|
3.
digital penitence fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jan 10, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Wowporn posted:i asked this in the trad thread but how do you scan colored pencil and make it not look like garbage The only way I've ever scanned ANYTHING and made it not look like garbage is this one magic trick: a) give up and go digital in the first place, it's impossible to fix coloured scans, just give up I say coloured because you can still usually get an ok scan out of lineart or something that's pleasantly one-toned or grey. I guess pros have like super scanning machines, but no matter what I've ever tried, the scanner seems to very harshly "spike" any light/dark variation in colour, making it stand out, or wash out colour completely while still happily reproducing any bends in the paper. Other options include using those coloured pencils that are also watercolours to at least smooth the large areas or possibly doing a light overlay with a blur/mixing tool. Here, I even used a full two minutes running a smudge tool over the pic to show you if this is what you want, walla:  I can't wait to catch an Alolan form vulpix, too. Instead I drew this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
harambe
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
I'm attempting daily drawings this year    
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Sharpest Crayon posted:The only way I've ever scanned ANYTHING and made it not look like garbage is this one magic trick: I can get a lot of my stuff to scan at least alright, especially b/w inkwork and stuff done in copic markers, it really just seems like the texture of the pencils totally fucks with the scanner's head. The blurring kinda helped but I hate that look it gives it where it looks like texture from a ps1 game
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Sharpest Crayon posted:I say coloured because you can still usually get an ok scan out of lineart or something that's pleasantly one-toned or grey. I guess pros have like super scanning machines, but no matter what I've ever tried, the scanner seems to very harshly "spike" any light/dark variation in colour, making it stand out, or wash out colour completely while still happily reproducing any bends in the paper. If you need a pro-quality digital version of a real piece, you're probably taking a picture of it with a pro setup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:If you need a pro-quality digital version of a real piece, you're probably taking a picture of it with a pro setup. This is what I was going to suggest. Try taking a photo, preferably with a DSLR in different light settings. Probably avoid using the flash if possible which may flatten your image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
heavy liquid posted:This is what I was going to suggest. Try taking a photo, preferably with a DSLR in different light settings. Probably avoid using the flash if possible which may flatten your image. But if you're not reproducing the image, a modern cell phone camera on a bright cloudy day is likely more than enough
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
4.
digital penitence fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Wowporn posted:I can get a lot of my stuff to scan at least alright, especially b/w inkwork and stuff done in copic markers, it really just seems like the texture of the pencils totally fucks with the scanner's head. The blurring kinda helped but I hate that look it gives it where it looks like texture from a ps1 game Solution: only do fanart of ps1 games from now on and you'll be killing it! Realtalk: absolutely try what dupersaurus and heavy liquid say, because it's not just pencils that scanners can't handle. Here's an outtake of an old acrylic piece that I scanned back in the day, then realized that the textures of the dry brush will always look terrible:  I SHOULD HAVE USED A CAMERA As reference, a bit of a watercolour piece that scanned juuuust fine: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
There was an Epson V500 that we had in artskool that I ended up buying cuz it scans stuff so excellently, it was a little over $200. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
I wanted to save up and get one of my school's ridiculous tabloid size Epson scanners that are like $3000 new but I blew my tax return that year on a tablet monitor instead
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
5. 6.  7. 
digital penitence fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Aaahhh, the rare Sad Flopover Tits, perfectly captured! This isn't a pisstake, you got the form down pat. She doesn't look too impressed by the drawers around her. Am I drawing cats again? Yeah I am. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Sharpest Crayon posted:Aaahhh, the rare Sad Flopover Tits, perfectly captured! This isn't a pisstake, you got the form down pat. She doesn't look too impressed by the drawers around her. Haha, thank you! Yes ,she didn't seem like the happiest person, but she was actually an excellent model. 8. 
digital penitence fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
9.
digital penitence fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
I found the hidden Troll doll!  Did you colour this super violently or is that the scan making it look like it? Fancy kitty  I still love drawing butts, too. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
10.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Sharpest Crayon posted:I found the hidden Troll doll! lol at the troll. It's a photo not a scan... and yeah - I suppose it is scribbly. Hard new year. Davedave24 posted:I'm attempting daily drawings this year This. ...and some loose content. 
sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Fancy skinkitty! (I love these kitties so much)  Fancy kitty ... with wine  
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
11. 12. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
 Daily... ughh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
13.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Decidueye, the final evolution of Rowlet
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
14. 15. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Some pokemon only evolve if you're good friends with them and pat them on the head and feed them beans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
I've been noodling with this unsuccessful portrait of someone for the past few days. I guess it's successful in the graphic and stylized look I was trying to achieve, something a bit like Patrick Nagel, now that I look at it. But I couldn't get it to look enough like her, so ehh. I made her look too chubby or something. But I suppose it was a good experiment. 16.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Quick cyberpunk
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
heavy liquid posted:I've been noodling with this unsuccessful portrait of someone for the past few days. I guess it's successful in the graphic and stylized look I was trying to achieve, something a bit like Patrick Nagel, now that I look at it. But I couldn't get it to look enough like her, so ehh. I made her look too chubby or something. But I suppose it was a good experiment. You should use a brush with varying line width, or at least use different stroke sizes on the different parts of her face. Also that purple and green are really saturated, like they look like mspaint swatches sigma 6 posted:
how much structural drawing do you do before you flesh out the torso/limbs? there are some glaring issues woth her that you could probably avoid if you did that more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Wowporn posted:You should use a brush with varying line width, or at least use different stroke sizes on the different parts of her face. Also that purple and green are really saturated, like they look like mspaint swatches The oversaturation and flat lines was all intentional, but you're right. It's not working. I desaturated the green background to help pop her out a bit, and added a bit of think and thin to some of the lines in her face, and I think it does improve it some, while still keeping the look I was going for.  17. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
HAHA I'm creating a new post instead of editing the previous one!  
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 00:44
|
|