Alice the Ork

[Squinky]

Thanks for your comments all, I'll try to incorporate your advice in my future works. The cool little dealy Helm did on my pic was a nice little way for me to understand some stuff, so thanks tons man. Thanks everybody...

I was happy with this one because of the main guy "Earl", but the ghouls just mucked it up, so I will seriously have to erase some stuff in photoshop, or just trash it....As always any crits would be great...

Edit---

Here's my newest one, took me forever to sketch, and I can't bear to ink it right now, since I had such bad luck with that other one above. I drew it to work on my poses, and I think it turned out okay, cep't for the heavily armed stripper, she seems stiff...couldn't figure that one out....It is just a sketch still too, so most of the wacky lines will disapear....

[Helm]

mind if I ink parts of this to show you a different way to ink?

[Squinky]

Dude, go to town! That would be frigging awesome...

[Helm]

Hello. Here's ideas and stuff.

Before I talk about inking and edits, a few thoughts. This is comic art. Squinky doesn't need fine art critique. It's good to read loomis, but the skills you'll get there do not have to directly do with the art in this thread. This is comic art, and you should recieve comic art themed critique. Your anatomy isn't that lacking that you need to turn to books to get better at it. Perspective, maybe, but your anatomy will get better by sticking at it. Hell, it's gotten better in this here thread. Your poses DO need to become less wooden and more natural, though, but that has to do with studying reality and then studying exaggeration of reality, not loomis.

loominous, I find your edit basically useless in this case, which is uncharacteristic of you because it is not an awesome version ( if, your version ) of the art edited, as you usually do. I have lots of bones to pick with people who edit and awesomify radically, because, as cool as it is to see it happen, it doesn't help the person being edited. An edit should be one, two steps ahead of the person's skill, otherwise you're just discouraging them and going 'this is how good you'll never be.' However, this is not what you did in this thread. You simply turned an idiosynchartic face, very very fitting to the setting, to a pretty face that is fitting to other things. Is it bad to outline that your edit might not be good? Does it not help you to get that feedback so you can help people with your edits rather than lead them on potentially irrelevant paths?

now, edits about inking. These were done in photoshop, so they're not as good as they would be if they were done in hand. But they serve their purpose. I've blown up a detail to 200% to get finer brushes. Here's what happens:



This is the base image.



This is basic outlining. For some of your work, this might really be enough. notice the variable line widths, NOT too much though, following curves and folds accordingly. You could stop here and I'd be happy. Notice inside curves against straight lines, outside curves against contra curves, contrapost. Your ink work tends to be too 'rounded' not dynamic and edgy enough. Don't be afraid of corners and straight lines, they suit your subject matter. Be VERY wary of a boring curve against the same curve mirrored. Contropost curves. The tattoo is shakily done, but I'm not paying much attention to that for the purposes of the edit.




This is minimal rendering. I'd call this underrendered, personally, but it's a good place to start. There's LITTLE lightining here, but not too much. For quick styles, this is enough. There's more importance placed of developing volume here than on realistic lighting. Generally, for comic art, forget PURE realistic lightning. Leave that to the fine art boys. This is cyberpunk, dude. Stylise, don't get hung up on representing reality.




And there's such a thing as overrendering, as you see. This is too much for me, but others might go up to this, or even further. This is when inkwork begins to resemble charcoal work, where you really block out volume from light and darkness.



Then, don't forget you can also use rasters, or fake rasters, whatever, to pronounce your work. I like doing this after I'm done with inking, because as you'll see on the next step, it gives you the change to rub out speculars and lights with the eraser.



This is what I'm talking about. This is really really too much, but you can see how we got from stage 1 to stage 6, right? Here's the psd if you find it useful to turn layers on and off or whatever. Hope I helped.


http://www.locustleaves.com/render.psd

Don't get hung up on making stuff pretty. This is cyberpunk. You can, and you should work on making a cohesive style that can hold whatever you want to show in your stories. Comic art is not about pretty pictures, it's about cohesive storytelling and good flow and a transparent style that holds everything together.

[Kinoko]

Listen to Helm... brilliant advice.

