(http://joelphilippage.webs.com/Next%20to%20Evil/Faced.png)
My portrait seems a bit dull. the right side is completely white, which I think it should be from the light source, but it feels really empty. Also, the attitude and everything seems a bit uninteresting. I want to keep the pale skin tone though. Got any Ideas to liven this up?
(http://joelphilippage.webs.com/Next%20to%20Evil/Faceed.png)
I tried this as well.
She looks like she should have a slightly furrowed brow. And maybe arch the eyebrows a bit?
How's this?
(http://joelphilippage.webs.com/Next%20to%20Evil/Facead.png)
How about adding just a dash of forehead lines?
I don't think the pic gains anything from the extra red shade on the lips - I feel it might be nicer if you stuck to the skin palette here and shaped them a little more with shading:
(http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5460/jpp.png)
I also tried to bring a bit more 'life' into the eyes and adjusted some other minor things. As for expression, depends on the sort of character she is and the situation she is in.
I do like the improved eyes. It does give her some more life. I think adding forehead lines makes her look old, and she is not supposed to be more than 20. The arched eyebrow fits her character. I could use this as an optional expression. she looks a bit more sad in the older one.
(http://joelphilippage.webs.com/Next%20to%20Evil/Faceud.png)
tried a few of Ben's Ideas with a few differences. I don't want the lips to be very full. she should be kind of plain
The main dark shade is too saturated and the middle shade is not saturated enough.
I'd also use a neutral color close to 50% saturation as background while drawing to not screw up your color perception.
Is this a trace of a photograph?
(http://joelphilippage.webs.com/Next%20to%20Evil/Facecd.png)
I enjoy bizarre colors. Does this look better?
Here is the original picture I based this off of.
(http://www.la-story.com/upload/2009/03/masterpiece_theater_classic_presents_little_dorrit/little-dorrit.jpg)
Well the refference doesn't have that many lines either, but I saw Ben's pic and it look nicer for some reason, then I figured it's probably cause it's a tad blurred and therefore the lines are softer.
The way shades are on her lips in your pic is maybe a bit too much contrast (or maybe difference between colors), the way you used them, the illumination would require far stronger and more focuesd light (a flash or something) but on the original pic it's very diffused illumintaion.
If a flash was used, then there would be less detail on the side of the head that's in the shed (her right side), there would be no highlights in the hair etc.
So if you're not going for the high contrast, face coming out of the shadow, lightning striking nearby, I suggest you either remove shading, except for some lines that make details, or make area shades (colors) closer (in hue), so the transition so they feel less "sharp." The one before bizzare color version looks nice.
Ben's picture is not blurred if you have the correct firefox settings...
For the pic: I like your last one best except for the raised eyebrow, I'm not sure about that. I seems to make an expression that the rest of the face does not share.
(http://joelphilippage.webs.com/Next%20to%20Evil/Facecd2d.png)
There's a bit less of a contrast in this version and not so much of a direct light source. I added bangs for some reason.
I think the white is too extreme. Just making it a really light shade of her skin tone would be better...
A common tip when dealing with values from a reference is to squint your eyes, which enables you to look past distracting details and get a good general impression of the value distribution.
Values don't only convey the form and material of the object, but also set the overall mood to a great extent, so it's a very delicate affair, that is easily messed up.
Like with everything else, it's usually good to start with the big picture, and work down to details. Blurring the image, equivalent of squinting your eyes, shows that due to a strong light source on the right, and a non-glossy skin, you find the main value difference on the left of her face, where the head is in shadow from the light source.
(http://marcus.krupa.se/AGS/jp_g_01.jpg)
This is usually the case, unless you have very shiny objects, so it's good to remember, as people tend to instead focus and exaggerate minute highlights/shadow lines, which create weird and often mildly freakish results.
So by observing the object in this manner, you can begin with the vital areas, and work your way down to the details, confident that it'll probably turn out fine in the end, or at least that you've used a method that gives you a good chance at it.
I think Sughly is absolutely right, the very light skin tones are very distracting!
