic, just a still life. Those feet, those hands, my God! I'm not great at drawing myself, but I think you did a good job on this. Don't think of drawing as copying, then you should really stay away from drawing people. Our brains are incredibly good at noticing the tiniest difference in a face or body, and if you think of it as copying you'll probably have years of disappointment in front of you. I like to think of drawing people as an attempt at capturing a likeness. Anyway, a couple places for easy improvement: her toes aren't in a vertical line in the picture, but along a curve. Also, her face isn't tilted, but in a very straight position, meaning eyes should be pretty much directly over the nose directly over the mouth. Sorry if it's badly worded, little time. Anyway, I think you did great! Keep going at it and don't look back! 
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2011 12:51 |
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:edit - is it really necessary to link and NWS an artists life model? I don't want to risk a probation or anything, it's just this is a thread about learning to draw and naked bodies are pretty much a given. I fail to see how a pencil drawing of a naked women is work safe but a photo is not? Yes. I look at this thread at school all the time. Never felt awkward about a drawing of a naked person because it's usually hard to tell from afar anyway. I would definitely feel awkward to have a photo like that on my screen though...especially if I was facing the help desk or the copy machine. I don't really think an expectation of this thread is that it's always NSFW, it's not like naked pictures are rampant or anything. Besides, most people use SALR at home so the pictures load right up anyway. Better off just linking it.
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2011 14:16 |
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Here is my submission for Breaking the Law. I've included the picture I used as a copy guide. I've never really tried to copy a photo before, and I lost it when it came to the legs because I can't imagine a decent pair. You need more practice drawing people as they are and not as you imagine them to be (a problem that's made worse for comic geeks like us who have a lot of stylized visual memories of how people are supposed to look). The problem is that when you draw from a photo but then cartoon them like that you don't learn much because you aren't picking up on how the bodies are actually filling up that space or how your lines could best be describing that character. At best you're simply learning how to place symbols you already know better when what you should be trying to do is gain insight into the human form so that you can create newer and better symbols to play with. I'd recommend drawing these photos again but this time try and make them as accurate and realistic as possible. No embellishing at all. Focus on the outline of the figure first and draw it completely. Then, draw the inside forms and connect them to the outline. You won't do this all the time when drawing in the future, but I've found it's good practice for teaching your brain negative space and form. Give it a shot. I think you'll find this kind of exercise as well as the feedback you receive helpful.
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2011 18:05 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:At best you're simply learning how to place symbols you already know better when what you should be trying to do is gain insight into the human form so that you can create newer and better symbols to play with. I think you've hit the nail on the head, and very eloquently put as well, it makes real sense to me. I was making what I wanted to draw fit the photo and wasn't really learning anything new. I'm going to try drat hard to draw these again and this time as you suggest, working on the outline first then filling in. I shall post my efforts in the next day or so. Thank you!
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2011 18:35 |
|
|
My submission for breaking the law: Not fantastic, I know. There are a lot of foreshortening problems, like with the soldier's arm, that I just don't know how to fix. Must have drawn it 20 times and nothing felt quite right. Not happy with the girl's face/neck either. But I'm here to learn, and I'm just beginning, and I had fun playing with a single color palette!
|
| # ? Oct 23, 2011 20:42 |
|
|
Having just broken the law: Brush pen and water soluble colored pencils I forgot I had. I'm sorry for the lovely webcam photo. I'm visiting my parent's place and they don't have a scanner. I'll get it scanned once I get back home, though, so around Thursday. I tried to use photoshop to salvage it, but it didn't do much. I should probably edit the name board thing so it doesn't look like his name is Slycock once I get it scanned...
|
| # ? Oct 24, 2011 02:19 |
|
|
Here's my weekly assignment!
|
| # ? Oct 24, 2011 04:35 |
|
|
My submission for law breaking. http://i.imgur.com/tdkIU.png (Possible page 1? page 2? for a webcomic WIP. Colouring is a bit rushed and needs a final cleanup but it's bedtime.) EDIT: Slightly fixed things up a bit because it was bugging me. Spot the difference! 
Fangz fucked around with this message at Oct 25, 2011 around 01:00 |
| # ? Oct 25, 2011 00:32 |
|
|
I Googled for a silly law to illustrate. Also, I chose to interpret "lion" as "mountain lion" for some reason. I meant to put a bit more effort into this but I'm felling pretty under the weather right now, so this is what you get. I have to idea how to draw a furry texture without overdoing it.
|
| # ? Oct 25, 2011 01:26 |
|
|
I was hoping to scan my own assignment piece and do a round-up post tonight, but it's been a long and supremely lovely day and it turns out I just don't have the energy. Feel free to keep posting submissions for 'Breaking the Law' and I'll compile them tomorrow morning. In the meantime, here's the next theme: Challenge Three: Mon Oct 24th - Mon Oct 31st Theme: Modern Monsters Limitation: Incorporate an element drawn from life Well, there was no way we were not have some kind of halloween theme. This week's task is to come up with something around the concept of a 'modern monster', however you choose to interpret that. The challenge is that you must also find some way to incorporate an object drawn from direct observation - e.g. Edward Scissorhands from a pair of scissors you own, your ipod being worn by a trendy werewolf, an undead self-portrait, etc. No drawing from photographs for this one! You must involve an element referenced directly from life for this task, even if that means creating a terrifying corporate stationary monster.
|
| # ? Oct 25, 2011 01:47 |
|
|
Stroszek posted:
I've been getting the impression from a lot of people that they think he's sneaking into the bodega or something when I was trying to give off the impression that he's just ashing his cigarette. I also made his arms too thin. If people are bothered by the inconsistent way it's drawn, I'll definitely spend more effort on projects, but so far I'm doodling every day on as many different things as possible. I figure this is a strategy that might pay off even if I'm not practicing specific skills. I've done thirty drawings in various stages of completion over seven days, and I draw most of the hours I'm not working. I really should probably go back and make some of these look nicer. Did anyone get carried away with the number of projects they started on when they first got started?
|
| # ? Oct 25, 2011 19:48 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 05:56 |
|
|
Could someone tell me what I should keep in mind when sketching up helping lines for a drawing? I think drawings/sketches that kind of look like a wireframe are pretty cool, and they're probably important (essential?) for understanding mass/form as well, but I feel like I'm doing a lot of guessing when I place the lines. I scanned a couple sketches to show what I'm talking about :  At the moment I'm looking for bulks of mass to describe, as well as places to put center lines, but it feels like I'm just adding stripes a lot of the time.
|
| # ? Oct 25, 2011 20:28 |
|
