second thunderdome entry...

[Batteram]

http://www.imagemagician.com/images/batter/cyst3 copy.jpg

Name: Cyst/Bubble of Soul
Ingredients: Tumourous testicle(s), intestinal ringworms, radioactivity, bad military scientists, 45 days, Bill Clinton and a touch of chilli sauce.

Here is my second Thunderdome entry. As you can see the creature is way more detailed than the background but I did this so as to maintain the viewer's eye on the centre figure. I was thinking of just putting a black background but it just looked to bland so I just came up with this crappy background. I just want some final crits on this guy before I post him in the Thunderdome thread.
Thanks!

[Jason Manley]

very very cool


i think one thing that would push your images to the next level is to do a better job with the overall light source on the scene.

spend the next few days looking at the works of rembrandt..caravaggio...sargent...and frazetta


look how they light things different that are more important...look how they focus the light to let the eye rest on the main area of importance.

let me know what you find out


j

[Batteram]

Thanks Jason. Caravaggio is one of my mentors along with many others. However, unlike him and other old time masters, they actually had models to draw from. If you see Caravaggio's work, he had his own studio and just painted everyday people in religious scenes. However, I do not have models to draw from and I had to make up those bodies on the ground with hardly any references to nothing. Thats why it was hard getting the composition right. The same thing applies to the light. The light factor I understand, it seems a bit like the figure is just copied and pasted onto the background, huh? I was going to put a black background but it just looked too dull. Its pretty difficult to get the light source right as well as the composition when drawing a complicated character such as this. The light is meant to be shining directly above the character in that pic, however, I could not think of a suitable background to compliment the picture.
Any more crits as to make the figure more lifelike and to just give this picture more realism would be nice.

[Fozzybar]

Hey, Batteram!

This guy in boxer shorts is far better now than in the first post. Good work.

Hmmm...there wasn't enough time to recompose the bodies on the ground, eh? But I liked it this way better anyway :)

One way to bring the figure an the background together is using shadows. How about a shadow from the creature falling on the background...this would put both elements in a better interaction...

If you'll manage you can try to make a sharper background...this washy look is the main thing, why the background doesn't match to the rest...

...you like fire coming out of creatures bodies...:)

[mcotie]

oops I just commented on this pic in your "need help" thread. Pretty much what Jason said but didn't say it as well or with as much authority.

Mitch

[Jason Manley]

I very much like the image....you have a great ability to put together ideas in your image and you can also tell a story. very well done....

now i get to be hard on ya...

I still think you need to spend more time looking at the works of those artists. Ill say it again.

but look at them for LIGHTING...look at them for VALUE RANGE...and look at them for FOCAL AREAS

they light their forms using a simple lighting theory.

rembrandt did not slavishly copy his light from models

rembrandt and the others put light where ever they wanted to...and whereever they needed to.

did frazetta get a pile of ape creatures to model while he drew them capturing his female model? nope...he used the same lighting theory as rembrandt and caravaggio.

their lighting was unified...one large key light...a minor opposite temperature opposite intensity FILL light and they break it up on the character. there is usually a main focal area...a secondary minor focal area and a tertiary focal area which is used to pull the eye around the canvas, tell the story, and pull the eye into the canvas as well (focal areas on multiple depths in the picture plane)


look at the works of justin sweet www.justinsweet.com justin and I used to paint together at black isle...neither he nor I used much reference at all. Id say that at least 90 percent of his images had NO reference in them at all. they were made with a knowledge of lighting gained by studying the works of the masters and life....and anatomy.

look at the works of gustave dore...he didnt use models at all yet his forms are lit. his images have focal areas...and are NOT evenly rendered over the whole canvas or character.

you have to give they eye a place to rest if you want to be successful at compesition. then lead em around and into the pic with more details...


the work you do is strong...no doubt about it..

one of the things you noticed is that the BG does not integrate into the foreground. while the background is at least 30 percent of your image you treated it like an afterthought and simply pasted your creature on there.


these are the reasons i sent you to the artists above...and these are the reasons Im sending you there AGAIN. all the artists i sent you to had the above theory understood. frazetta didnt have models every time...neither did rembrandt....do you think bouguereau had models for every one of his children running around ? NO. they did not. you dont need them either...however ify ou study the masters I mentioned every single day this week you will come back a better painter.

they know how to integrate backgrounds into their images..and they know how to light their forms...and they know how to LET THE EYE REST on an important area that is highly rendered in order to take the whole picture in...then they pull the eye around to the other rendered areas to tell thier story. dominant and submissive focal areas.

I had hoped that you would see these things if you did what i said...however I dont think you looked.

look

no arguing...no excuses...

next time I wont type out the answers for you.

:)


j

[Batteram]

Arrg, my damn web host is down due to maintanence, so sorry if the pic isn't showing. Oh well...
Thanks for the strong crits Jason, thats just what I needed. I can see what you mean now about having a distinct light source which gives the picture an overall finishing touch and finesse. I understand that my monster looks too evenly rendered, which like I aforementioned gives the feeling of it just being copied and pasted onto the background. As for now, I don't think I will have enough time to do a whole new render of this creature by the due date, considering I have got other stuff to do as well (Doesn't everybody?) ;)
I have looked at the great masters work but I will take more heed to this and study everything in their pictures, including their light source.
By the way, Justin Sweet's work is totally awe inspiring, I will definately study his pictures carefully, particularly the light source of course.
I am going to try experimenting with different techniques too. My work looks kind of too clean and cut for my liking so I am going to do a bit of freehanding for a while, but I will probably go back to my old style, because everyone has their own unique and definitive style which sets themselves apart.
I have taken your words wisely Jason, and I may go back to this picture in the future and do the same render but with the light source more defined.
Thanks for crits and comments everyone!