[loominous]

Helm:

Is it bad to outline that your edit might not be good?

Yes and no, I suppose.

Yes, if the criticism have anything to do with taste. Whether mr Colossal likes her face or not is pointless knowledge as far as I'm concerned, since it's Squinky's taste that matters. For all we know he might've aimed exactly at the style I presented - though I doubt it - and he is in a position to dismiss suggestions as easily as embracing them.

No, if the criticism is on a meta level. Pointing out that the edit may harm the original maker is most relevant.

However, I do think there are limits here. I see critique in the form they're available here as charity. Any charitable activity is good, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. A problem arises when people not contributing starts wasting their energy to criticise the work of the charity workers, instead of spending it on contributing themselves and setting an example. Not only doesn't it aid the person who asked for help, it irritates the charity workers.

I have lots of bones to pick with people who edit and awesomify radically, because, as cool as it is to see it happen, it doesn't help the person being edited.

While I agree on the uselessness of total revamps in many cases, they serve an important purpose in situations like these, where parts of the original is too far from what the editor thinks of as proper, consideringÃ,  the overall style and skill level of the rest of the image. Minor modification won't do well in these cases and the point is to illustrate what area/s can be improved with some briefer studies, which will lift the image radically. It's like the pose issues, major rework would be required, but instead of making a rough sketch like Igor's, I made it in detail.

I don't expect Squinky to look at it and simply get how to draw more conventional facial features, rather to notice the abnormalities and decide based on this whether to study some real faces to obtain a different style, or settle with the current one.

And while one can argue that comic book anatomy/poses/lighting differs from more realistic style, they're simply stretches, and someone who has mastered the former can, with some minor practise, handle the latter, but not vice versa. I don't mean that Squinky should spend years studying anatomy, just spend half an hour or so studying how eyes, for instance, are constructed, and incorporate the knowledge in whatever style he choose to use.

Loomis' books are excellent on this subject, since they show how to construct things using simpler building blocks, rather than just showing neat renders found in most books on anatomy. In retrospect, the latter is what I unfortunately choose to do, but my intention was to lead him to either read Loomis or do other studies where he'd obtain the former.

You simply turned an idiosynchartic face, very very fitting to the setting, to a pretty face that is fitting to other things

I discussed in my former post why I tend to choose more ideal beauty over a more flawed interesting ones in my edits. My edit was meant as a pointer, not as a substitute.

And while the expression/style of the face might fit the overall image to an extent, I doubt that Squinky would choose the style the current style over a more conventional professional comic book one.

The whole "it fits his/her style" argument is flawed imo. While great originality can come out of shortcomings, I think the person should choose a style, not settle with it because the lack of ability to do "better". If I knew that Squinky could draw like, I dunno, Marvel Comic artists, then I'd see no point in my edit, since he had obviously choosen not to go with more conventional faces. But the whole "your style is cool, just go with it" argument only makes sense if "higher" aspirations don't exist, which I doubt is the case.


Mr Colossal:

I don't know why you chose to respond to my post and call it useless when there are tons of posts in other threads of people saying your edit is better than the original and how awesome your edit is and eye popping smileys. I think those are more useless than a post from someone who thought he could have a friendly chat. Oh well.

If a friendly chat was your intent, then I suppose I missed it, as your first post seemed like an unfriendly way to start one. I have no beef with you, but I thought I detected the reverse.

I agree that praising comments on edits are pretty unimportant, but they do serve as encouragement for the editor, so they do have a smaller purpose, though there's a potential backside in that spotlight is redirected from the original maker. So there's a balance to keep up there I suppose.

My comment on your comment was due to the fact that similar comments have irritated me in the past for the reasons I mentioned above in my reply to Helm, and that this practise hadn't been discussed before, very much unlike the praising smiley posts.

Edit: Spelling

[Andail]

I agree with...well, all of you, in different aspects.

At first I was struck at how Loominous presented an edit that was seemingly neglectful towards the original style and concept.
Then again, in general, if you want to be able to skillfully express all kinds of states and emotions, all kinds of looks and characteristics, he is correct in the sense that you should start by pursuing perfection; the ideal. So in a training-ground perspective, Loominous is right. Looking at the finished product, his edit serves no real purpose.

