- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
In Photoshop, I’d just stroke the entire layer with 1-2px of white on the inside. GIMP most certainly has an equivalent stroke function.
Art Critique + Advice
- Thread starter Koresh
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
It looks great so far. Really captures a Mignola kinda feel. Super stylized stuff is hard to critique, especially when part of the style is intentional messiness, so the only thing I can really say is that making the colors a bit more vibrant will help it stand out and read from a further distance. Right now it's a bit muddy.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Just started a D&D campaign, which should serve as a decent source of artistic inspiration - which is usually my biggest issue - and decided to draw some pictures to better conceptualize my character - a stunted bird man strapped to a legally blind dwarf masquerading as a 7 foot tall plague doctor. Just at a glance I feel better about the general posing as compared to some of my stuff I posted earlier in the thread, but I can't properly articulate why I feel that way. I did try to make the posing seem more purposeful instead of having them be ambiguously floating.
Feel free to point out any weird proportions I may have missed. Anyone got tips on cleaning up line art? I'm fucking terrible at it.
Feel free to point out any weird proportions I may have missed. Anyone got tips on cleaning up line art? I'm fucking terrible at it.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
There's a lot more personality in these than your last ones, maybe that's why you like them more. I'm in the school of "energy and personality" over any other principle so imo you've improved a lot from your last pieces.
The biggest issue that I can see since these are still sketches is that they're pretty stiff. Don't be afraid to push those curves and exaggerate where the energy is. You have some in your birdman's arms, but I think you can definitely push it a lot further. I really adore that concept though haha
For line art, I feel your pain
My hands got fucked a few years ago so my strategy to compensate is layering several lines so they're one big line then going back in with the erase tool to clean them up. The best way is just practice so you can lay down the right single line each time but if you're in the same boat as me, that erase strategy has worked fine for me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Okay not gonna lie I don’t entirely understand what you mean by curves in this context. Just straight up bending the limbs a little more than expected? If you had a specific example in an existing work you could point to that would be super helpful, I’m just not intuitively understanding what you mean by this.There's a lot more personality in these than your last ones, maybe that's why you like them more. I'm in the school of "energy and personality" over any other principle so imo you've improved a lot from your last pieces.
The biggest issue that I can see since these are still sketches is that they're pretty stiff. Don't be afraid to push those curves and exaggerate where the energy is. You have some in your birdman's arms, but I think you can definitely push it a lot further. I really adore that concept though haha
For line art, I feel your pain
I saw your comment before the edit, missed your artpost when browsing the thread cuz it was hidden behind 2 spoiler tags haha.
The biggest thing that immediately sticks out to me is the near-total lack of shadows and lighting contrast, which makes the images look extremely flat. In (4), the only shadows present are the ones used to denote folds in the fabric; there needs to be another layer of shadows that denotes how the main body geometry (not just the details) interacts with the light source. This especially sticks out in (2) and (5), where they should be backlit by the outdoor lighting resulting in dramatic shadows, but everything is still lit fairly evenly. This makes them look like they're photoshopped into the environment because the lighting is just SO different. Also, the straight white color makes the shirt stand out in a bad way. In nature, nothing is really 100% black or white - and unless you have a good reason for it, it usually makes more sense to make a white object either some shade of yellow/tan or some shade of light blue depending on the lighting of the environment. Below is a quick-n-dirty edit showing how adding some super basic shadows and changing the color of his shirt to fit in with the background (while still communicating that it's a white shirt) helps the figure blend with the background, lighting- and color-wise.
Second thing is color selection, again pointing to (2) and (5). The sky and grass are a bit over saturated, making the backgrounds look fake. Compare this to the background of (6): the trees are a darker shade of green with a hint of yellow and the sky is just slightly desaturated with a hint of green. These are much more realistic looking colors in general and fit the characters much better, as slight of a difference as it is. I’m pretty ass at color selection myself so what I do if I’m not happy is take the image into Photoshop and play around with the color balance sliders until I like it, and use that as my new color reference. This will help a LOT in 2 especially, because like half that picture is sky, and the sheer brightness of the blue sky and orange ground attracts my eyes more than the more drab colors of the characters. I've attached a quick edit below to show how I'd change things to bring focus back on the characters:
- Lighten/desaturate the sky while still keeping a fringe of dark blue along the edge for some "depth". This serves the dual purpose of also subtly framing the characters.