I actually liked the annoyed look of your previous edit the most. In the last one she looks quite timid. But then again I don't really know what your aiming for, since I guess you took the photo as a general reference(?)
So I made this paintover, adjusting some of your shades and using the colour scheme of your last edit, because it somehow works quite well imho.
(http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab12/Mad1978/DorritOriginal.png) (http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab12/Mad1978/DorritPO.png)
I didn't do the neck and hair, because I ran out of time, but especially the hair needs some work: I don't think you'd get as many highlights on her right hand side, considering the angle of the light source!
Keep at it, this is a very good sprite!
Edit: Ahh, didn't see loominous' post there. Very cool method, I'll keep that in mind!
Edit 2: Ok, couldn't be a**ed to work, so I made this:
(http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab12/Mad1978/DorritPO02.png)
This should illustrate, what I meant about the hair. Her right hand side is shadowed and only some of the locks catch the light.
AAAHH! Now I'll never be able to go back to my ignorance of poor shading! Thanks guys. I'll see what I can do without just copying your picture. I'll at least re-draw it for myself to get your Ideas in.
(http://joelphilippage.webs.com/Next%20to%20Evil/Facec3.png)
Here's my re-edit. I really like the bun in her hair, but I want to have a set amount of pixels for the portraits.
That is a really good edit!
And if you're going with that restricted pane, I'd lose the bun, or give her a hair style the viewer can read more easily:
(http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab12/Mad1978/FaceOP.png)
I also changed a few pixels beside her nose. I am not sure there'd be a shadow there unless she had a deep crease or scar.
But as I said, you've made a fantastic improvement taking all the comments from everyone on board!
Joel, I'm just curious as to why you keep destroying the form of her nose in every single edit you make? You keep flattening the bottom of her nose which is completely unrealistic and bizarre looking. Mad's initial edit rounded her nose quite well and showed her nostrils (much like the reference image) and then you went back and flattened it again, making her nose look almost Bullish. Also, it doesn't seem like you've redrawn these examples, just tweaked them, making the eyes and nose considerably worse in the process. Finally, the green shade isn't artsy, it's highly distracting like you're viewing an anaglyph image. The prevailing light source here does not seem capable of creating either a green shadow or a green bounce light so my advice is to get rid of it entirely and focus first on a competent portrait design. Once you have form and body and shadows and highlights properly understood then perhaps you can experiment.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 11/09/2010 23:58:57
Finally, the green shade isn't artsy, it's highly distracting like you're viewing an anaglyph image. [...] Once you have form and body and shadows and highlights properly understood then perhaps you can experiment.
I don't see why you'd want to discourage anyone from experimenting to their heart's content. Experimentation is hardly a luxury exclusive to competent artists.
QuoteI'm just curious as to why you keep destroying the form of her nose in every single edit you make?
A not so wild guess would be that it's because noses are tricky shapes to portray, and without sufficient understanding renderings will usually fail.
It really was a re-edit I used Mad's edit a lot. All I did was attempt to re-draw his for myself. It may not have been pixel perfect, but reproduction is often a good method for learning. Some things I may choose to keep. Thanks for the help. I will probably be improved a lot and hope to keep learning things.
But experimentation here is like leaping before you've learned how to walk properly; it's like trying to draw in Dott style before learning proper perspective; it just isn't a sound approach. Learning anatomy, shading, and perspective first gives you the solid basis with which to bend the rules and experiment with other techniques and variations thereof. Otherwise it's like being out at sea without a compass, paddling a bit here and a bit there and unsure of your progress. I think in Joel's case the experimentation can wait until he's tackled the more prominent issues with the portrait and reached a good level of confidence with anatomy and shading :).
Quote
A not so wild guess would be that it's because noses are tricky shapes to portray, and without sufficient understanding renderings will usually fail.
I'd appreciate it if you'd let Joel answer for
himself as I'm genuinely curious why he re-edits certain touched-up areas from edits (like the nose) but leaves others alone. I'm trying to find out whether he thinks these shapes are an improvement, trying to replicate them in his own way, or what. His reply answered this for me, thankfully!