To always take the paintbrush away from the student and complete his work with breathtaking results is something an ordinary art teacher would consider bad pedagogics - it would raise the overall quality in the classroom, but the individual learner might not be able to attain that level, and would possibly be discouraged to continue.
It can sometimes be hard to keep within the boundary of good tutoring, without simply becoming an "art-improvifier".

I do, in contrast to Helm, think that the incorrect anatomy of Squinky's figures really is an obstacle that needs to be overcome. If you could get the anatomy and proportions right, I believe some of the poses would seem more natural by way of mechanics.

Lastly, this is an open forum, and as an editor (even the most acclaimed one) you're not immune to c&c, Loominous. Eric has every right in the world to question your edits. Even if you disagree, you can't say that it is automatically wrong.

[loominous]

Lastly, this is an open forum, and as an editor (even the most acclaimed one) you're not immune to c&c, Loominous. Eric has every right in the world to question your edits. Even if you disagree, you can't say that it is automatically wrong.

I don't really understand how you got this impression. As far as I know, I even made a distinction between what I consider proper and improper critique of other's edits, so it puzzles me how you interpreted this as a categorical rejection of c&c. Considering the amount of criticism I hand out, it would be ridiculously hypocritical if I did.

And while I did state that I didn't like some form of criticism, I don't believe that I made any demands that it should be adopted as a general law for the CL. Though one can always hope.

It can sometimes be hard to keep within the boundary of good tutoring, without simply becoming an "art-improvifier".

A point I wanted to make with my charity analogy was that we can't, and I think shouldn't, place any real expectations on the critique given, as long as it's meant to be constructive.

If we collectively hired an art instructor, we'd be in a position to demand high-class pedagoguish critique. As it is, people contribute with what they can.

As I mentioned, I do believe that some critique can potentially be harmful, and that such should be discouraged, which is why I welcome meta discussions.

Anyway, sorry about hijacking the thread Squinky.

[Helm]

Yes, if the criticism have anything to do with taste. Whether mr Colossal likes her face or not is pointless knowledge as far as I'm concerned, since it's Squinky's taste that matters. For all we know he might've aimed exactly at the style I presented - though I doubt it - and he is in a position to dismiss suggestions as easily as embracing them.

When eric, or myself, or anybody say 'I don't like the face in loominous' edit' we're not talking to you, at least not only to you. There's things you can pick up from this sort of contra-critique, and you should, but we're mainly talking to squinky. We're saying, 'squinky, a part of your audience believes that direction to not be fitting to the type of work we believe you're trying to create. It might not be to your advantage to follow that critique.' Do you understand why this is important, and why it really has little to do with you directly? As you say below and as I explained in my other post, it should be useful to you, being such a prolific editor around here, to know when other people think your edits go south too, but if you don't like hearing that, ok, you don't like it. Won't stop it from happening.

However, I do think there are limits here. I see critique in the form they're available here as charity. Any charitable activity is good, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

There's fault in your charity analogy. Critique isn't charity. It is offered as such, but it's not ment as such. When someone like you edits something, there's a specific weight attached to your opinion that may steer someone in a specific direction just because you are you and not flukeblake. There's responsibility in an edit, and that's why I rushed to tell squinky to not take the face edit too much into account, to counter-act a bit. Of course the artist should always be presupposedly able to filter the critique he gets and select only the stuff he finds useful from there, but let's not kid ourselves, when someone really good critiques you, you listen, you take freakin' notes. And it's a dissapointment when I for one can spot a great artist giving critique with which I don't agree to a lesser artist. I've been to art school. What we're discussing here has happened numerous times. I've had to argue with teachers that what they're saying to other artists might be wrong, for the sake of the other artists. This is neither special nor a big deal, regardless of the huge posts about it.

A problem arises when people not contributing starts wasting their energy to criticise the work of the charity workers, instead of spending it on contributing themselves and setting an example. Not only doesn't it aid the person who asked for help, it irritates the charity workers.