- Darken the ground to draw focus upwards
- Change the color balance on the characters to be slightly warmer (increase red + yellow) to fit in better with the warm foreground
IMO at least, just these small changes make the characters fit much better into their environment and makes the piece easier on the eyes overall.
While the anatomy is generally decent, the women’s faces in the first image stick out as a bit wonky. They’re sorta long and flat looking, like all the facial features are on the same plane. It also has the same issue with lack of shadows, which this one needs more than the others to help the characters stand out from each other. Also, my eyes REALLY want the girls’ clothes to be shaded with tan/light yellow because the background and even the black dudes legs are colored so warmly.
So yeah, 2 word summary, shadows and color selection.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Sorry, I was pretty tired when I wrote that so I just defaulted to what my mentor would say haha.
By curves I mean the flow of energy. Right now, all the limbs are at strict angles, they don't really seem to interact with each other in an organic way where the skin is connected, the muscles all are connected and influenced by each other etc. The joints and pose are all just really mechanical. I did a quick doodle over to show what i mean better.
In the the top, I tried showing how mechanical your joints are. They're all at strict angles. There's no flow from one joint to the other. In the bottom, I did gestures to try and show how that flow can be illustrated better. Keep in mind that those are just gestures and I was taught that the initial sketch should always be very fluid and then structure is added as you work on it and refine it. I hope this explains this better.
I hope you don't take this the wrong way and that this doesn't come across as me being like NO YOu"RE WRONG ReE or REE M STYLE but I have the same issue with your critique that I did with the last one I got. I get that your edits were quick, so I'm not going to comment on them besides admitting that I met with two faculty members who I'm friends with today and because I'm a petty fag, I showed the critiques I've gotten on this thread to them and they more or less agreed with my thoughts.
Your changes overall just really dulled the images which is fine if they're meant to be realistic, but like... they're not. I just feel like the critiques I've gotten here are really subjective and don't touch on the objective stuff I'm looking for. My professor always tells me that people think that the highest and most skilled form of art is super realistic realism and yeah, I'll toot my horn and say I'm pretty adept at that. But she and I are on the same page in that the art that breaks realism is it's own beast and shouldn't be considered less or held to the exact same rigid standards as realism, just like realism can't be held to the standards of other art. Like I'm not saying my art is good, it's not, those are all pretty rushed and quickly done, but the issues with them that my faculty pointed out which is pretty much that they're obviously quickly done and could be tightened up more don't come down to the saturated colors or the characters having exaggerated anatomy and a lot of the other things pointed out. I just disagree with that, I don't judge anyone else's art on that principle because I don't think that they accidentally made all the colors universally saturated or that they accidentally made all the women have similar face types. Like if it's something consistently done, then it's probably intentional I think. If it can be applied better, then yes it's worth mentioning, but changing the color palette of an image that is very not-realistic to be dulled and more realistic... that just doesn't make sense.
