02-23-2024, 04:32 AM
Nice work on the latest one. Her left hand blends into her shoulder area a bit due to the values being similar. Although there are thin lighter value lines to help it separate more, it's not as helpful when the image is seen on smaller screen devices or the brightness is not turned up higher. With styles like this (the Brian Froud watercolor look with lots of darker values), this can happen unless the values are managed carefully in the image. Lighting can help separate the forms, but you mentioned you wanted to keep the time spent within the range of the client's pay, so more elaborate lighting might not be feasible.
This is a difficult situation, and I've had this talk in the past with my students. There are generally two schools of thought when it comes to client budget vs amount of work put into the project. Some feel you shouldn't put in more time than what the client paid for, while some feel if the work is going to be seen by the public at any point, then you should put in as much work as you can to make it look the best it can, because your work seen by the public is the best advertisement you can ever have that represents your technical ability and artistic sensibility.
With artists that haven't had the chance to attract high-profile clients, if all they ever do is work for clients with very limited budgets, and they work they turn out are always done to match the limitations of those budgets, the public will never see what the artist can really do when those limitations are lifted. Yes, portfolio pieces can address that problem, but you can't control how clients display your work, so for many people, all they see is what the clients have displayed, and if they aren't impressed, they won't even bother to look up your online portfolio to see what else you're capable of.
This is why my advice for my students is to put in as much time and effort as they can regardless of what the client is paying, because that is the only way to attract higher profile clients--by only doing work that showcases the very best of your ability. Yes, it's a gamble because there's no guarantee all that extra work will pay off, and you might be stuck spending far too much time on jobs that only pay for a fraction of the time you spent, but how else will you get your name out there and attract attention?
Another solution is to take the work you've done for clients and then punch them up some more for showcasing in your portfolio, so the pieces represent the highest level of your ability and sensibility more accurately. But the problem with that approach is how the clients might feel when they see those improved versions in your portfolio. You can explain that the version you turned in reflected their budget, but it will still be an awkward situation. Also, if you're going to spend the time punching up the work later, you're still technically "losing money" on the project, so might as well just do the very best you can on the project in the first place and then let your work do the advertising for you.
This is a difficult situation, and I've had this talk in the past with my students. There are generally two schools of thought when it comes to client budget vs amount of work put into the project. Some feel you shouldn't put in more time than what the client paid for, while some feel if the work is going to be seen by the public at any point, then you should put in as much work as you can to make it look the best it can, because your work seen by the public is the best advertisement you can ever have that represents your technical ability and artistic sensibility.
With artists that haven't had the chance to attract high-profile clients, if all they ever do is work for clients with very limited budgets, and they work they turn out are always done to match the limitations of those budgets, the public will never see what the artist can really do when those limitations are lifted. Yes, portfolio pieces can address that problem, but you can't control how clients display your work, so for many people, all they see is what the clients have displayed, and if they aren't impressed, they won't even bother to look up your online portfolio to see what else you're capable of.
This is why my advice for my students is to put in as much time and effort as they can regardless of what the client is paying, because that is the only way to attract higher profile clients--by only doing work that showcases the very best of your ability. Yes, it's a gamble because there's no guarantee all that extra work will pay off, and you might be stuck spending far too much time on jobs that only pay for a fraction of the time you spent, but how else will you get your name out there and attract attention?
Another solution is to take the work you've done for clients and then punch them up some more for showcasing in your portfolio, so the pieces represent the highest level of your ability and sensibility more accurately. But the problem with that approach is how the clients might feel when they see those improved versions in your portfolio. You can explain that the version you turned in reflected their budget, but it will still be an awkward situation. Also, if you're going to spend the time punching up the work later, you're still technically "losing money" on the project, so might as well just do the very best you can on the project in the first place and then let your work do the advertising for you.