Joel- how exactly do you approach re-drawing? Looking at your work, it looks to me like you are drawing
over the edited images directly? Or are you placing old versions of your work next to the edits and trying to draw what you like from them by eye? I'm curious because I think you'll get more out of the latter than doing tweaks here and there with other people's edits. I do think you're making progress in some areas, but because I also see you grinding your wheels with certain bits of anatomy I'd like to see where you are on these questions.
I worked by putting my old image next to Mad's and tried to edit mine. I left certain parts because I do think some part's are more true to the image. I think most of my problems are in the details because, when I really paint, a pixel off doesn't matter. I think I really need work on pixel art.
And yes I do need work with anatomy since I've never had anything similar to a life drawing class. Just basic proportions.
I hope this answers your questions.
It does! In that case, I suggest drawing with the actual portrait beside your work instead, unless the edits have been made with respect to the source material (ie, the person looked at the photo reference and corrected the nose based on that rather than on some internal idea of how it should look). This will bring your portrait closer to resembling the source, naturally. Now if you're going for a sort of stylized variation of a source image, my advice is still to try and achieve a reasonable pixeled version of the source and then consider what you'd like to change up because then you've got some solid anatomy to work with. After awhile you'll be able to draw portraits without any reference (or a passing one) and achieve very solid results, so keep at it! I look forward to seeing your progress,either with this portrait or future ones.
ProgZmax:
What I find curious is your stance that only people who "have form and body and shadows and highlights properly understood" can "perhaps" experiment, which sounds like something out of Oliver Twist.
Nothing says that you can't gain understanding and experiment in parallel.
Sure wish we had more Ben304's on this board.
Loominous, surely you agree that the best route to take is to learn the basics first (that is, to reproduce anatomy, perspective, colours and proportions the way they actually look), and then experiement.
At least if you wanna learn and improve. If you just wanna have fun, then forget about rules and experiment away.
That goes for all disciplines by the way; I can get quite annoyed when students refuse to embrace common writing rules and guide-lines just because there exists literature that ignores them. And then when they have a go at writing avant-garde texts it looks like shit.
Quote from: Andail on Wed 15/09/2010 11:26:15
Loominous, surely you agree that the best route to take is to learn the basics first (that is, to reproduce anatomy, perspective, colours and proportions the way they actually look), and then experiement.
If you want to take the express train to realism, then sure, devote your entire days to practicing the basics, and leave experimentation for a distant future.
But how the devil did we arrive at the conclusion that this was the case in this thread?
This is like an acquaintance approaching you with some portraits that they've mucked around with, asking for input. "Enjoying bizarre colours",
one of the versions features some experimental colours.
To at this point state that:
Quotethe green shade isn't artsy, it's highly distracting like you're viewing an anaglyph image. The prevailing light source here does not seem capable of creating either a green shadow or a green bounce light so my advice is to get rid of it entirely and focus first on a competent portrait design. Once you have form and body and shadows and highlights properly understood then perhaps you can experiment.
strikes me as partly bizarre, partly draconian, and I think it's the duty of anyone present at such an exchange to intervene.
So because you disagree with me it's your 'duty' to intervene? You're beginning to sound like some sort of ridiculous avenging angel, saving the people from us poor fools. Seriously, Loominous, if you disagree with me then prove how it's better to just sit and experiment than to have guidelines and a firm grasp of the basics first, bearing in mind that the portrait did not begin from the imagination but from a solid, real reference. Meanwhile, don't sit there all high and mighty calling my methods draconian because I give someone the advice to build up confidence with basic principles and build upon them and go from there. I never said creativity was verboten.
Also, it was the OP who said they enjoy bizarre colors; that's not something I attributed to them, only agreed that the green looked strange and made it all appear vaguely stereoscopic to me.
There is too much tension on this board. We should loosen up. I like this forum a lot, but now it seems that it's turning into a civil war battlefield if we continue like this. I know I'm not very active with posting, but I check this forum about 3 times everyday.