Just a personal thing is that I get super annoyed when people see something they wouldn't personally do or something odd and immediately think, Oh, it's a mistake. Because in my experience, 75% of the time, it's not and there was a thought process behind it. Is it always a good thought process? No. But like in the one I did of the guys standing, the focus is not on them, it's on the landscape behind them, it's on the over top vibrancy of the colors, it's on the contrast of the orange desert like ground and the grass and mountains behind. Changing that and desaturating it and washing it out, that's ruining the point of the whole image. I'm not saying I did it well, but I'm saying that I did it and I want critique that sees what I'm doing and tells me how to do it better, not critique that tells me not to do it at all and stick to realism. I don't want to draw some dude in a shaded tan shirt in a dull field because that picture is going to look brown and faded as fuck. It doesn't grab anyone's eye, it doesn't tell any story, it doesn't mean anything. A dude in a crisp white shirt in an over the top brightly colored field? That will stick out more and that will tell things about the character and the situation. Your statement about the women's faces like... yeah, that's kind of the point, I gave them a facial trait that ties them all together even further because that's the point. They're meant to blend in with each other. That's the point. The other critique mentioned the musculature of the preacher. Yeah, it's over the top and crazy. That's the point. I didn't trip and fall and do this really specific thing over and over on accident. If it happens once, then yeah, there's a higher chance of it being a mistake. But over and over and over and not repeated in other circumstances? No, that seems pretty intentional. I don't know, I could go through everything and explain why and just say "that's the point," but that'd waste everyone's time and it'd be pretty autistic.
I don't want to just say, "It's not meant to be realistic," and I don't want to just say "that's the point", but like... I don't know what else to say.
I appreciate you taking the time though. I do. I don't know, I'm just frustrated that I can't convey things better.
Your changes overall just really dulled the images which is fine if they're meant to be realistic, but like... they're not. I just feel like the critiques I've gotten here are really subjective and don't touch on the objective stuff I'm looking for. My professor always tells me that people think that the highest and most skilled form of art is super realistic realism and yeah, I'll toot my horn and say I'm pretty adept at that. But she and I are on the same page in that the art that breaks realism is it's own beast and shouldn't be considered less or held to the exact same rigid standards as realism, just like realism can't be held to the standards of other art. Like I'm not saying my art is good, it's not, those are all pretty rushed and quickly done, but the issues with them that my faculty pointed out which is pretty much that they're obviously quickly done and could be tightened up more don't come down to the saturated colors or the characters having exaggerated anatomy and a lot of the other things pointed out. I just disagree with that, I don't judge anyone else's art on that principle because I don't think that they accidentally made all the colors universally saturated or that they accidentally made all the women have similar face types. Like if it's something consistently done, then it's probably intentional I think. If it can be applied better, then yes it's worth mentioning, but changing the color palette of an image that is very not-realistic to be dulled and more realistic... that just doesn't make sense.
Just a personal thing is that I get super annoyed when people see something they wouldn't personally do or something odd and immediately think, Oh, it's a mistake. Because in my experience, 75% of the time, it's not and there was a thought process behind it. Is it always a good thought process? No. But like in the one I did of the guys standing, the focus is not on them, it's on the landscape behind them, it's on the over top vibrancy of the colors, it's on the contrast of the orange desert like ground and the grass and mountains behind. Changing that and desaturating it and washing it out, that's ruining the point of the whole image. I'm not saying I did it well, but I'm saying that I did it and I want critique that sees what I'm doing and tells me how to do it better, not critique that tells me not to do it at all and stick to realism. I don't want to draw some dude in a shaded tan shirt in a dull field because that picture is going to look brown and faded as fuck. It doesn't grab anyone's eye, it doesn't tell any story, it doesn't mean anything. A dude in a crisp white shirt in an over the top brightly colored field? That will stick out more and that will tell things about the character and the situation. Your statement about the women's faces like... yeah, that's kind of the point, I gave them a facial trait that ties them all together even further because that's the point. They're meant to blend in with each other. That's the point. The other critique mentioned the musculature of the preacher. Yeah, it's over the top and crazy. That's the point. I didn't trip and fall and do this really specific thing over and over on accident. If it happens once, then yeah, there's a higher chance of it being a mistake. But over and over and over and not repeated in other circumstances? No, that seems pretty intentional. I don't know, I could go through everything and explain why and just say "that's the point," but that'd waste everyone's time and it'd be pretty autistic.
I don't want to just say, "It's not meant to be realistic," and I don't want to just say "that's the point", but like... I don't know what else to say.