Drop the charity analogy. We're all learning here. Me here talking to you, I'm learning, you're learning. We're all getting critiqued, even if the critique is about the critique. You're not a magnificent benevolent benefactor of all.

While I agree on the uselessness of total revamps in many cases, they serve an important purpose in situations like these, where parts of the original is too far from what the editor thinks of as proper, considering  the overall style and skill level of the rest of the image. Minor modification won't do well in these cases and the point is to illustrate what area/s can be improved with some briefer studies, which will lift the image radically. It's like the pose issues, major rework would be required, but instead of making a rough sketch like Igor's, I made it in detail.

Just a difference of opinion here, because I found the face to be rocking, even if it's not 'correct' and that's what drew me to the piece anyway, to edit the leg and give it a bit of gravital center. When I saw your edit I went 'no. nope. no no no.' instinctively. You have an opinion, you edited, I have an opinion, I edited, we discussed opinions, it's all good.

And while one can argue that comic book anatomy/poses/lighting differs from more realistic style, they're simply stretches, and someone who has mastered the former can, with some minor practise, handle the latter, but not vice versa. I don't mean that Squinky should spend years studying anatomy, just spend half an hour or so studying how eyes, for instance, are constructed, and incorporate the knowledge in whatever style he choose to use.

Okay.

The whole "it fits his/her style" argument is flawed imo. While great originality can come out of shortcomings, I think the person should choose a style, not settle with it because the lack of ability to do "better". If I knew that Squinky could draw like, I dunno, Marvel Comic artists, then I'd see no point in my edit, since he had obviously choosen not to go with more conventional faces. But the whole "your style is cool, just go with it" argument only makes sense if "higher" aspirations don't exist, which I doubt is the case.

I don't disagree here. I find squinky's art to benefit from smaller scaled steps and critique first, before he's ready to entertain the notion of expanding, style-wise. He's consistently posted cyberpunk pictures, in an - I suspect - comic world of his own, all of which leads me to believe this is his baby, for now. This is what he wants to do. I try to help on this end, not expand and illuminate his mind. I am no art teacher, I've only got humble critique about how to shade, how to structure and the like. Won't be telling anybody to go style-fishing just yet.

[Squinky]

Listen to Helm... brilliant advice.

Agreed, you rock Helm. That really has helped me comprehend some things. Some quick dumb questions though (to anyone who knows):

1. On the line variations you have there where they get thicker in some parts and thinner in some parts, I still don't really get where to do them. I read and re-read your example and others and I just can't understand where to do it...So, I guess I'm asking for further explaination on that, even though I'm sure it is plain to see, I just don't get it yet, I am sorry.

2. I have read somewhere that my lines are called dead-lines, and the ones you used are called live-lines, since they change width during the same stroke. I am using basic pens for inking, a finer tipped sharpie for thick lines and a ball-point like pen for the finer lines...I can't seem to get either to create these "live" lines and really the sharpie is scary because the paper can really soak up the ink if I don't watch myself....Should I be using different things to ink with, and if so any advice?
I really want to go toward experimenting with Helm's tutorial but I'm afraid I will still acheive the same rounded results....

Thanks again everyone!

[Helm]

this is how you ink. no straight lines, no contra curves, one width, shaky, somewhat. What you call dead lines.



this is how you might wanna try to ink. smaller lines for smaller details, stronger lines for contours, widths that follow volume and curve. The idea is, if you're inking a curve, on the most extreme bit of the curve, you'd need the most width, and the more like a straight line it becomes, the smaller the width should be. But there's other things you'll learn about this intuitively. Use a 0.1 pen of good make to do these, or if you're feeling extra awesome, you might want to try a brush with ink. I can't do this. Eric can. Ask him for specifics.



A more complete render.

[loominous]

You're not a magnificent benevolent benefactor of all.

I really have no clue where that came from.

How do you reach the conclusion that I consider myself magnificent?Ã,  Some people praise my edits, something which I can't be held responsible for, and also something which causes me discomfort, knowing how lacking they must seem for people more skilled.

I have an intentional practise of never telling people how the images is should be, I merely offer suggestions on how I would do it, or common practises/theories for achieving certain results/effects.

