12-11-2013, 08:09 AM
Indeed! Very nice nose. Really liking the structure in this portrait, great work :D
And so, about edges.
Yeah, I am deeply in trouble about that. I have been trying to figure it out - the logic, and how to render it, for a while now. Two things greatly influenced it:
1) Master studies. They have really nice designed edges. Edges that are truly designed for a painting. Here is what I have concluded so far about it:
You're painting something that exists in three dimensions, making it project into a two-dimensional surface. The concept with have of edges only happens, really, on the 2D projection. They are entirely a graphical concept; We can't really look at the object and try to see edges - because the more you look, the more detail your eyes will dig. So even soft fabric becomes, actually, a collection of sharp loose threads, that you can actually see if you look at them.
But you know that if you paint that, it will look terrible.
So you kinda start looking for photos for that. They merge those loose threads and hair into a softer edge; And the biggest edge transition you see is usually with depth of field. And there lied the problem: the camera is actually designing the edges for us, and after doing a million photo studies, we try to apply lens/optical/camera logic to our paintings.
But that is not how we see, that is how the CAMERA sees.
Makes sense?
So doing master studies was the first time I saw edges being used to convey information about the surface, and not some arbitrary lens captured phenomena. And you can go much softer on your edges then expected doing only photo studies, and it will still hold and look sharp if you use your hard edges right.
The high contrast areas are usually pretty sharp - areas that are being directly by light. Areas in shadow are this much more softer, less detailed, less rendered.
Edges also talks a lot about plane transitions - think a cube versus a sphere. So this need to translate well when you're painting too.
2) The first lesson on Chris Oatley's Magic Box talks about ambient/diffuse light setup. It's actually quite hard when you have all this diffuse light and not direct cast shadow. So he explains how to convey the softness of the light with a mix of gradient tool and soft brushing. He talks a lot about designing your shapes.
And the exact act of designing shapes with a softer light made me think a great deal about how the shift in planes made a great deal about edges we are painting.
It's confusing, really.
I hope I can actually explain it once I am more sure of what I am doing.
Back on conceptart.org we had a great thread that organized edges in 4 stages - 1 hard, 2 soft, 3 softer, 4 lost. And much like value, your painting would exists in the middle values, and the extremes ones were used as accents. So yeah, this has been a sort of guideline too.
Please keep posting your experiments, I'd love to see the progress!
(And feel free to drop me a line to talk about it anytime ;)
And so, about edges.
Yeah, I am deeply in trouble about that. I have been trying to figure it out - the logic, and how to render it, for a while now. Two things greatly influenced it:
1) Master studies. They have really nice designed edges. Edges that are truly designed for a painting. Here is what I have concluded so far about it:
You're painting something that exists in three dimensions, making it project into a two-dimensional surface. The concept with have of edges only happens, really, on the 2D projection. They are entirely a graphical concept; We can't really look at the object and try to see edges - because the more you look, the more detail your eyes will dig. So even soft fabric becomes, actually, a collection of sharp loose threads, that you can actually see if you look at them.
But you know that if you paint that, it will look terrible.
So you kinda start looking for photos for that. They merge those loose threads and hair into a softer edge; And the biggest edge transition you see is usually with depth of field. And there lied the problem: the camera is actually designing the edges for us, and after doing a million photo studies, we try to apply lens/optical/camera logic to our paintings.
But that is not how we see, that is how the CAMERA sees.
Makes sense?
So doing master studies was the first time I saw edges being used to convey information about the surface, and not some arbitrary lens captured phenomena. And you can go much softer on your edges then expected doing only photo studies, and it will still hold and look sharp if you use your hard edges right.
The high contrast areas are usually pretty sharp - areas that are being directly by light. Areas in shadow are this much more softer, less detailed, less rendered.
Edges also talks a lot about plane transitions - think a cube versus a sphere. So this need to translate well when you're painting too.
2) The first lesson on Chris Oatley's Magic Box talks about ambient/diffuse light setup. It's actually quite hard when you have all this diffuse light and not direct cast shadow. So he explains how to convey the softness of the light with a mix of gradient tool and soft brushing. He talks a lot about designing your shapes.
And the exact act of designing shapes with a softer light made me think a great deal about how the shift in planes made a great deal about edges we are painting.
It's confusing, really.
I hope I can actually explain it once I am more sure of what I am doing.
Back on conceptart.org we had a great thread that organized edges in 4 stages - 1 hard, 2 soft, 3 softer, 4 lost. And much like value, your painting would exists in the middle values, and the extremes ones were used as accents. So yeah, this has been a sort of guideline too.
Please keep posting your experiments, I'd love to see the progress!
(And feel free to drop me a line to talk about it anytime ;)