I appreciate you taking the time though. I do. I don't know, I'm just frustrated that I can't convey things better.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Your style is close enough to realistic that it's not actively signaling that it's meant to be exaggerated. Since that's clearly your stated intent, then my response is that it doesn’t go far enough. There's some mixed messaging there in that the character designs and palettes are fairly grounded and realistic - it's just two dudes wearing fairly normal looking clothes that aren't really too out-there in color, placed in a super vibrant super saturated world and it just really doesn't fit.
In the quick edit I made, I toned down the background saturation to make it fit better, but you could just as easily go in the other direction and make the character coloration more exaggerated. The colors I picked probably weren't the best, again it's just a quick edit, but I hope it gets the point across.
Also, I'm not gonna back down on the point about shading. If you're going for a more exaggerated style then you absolutely need way more contrast in your shading, in both color and lightness. I can see that you did shade on the white guy's pants, but it's so faint that it's practically invisible. Unless we're talking about super-abstract art, I'd be hard-pressed to find a piece that looks better without some form of shading. Again, like, you're sort of in an in-between - you have this light shading to denote details and fabric folds, and you have more contrasting shading on background/foreground objects, but pretty much zero shading on the macro physical body of the characters.
Basically my point is that you shouldn't have to explain to me that these are stylistic choices - the piece itself should make it readily obvious that you're going for an exaggerated, colorful style, which it currently does not due to the relatively bland character design/coloration and the apparent lack of shading on the characters.
Also, for an exaggerated color scheme it helps to use a wider variety of colors. Right now, your rocks are pretty much varying shades of orange and brown, with lighter areas merely being lighter shades of orange/brown. In my quick edit I added some yellows to the highlights and some reds to the shadows, which just gives it a bit more color depth. This is all stuff that most people aren't going to consciously notice, but if you showed them two different drawings they'd still be able to tell you which one they like more.
︈︈︈
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2017
Dwarf guy seems very slightly slanted. You can see that his foot is tilted up to the right. The place his hand is positioned on the book seems odd, I would say it's too high. As well, if he's holding the book at chest level it should probably be further tilted upwards to face his eyes. The arm on bird man closest to the viewer has a bit of a long forearm, but it's not too bad.
I agree with Koresh that it's a bit stiff in places. Overall though, the posing is ok. It's not super dynamic, but it doesn't need to be.
For getting smoother lines, this is an ok strategy and is something I used to do a lot myself. I only stopped when it started hindering how fast I could work. There are also other strategies that help, especially if you're using digital.For line art, I feel your pain
The #1 trick for getting smooth, confident lineart is to stop drawing from your wrist. Zoom out on the canvas and turn up your line stabilizer (if the program you use has any.) Constantly flicking your wrist to make lines makes a lot of small, curved and hairy lines and a cramped hand. You might also find yourself zooming into your art when doing lineart, which will make each composite line smaller and even more curved. When drawing curves, direct the line from your elbow. When drawing straighter lines, move your shoulder. Turn the canvas to get at more obscure angles of line.
If you have hand/arm/joint problems and can't do that, I also suggest using a vector line tool. a lot of good art programs have one of these, they might be labelled as a 'lineart layer' or a 'vector layer' or just a tool, or something else. They're not good for textured lines (either actual texture or just conveying hair/feathers/etc) but if you're making a drawing with smooth, longer lines they can be really helpful. You can even use them to make lines with a trackpad or mouse, since you just need to move the cursor and click.
If this is the intent I'd say it's not the colour that's an issue, but the composition. The image seems focused on the dudes because they're, like, front and center of the image. Also, dude #1 is looking at dude #2. Dude #2 is looking at the viewer. Positioning aside, these alone will draw the focus to dude #1 and then dude #2.