ON TOPIC:
I must say I agree with progzmax about the basics. I know it is hard to get into learning all that, but it gives a lot of depth to your images later and helps you read the masterpieces better and understand how they are built up. Also I just read a good article (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6121/from_ancient_greece_to_halo_art_.php) what you may or my not have seen already. Ofcourse experimenting is always welcome, but I would still suggest to draw as accurately as possible in the beginning. If you know how things work then you can safely crack it open and change the things that are needed.
If I wasn't useful then I hope the article was.
Keep on studing, practising and having fun. ;D
Quote from: loominous on Wed 15/09/2010 14:40:00
strikes me as partly bizarre, partly draconian, and I think it's the duty of anyone present at such an exchange to intervene.
Hm... easy on the diction there, loomy old friend, it sounds like you're witnessing the gasing of the jews :)
Progz has both the experience and integrity to afford a certain...directness...when giving feedback. It's all for the benefit of the OP, even though it's sometimes blunt.
Also, it's one thing to disagree on a certain method, but let's not go overboard with the strong words.
....aaaand, as a global moderator I say
future posts should be on topic and about the artwork in question. If you still have disputes to settle, use PMs, or if you wanna keep discussing pedagogical models please start a thread over at gen-gen.
I thank you very much.
Aww, i wish i was a badass elite artist too. Draconian is such a cool word.
Joel, have you tried a little pixel by pixel anti alias on those shadows?
QuoteProgz has both the experience and integrity to afford a certain...directness...when giving feedback. It's all for the benefit of the OP, even though it's sometimes blunt.
I just want to clarify that if I do come off like a prick with my feedback, I really don't mean to, and apologize in advance if it sounds like it. I am never making these suggestions from a mental position of superiority or ego, they are always heartfelt and honestly how I feel a person can best improve. If anything, I try to go the extra mile to show people exactly what I mean in a direct and courteous manner, and I think a good ninety-upwards percent of my posts in this forum show that.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled portrait c&c, please :>.
Personally, I like your quirky color choices but I think they're effecting the tone of the image and they may or may not be alluding to the tone that you seek for the image.
Immediately when I saw the picture I got into my head whites and blues tinged with gold; Pale, somber opulence, so I made this:
(http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll183/QuestionableQontent/Qedit.gif)
In order to achieve the particular look I use: I painted over the original image, then reduced the size which distorted the image. I then modified it pixel by pixel until it resembled the original image again. This is how I do it, not how you should or should not do it- the main purpose of my post is to ideally influence your color choices, or not.
After my initial impressions I studied her- the whole look felt like Victorian Era or older and pale roses and sepia tones leapt to my mind:
(http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll183/QuestionableQontent/Sepia.gif)
After looking at the New picture I had made I giggled because it reminded me of the type of portraits they use on money so I went with a green pseudo-monochromatic look:
(http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll183/QuestionableQontent/Money.gif)
Ultimately these are poor illustrations of the concept but in a small way they all have a different "mood" to them, even though they have almost no difference besides color. In your original illustration you had very little color variation (although the level of contrast was good) which made your image feel flat and uninteresting. Next it appears as if you started using gently offset complimentary counterparts and they added a level of depth to the image and certainly made it interesting, however the new palette coupled with the new background effected the tone making it feel as if the subject is agitated, or mildly upset- which may be fine depending on the use of this portrait but I think having that appearance for a long duration would feel odd.
I'm sure there are hundreds of things on the web about colors effect mood/tone and the psychology of colors but here's something that i feel helped me: http://designinformer.com/the-process-behind-good-illustration-part-2/
I played around with colors in your most recent edit and (even with her mouth and eyebrow the way they are) the shift in tone was palpable. In one (mostly yellows) she seemed mischievous, in another she seemed angry (red/browns.)
Ultimately, in addition to any other edits you do, or if you do no more edits, consider adjusting the colors to match the tone that you're intending to achieve.
Thanks for the tutorial and information. It should be a good help.
Wow,
really good work! ;) It looks very professional.
Drawing portraits is rather a complex work.
BG
the upfiller