As critical as I am of other's work, it doesn't even begin to match my scrutinization of my own.

So don't jump to the conclusion that I actually take people's praise to heart. I'm all too well aware of my inabilities.

As you say below and as I explained in my other post, it should be useful to you, being such a prolific editor around here, to know when other people think your edits go south too, but if you don't like hearing that, ok, you don't like it. Won't stop it from happening.

I'm getting tired of the claim that I demand people to follow my preferences. I stated that I didn't like a specific form of critique, but didn't expect it to become a forum rule, so where's the point in pointing out that it won't stop happening? I know it, you know it.

We're saying, 'squinky, a part of your audience believes that direction to not be fitting to the type of work we believe you're trying to create. It might not be to your advantage to follow that critique.'

I suppose I might've been a bit sensitive towards Mr C's post; I'm just sick of people criticising people trying to help instead of helping themselves, and might've read things into his post that wasn't meant to be there.

Oh well.

[Helm]

I really have no clue where that came from.

It comes from the charity line. I don't think I'm doing charity here for example, by trying to help Squinky because I'm becoming better just by putting ideas into words. Not just drawing shit for my own fun, letting it go it's own way, but wanting and achieving to illustrate an exact point of view. I gain a lot from that. I think you do too. The charity parallel is very bad to explain the relationship. Critique is an interactive thing.

As critical as I am of other's work, it doesn't even begin to match my scrutinization of my own.

I think that's good.

I'm getting tired of the claim that I demand people to follow my preferences.

The underlying point here is not that what you like or do not influence what happens. We know that's true. You know it, I know it, you know that I know it and I know that you know it. That's not what I'm talking about. It's the reasoning behind what you find unpleasant that in this case if faulty, so if you're going to not like it, go ahead. You were wrong to lash out to eric in my opinion, that's why I repeated the 'don't like it, deal with it' thing.

I'm just sick of people criticising people trying to help instead of helping themselves

Dunno how much that occurs generally. You might be right. Just this situation here that I am following, it didn't happen. Eric has helped Squinky a lot in the past, he didn't just pop up to attack you.

[DanClarke]

come on guys this is going a little OT. If you want to discuss this surely itd be an idea to start a thread somewhere or PM. I'm only saying this for squinkys sake, as i feel its been hijacked somewhat.

[Squinky]

Helm, thank you. Seriously.

You seem to know excactly what I am going for. I am so going out and buying some pens here....

I have tried using nibs and a brush before, but i't didn't go to far since, as you can see I didn't even know how to do the lines right, regardless of my ability to even use the tools. Nibs sure seem cool though...

[Helm]

Thanks, Dan Clarke.

[MrColossal]

I think a good way to learn line variation is to hit up some old Donald Duck comics or something like that.

The style is totally different of course but the exaggeration of line variation might help you understand, here are some covers but I'll dig up my samples when I get home:

http://www.houseofcomics.com/images/MN801.gif

http://www.tomheroes.com/images/COMIC%20uncle%20scrooge%20211%20prize%20of%20pizarro.jpg

Note the bit under the foot and his eyebrows, along with his belly in the Pizzaro one.

If you're doing line variation with a pen and drawing in the thickness afterwards, you'll notice that if you move onto a nib or a brush [I'd recommend a nib first] that the line variation becomes somewhat natural or at least much easier.

However learning to use a dip pen is a whole other ball of wax.

Loominous:

I'm sorry if you read my post as confrontational, it wasn't ment that way. I was just stating an opinion on the original art. I thought we were all friends on this forum until proven guilty.

[Squinky]

Okay, I managed to find a .02 pen, but that was the best I could do. Heres my shot at it:

This picture was just  a quick doodle I copied out of a clothing catalouge, but I figured I could ink it without fear...I know I totally screwed up the folds on the arm too...

[Helm]

right off the bat for me that is more interesting and dynamic to look at.

[Squinky]

Heres another shot at it. I did a cheesy black drop because I really screwed up the background...Hope its getting better...

Edit--
Just noticed a crappy area on the rifle I was gonna erase, sorry bout that...