I kinda like the original more here lol
I'm not sure if it's how saturated/unsaturated the colours are rather than the colour theory here in general. I can't think of how to describe what I mean right now, but if anyone actually cares I might try later.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Color theory is something I’m very weak at and I’m pretty much bullshitting an explanation based on what I “feel” looks good, so if you have like an actual technical explanation for all that stuff it would be very informative. And @Koresh in general my advice should probably be taken with a grain of salt since I never actually learned any art theory
there’s definitely some things I’m trying to say that I don’t have the knowledge or language to express properly beyond “it doesn’t feel right”.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Thank you, I appreciate the composition advice. Yeah, it's a running gag (theme?) That black dude is nearly always looking at the viewer. That picture as a whole is a reference to a specific photograph of Steven Schneider and Vernon Howell but I know that's not something that anyone would see. The issue with that image is that I wanted to show the landscape while also splitting attention with it and the black dude, which does make the composition unfocused.
The issue with the edits is that Gar desaturated all the images and the shading they did add is not directed. There's no solid light source for them, they don't conform to forms, the contrast is drastically decreased, and it's just less eye popping. Yeah they achieved their goal of "more realistic" but it's not enough to be realistic and realistic in this context would just make the images boring. Making the images I posted more realistic isn't a difficult task, it's on the same tier as taking any semi-realistic simplified image and adding shadows to it. That's part of what I meant by missing the point.
Also my mountains ;__; why did you do that to my mountains ;__;
And @Gar For Archer
I don't understand what you mean by my stuff is realistic enough because it's really not. Realism is stuff determined by reliance on shading to show depth and features etc. The moment you add a symbol like an outline of a nose, it's not realistic anymore. My posted images are all heavily reliant on symbols. The proportions of the body are realistic, that's all I can say fall into realistic since the rest is just symbols. That's another reason why I disagree with a lot of the critiques here because they're critiques suited for realism, not for the use of symbols.
But even if it was super hyper realistic, then I can still use any color I want. Color is always manipulated to set a mood. Heck, look at movies like Kingsmen and shows like Breaking Bad, they rely heavily on color grading and their colors aren't realistic. Does that make them less? No, of course not. Just because one thing is realistic doesn't mean the rest has to be. Now if we're talking uncanny valley, then that's it's own seperate issue, but none of my stuff is anywhere near realistic enough to cause uncanny valley. Style vs realism isn't one setting or another. It's a sliding scale. It's also weird to me that you talk about decreasing the contrast, then immediately tell me to start upping the contrast again. I just feel like you've contradicted yourself in your second response from your initial critique. Also there is shading, you said there's shading, yes it is light, but considering the mood of the image and the fact that it's in broad day light on a hill, the shadows would be nearly nonexistent. If I were to use the shading you're calling for, the mood would change and imo it'd be out of place. Just because the style itself is exaggerated doesn't mean the whole thing needs to be. It's called push and pull and is the basic foundation of stylization. Lots of media uses very stylized characters with soft lighting or very realistic lighting, I just don't understand why you're saying this as a negative. Some of the images I posted have heavy shading, some don't. It depends on the mood I was going for. A lot of the negatives you're listing aren't even breaking rules or objective negatives, again, I feel like this is off of a super subjective basis.
Yes, the clothes are soft shaded and the bodies are cel shaded. The shading overall is pretty sloppy as I said before. It can be tightened up. I've heard mixed things on this, some people like it, some don't. Personally I do because it conveys more than total cel-shading, but I have been experimenting with cel shading.
As for the colors you added to the edits, it just doesn't fit the image imo and they don't follow any technical rules or realism or anything. I just don't understand it. And yes, after reading your comment I showed your edits to a few normies and the initial response was "why is he sweaty now" and the other was "why is it so washed out" and after a few minutes there was a universal "what did they do to the mountains!?"
