06-27-2020, 11:43 AM
Whoa, that was a lot of replies for one post. You guys are too nice.
tiago nunes: Yeah, it was a bit of an experiment to see if I could get away with making everything in a picture 100% sharp. It may have been better with more defined focal points.
You're probably right about the dog. I'm still not sure if the feet position is 100% unrealistic, but it could be done better
Rotohail: The goal for the picture was just to make a fun picture of a slightly surreal fantasy suburbia, sort of like if a PS1 game was brought to life. The proportions were only partially intentional, but I'm glad it reads as being deliberate. Nothing kills a painting/drawing faster than an obvious lack of confidence, LOL!
Regarding that panorama thing, I was going for about 1/4 of a panorama with that blue house at the center. Good points about adding more noise so that individual elements don't stick out.
graphicnovelist: The proportions were semi-intentional but I did not want them quite that unreal. Strangely, I didn't notice it until I started painting. I tried to fix it but could only get so far, LOL. I like art with exaggerated proportions, just not so much that all the viewer can think is "WHOA, THAT'S A SMALL HEAD!"
Leo Ki: I actually didn't have a story in mind for that painting. I just wanted to paint a pleasant vista with a figure where everything is extremely orange, so I slapped a bunch of elements together that vaguely made sense. I'm happy to hear that you got the impression of it having more depth, though.
Artloader: That's exactly the sort of scene I wanted to set. The idea for it was "Fantasy Suburbia". So that's good to hear. And yeah, it's like a cropped quarter of a panorama.
Nirenia: I'll link you the books and resources I've used. Getting better at rendering for me has mainly been a matter of trying to understand the subject itself as best I can (e.g human beings), trying to develop a basic understanding of how light works, and simply trying to replicate photos. I've had, and still have difficulty with seeing subtle value differences, so I often open photos in photoshop and turn up the contrast massively (and sometimes play with brightness) to see the light and dark areas in more simplified shapes. I'm trying to do this less though. I'm still not sure if I actually understand anything or if I've just gotten good enough at acting like I know what I'm doing that people usually don't notice my screw-ups.
As for process, I try to do things a little differently each time, but I usually use the bog-standard strategy of filling in shapes with a flat midtone, then add shadows, and then light. I mostly practiced rendering with traditional paper and pencil until recently though. The skills carry over to digital just fine.
Books:
Color and Light by James Gurney (really good if you're like me and you need to have the absolute basics explained repeatedly)
Successful Drawing by Loomis
Links:
http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php (one of the best summaries of lighting and shading basics I've found)
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect6.html (this covers much of the same ground as the Loomis book but contains some interesting additional facts. I did not commit the whole thing to memory though)
Got two new pictures. If you notice anything bothersome, feel free to comment.
I tried to pull off the small-head look in a more balanced way. I think I can say for sure that I prefer more realistic proportions now. I took a very simplified approach to the reflective clothing and made the reflections of the light source very large. I hope it still reads as being shiny.
[attachment=117043]
I probably should have put more thought into the figure and drapery here, but this was mainly a background practice picture, so I was somewhat apathetic about it. I failed to figure out a suggestive way of painting the grass that didn't look crummy, so I did it in a more laborious fashion. I'm not proud of it, LOL.
[attachment=117044]
tiago nunes: Yeah, it was a bit of an experiment to see if I could get away with making everything in a picture 100% sharp. It may have been better with more defined focal points.
You're probably right about the dog. I'm still not sure if the feet position is 100% unrealistic, but it could be done better
Rotohail: The goal for the picture was just to make a fun picture of a slightly surreal fantasy suburbia, sort of like if a PS1 game was brought to life. The proportions were only partially intentional, but I'm glad it reads as being deliberate. Nothing kills a painting/drawing faster than an obvious lack of confidence, LOL!
Regarding that panorama thing, I was going for about 1/4 of a panorama with that blue house at the center. Good points about adding more noise so that individual elements don't stick out.
graphicnovelist: The proportions were semi-intentional but I did not want them quite that unreal. Strangely, I didn't notice it until I started painting. I tried to fix it but could only get so far, LOL. I like art with exaggerated proportions, just not so much that all the viewer can think is "WHOA, THAT'S A SMALL HEAD!"
Leo Ki: I actually didn't have a story in mind for that painting. I just wanted to paint a pleasant vista with a figure where everything is extremely orange, so I slapped a bunch of elements together that vaguely made sense. I'm happy to hear that you got the impression of it having more depth, though.
Artloader: That's exactly the sort of scene I wanted to set. The idea for it was "Fantasy Suburbia". So that's good to hear. And yeah, it's like a cropped quarter of a panorama.
Nirenia: I'll link you the books and resources I've used. Getting better at rendering for me has mainly been a matter of trying to understand the subject itself as best I can (e.g human beings), trying to develop a basic understanding of how light works, and simply trying to replicate photos. I've had, and still have difficulty with seeing subtle value differences, so I often open photos in photoshop and turn up the contrast massively (and sometimes play with brightness) to see the light and dark areas in more simplified shapes. I'm trying to do this less though. I'm still not sure if I actually understand anything or if I've just gotten good enough at acting like I know what I'm doing that people usually don't notice my screw-ups.
As for process, I try to do things a little differently each time, but I usually use the bog-standard strategy of filling in shapes with a flat midtone, then add shadows, and then light. I mostly practiced rendering with traditional paper and pencil until recently though. The skills carry over to digital just fine.
Books:
Color and Light by James Gurney (really good if you're like me and you need to have the absolute basics explained repeatedly)
Successful Drawing by Loomis
Links:
http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php (one of the best summaries of lighting and shading basics I've found)
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect6.html (this covers much of the same ground as the Loomis book but contains some interesting additional facts. I did not commit the whole thing to memory though)
Got two new pictures. If you notice anything bothersome, feel free to comment.
I tried to pull off the small-head look in a more balanced way. I think I can say for sure that I prefer more realistic proportions now. I took a very simplified approach to the reflective clothing and made the reflections of the light source very large. I hope it still reads as being shiny.
[attachment=117043]
I probably should have put more thought into the figure and drapery here, but this was mainly a background practice picture, so I was somewhat apathetic about it. I failed to figure out a suggestive way of painting the grass that didn't look crummy, so I did it in a more laborious fashion. I'm not proud of it, LOL.
[attachment=117044]