If you think that me exaggerating stuff of the anatomy more will help, then tell me what you think I should exaggerate. That's the critique I came here for. Otherwise I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Sorry if I come across as ungrateful or argumentative. I really do appreciate everyone's feedback. But I don't want someone seeing innacurate feedback and applying it to their own drawings when there's better principles to apply. And yah, I'm defensive lol
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
It’s becoming rapidly clear to me that we’re operating on completely different levels of technical knowledge here because I understood maybe half of what you just said and that half the words I thought I knew the meaning of seem to have a more precise technical definition. For example when I was talking about realism I was referring to the proportions being more-or-less human with slightly more extreme musculature and a slightly longer face (as opposed to, say, anime characters that are a lot looser with proportions, or Western cartoon characters that can at best be described as “mostly humanoid”) - not the overall realism of the coloring etc.
Basically what I was trying to say is that the difference in style between the characters and the background is different enough to be jarring, but not different enough to make it obviously intentional to an art normie like me. For me, a difference in just shading and color between the subject and the background isn’t enough to convey that that’s how it’s supposed to be and merely triggers the “that looks wrong” part of my brain. Part of it is that the lighting on the foreground and background seem to be different color temperatures, the background is obviously warm and sunny (accentuated by the red rocks) but the people look like they’re indoors under white lights. And if that difference is a specific stylistic choice you made in order to distinguish the background and characters, then I suppose all I can say is that it doesn’t work for me in getting across the artistic intent.
I guess personally a more obviously cel-shaded style with thicker lineart and even flatter colors would more clearly differentiate the characters from the background, but I dunno if that would actually look better. And like don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against wacky and creative color palettes. I guess I just do not find the way the foreground and subject colors interact to be aesthetically pleasing; what I wrote above is the best description I can give of why I feel that way. If it is indeed intentional, then I feel there’s not much else I can say because it just boils down to a difference in opinion. Unfortunately I really just don’t have the background or technical knowledge to tell you how to better achieve your goals.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Thank you for the white light thing. That is genuinely really helpful because now I know to add more color to my shading on the characters. I'll also give that line art and flats thing a shot, maybe it will work out well. I used it once, but it was for a really cartoony piece. Maybe it'll work well with this.
I appreciate you taking the time and for being honest. I get that the jarring art style thing turns a lot of people off and hearing that that fundamental is a block is also really helpful for future circumstances. You do have a lot of knowledge, I'm just autistic as fuck when it comes to this. I really appreciate it and I can't wait to see the next pieces you post to this thread.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
I’m glad you were “defensive” and grilled me on my language, cuz it forced me to get to the core of the issue and better understand and articulate why I feel a certain way. Because I’m too lazy to learn things the proper way, back-and-forths like this are the best teacher
︈︈︈
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2017
Okay, I'll give it my best shot. Going into this, I'll say that I'm not a great colour expert myself, I tend to lose focus around the time I start on the colour phase. I'll also say that after examining it more, it's not much of the colour as the values I would tweak in that mountains image.Color theory is something I’m very weak at and I’m pretty much bullshitting an explanation based on what I “feel” looks good, so if you have like an actual technical explanation for all that stuff it would be very informative. And @Koresh in general my advice should probably be taken with a grain of salt since I never actually learned any art theory
First off, lets look at the reason why the colours are the way they are in the original. @Koresh says he wanted to bring out the landscape and it is mildly successful at doing this. The background is cool colours. The foreground is warm colours. This makes a strong distinction between background and foreground.
Now, there's an interesting interaction between the foreground and background hues here- dull colours make bright colours look brighter, dark colours make light colours look lighter, and here the cool colours make the warm colours look warmer. If you find parts to be too 'saturated', this might be part of the reason why. The only real issue I have with the colours is the shadows and light, imo the light could use more yellow/sun tones and the shadows could be very slightly cooler. The base colour is very saturated and the light is very desaturated, in a sunny image it doesn't jibe well.
Your first edit bungles that even more. It doesn't look like a sunny outside scene anymore. It also messes with the aerial perspective of the mountains in the background. (What is aerial perspective? When something is far in the background, it may appear lighter and/or bluer. This is because of all the atmosphere between the viewer and the faraway scenery. If you see an image of a foggy forest where the background trees are lightened by fog, that's also aerial perspective.) The mountains in the back seem warmer and darker.
If I were to adjust the image, I would actually focus on value. Especially if I were to want to draw attention to the environment; in a composition the darkest parts of the image tend to be what stands out to the viewer, and the landscape here is very light. Alright, here's the original picture stripped to greyscale.
The characters have a very wide variation on value. Dude's shirt is whiter than the clouds, man, you could probably make a market for whatever bleach he's using. Meanwhile, the environment is very light and similar in tone. Also something interesting is that without the strong cool and warm hues, the background and foreground are almost the same in value where they meet. Now here's your first edit put to greyscale.
The sky and ground have switched in value. It still doesn't really do the picture any favours, though. Alright, lastly here's a greyscale image where I fiddled with the contrast.
Is that last one better? I personally feel as though it is. All of this is just my opinion though.
Hope some of that made sense, I'm a bit sleepy and not the best at explaining things.
Now, there's an interesting interaction between the foreground and background hues here- dull colours make bright colours look brighter, dark colours make light colours look lighter, and here the cool colours make the warm colours look warmer. If you find parts to be too 'saturated', this might be part of the reason why. The only real issue I have with the colours is the shadows and light, imo the light could use more yellow/sun tones and the shadows could be very slightly cooler. The base colour is very saturated and the light is very desaturated, in a sunny image it doesn't jibe well.
Your first edit bungles that even more. It doesn't look like a sunny outside scene anymore. It also messes with the aerial perspective of the mountains in the background. (What is aerial perspective? When something is far in the background, it may appear lighter and/or bluer. This is because of all the atmosphere between the viewer and the faraway scenery. If you see an image of a foggy forest where the background trees are lightened by fog, that's also aerial perspective.) The mountains in the back seem warmer and darker.
If I were to adjust the image, I would actually focus on value. Especially if I were to want to draw attention to the environment; in a composition the darkest parts of the image tend to be what stands out to the viewer, and the landscape here is very light. Alright, here's the original picture stripped to greyscale.
The characters have a very wide variation on value. Dude's shirt is whiter than the clouds, man, you could probably make a market for whatever bleach he's using. Meanwhile, the environment is very light and similar in tone. Also something interesting is that without the strong cool and warm hues, the background and foreground are almost the same in value where they meet. Now here's your first edit put to greyscale.
The sky and ground have switched in value. It still doesn't really do the picture any favours, though. Alright, lastly here's a greyscale image where I fiddled with the contrast.
Is that last one better? I personally feel as though it is. All of this is just my opinion though.
Hope some of that made sense, I'm a bit sleepy and not the best at explaining things.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
This is awesome. My only nitpick is to manipulate the lines to support the perspective that you have going on. Make them thinner/lighter/softer on areas that are further away and you’ll have an even stronger piece.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
This is pretty dope, reminds me a lot of Egon Schiele's stuff. Some people might get on you for your strokes, but imo I really dig the scratchy style. Lots of energy in it.
Biggest issue is foreshortening. The exaggeration in the hand is pretty good, but there's none in the arm itself and barely any in the legs. Also the space they occupy isn't aligned with foreshortening, the arm being on full display makes it look like its being held out flat horizontally. Don't be afraid to overlap shapes and hide the bulk of the limb. In that pose, most of the arm would be shortened in perspective.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2019
I really like textural oil paintings but hate messing around with spirits and paint thinners and stuff is there a way to get this effect with acrylic?
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
I really like textural oil paintings but hate messing around with spirits and paint thinners and stuff is there a way to get this effect with acrylic?
Maybe with a pallet knife and a fuckton of retardant and thick globs of paint. It'll take a lot of practice, but I'm sure you can eventually do something akin to it. That still requires you dealing with the retardant though. With acrylic on its own, I don't think you could really replicate this with all the marbling and different textures and smootheness. Especially those long strokes like the stream would be really hard to do. It would just crack and dry too fast. Maybe you can though if you keep the paint really thick and are in a humid place. Worth experimenting to see.