Devil Fish

[sandman]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.gell/pics/Fish_Monster.jpg

I posted this some time back on another forum. The idea was based on those gruesome deep sea fish. The light source is attached to the fish and is designed to be retracted into the creature's body.

David

[tyboogie]

i like the overall feeling of this piece-- and i like the style. I feel like the background could be a diff. color( or just a darker value?) to help the figure pop out more( hes getting lost in the BG) I like th e"whisker" marks on his face--did you use a filter for his nose area? also the white circles around his light source make that space flatter. keep posting!!--ty

[sandman]

Thanks for the crits ty :)

That's sound advice and I'll take your suggestions on board to try and improve the piece.

The whole thing was done in Painter 6. From what I can remember, most of it was not actually painted but erased. I think I filled the canvas with a shade of red, then made a new layer which was subsequently filled with black. Erasers were then used to gently expose some of the red canvas layer. Other colours were then added as normal.

The transparent rippled area around the mouth was done with the 'Lens-Cone-1' brush from my Distorto Lens collection available from here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.gell/Pages/Sandmans_Brushes.html). I reduced the squeeze value on the brush to produce the oval shape.

The whiskers are meant to be stinging tenticles. I also thought about bringing the eyes in more to the front to make the creature appear more carniverous, and I was not totally satisfied with the built in light source which I thought to be too delicate.

David

[sandman]

Here is the reworked version.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.gell/pics/Devil_Fish_Mod.jpg

David

[tyboogie]

Hey Sand

I liked your first painting better. Th ebackground although close in color and value to the fish at least varied in its values--the new background is one flat color--veryflat. The rays of light help to suggest space--but light through water isnt really blotchy like that9 i dont think) go to some photo reference sites like photonica.com etc. to find pics of underwater scenes. Im not really feeling the veiny thing on his head looks like a helmet--and bringing his eyes together just made him really human-like and dangerous-- the colors are nice in teh seaweed but is it the only one in the ocean? If minimalistic is your style then keep it-- What i liked about your first painting was it was just simple and free--like it wasnt about space or the creature --the colors were nice and it had a good warm feeling to it--the second one has become very stiff as if you were indecisive maybe.? The nose ripple thing is annoying because its an obvious effect. I think you should try to push those ocean lights from above the surface and play with your BG valuse more--maybe we could see the ocean floor too.? time for bed keep it up!!-ty

[sandman]

Hi ty,

I was trying to achieve a more fierce look by bringing the eyes to the front. I suppose though, looking at the two images, I could imagine creature in the first image existing for real (perhaps minus the light). The second pehaps has a more man-made look.

You are right about the light rays; no reference= big guess= big mistake:(
I was quite pleased with the colours on the seeweed, and placing the seaweed on the right between the horn and body section helped to produce a look of depth. A big fault I have is producing a very detailed central figure with head on pose and not linking it to the surroundings. My thoughts were that the composition really called for much more background work (especially more seaweed), but I had a genuine fear that all the work I put into the central figure would either be obscured or detracted from. To my untrained eye, just the central figure with absolutely nothing more than a flat, dark background looked better than the effect in my second image.

The nose ripple thing was an effect I was actually looking for, so I looked upon the 'do it for me in 1 minute instead of 20' simply as a labour saving device. I must admit, I'm not a big fan of filters either, and even try to keep layers to a minimum.

Having absolutely no formal art training and looking at some of the work on these forums I feel I need to study much more and come back to this piece.

Thanks again for the crits ty, and I'll take a look at those references on photonica.

David

[John P.]

No no no - I think your first painting should be left alone. :eek.

That's what I'd call an artwork. Someone would probably like to have that on their wall. The second one looks more like...I dunno..it looks more 'cartoony' if you like.

I think it lost a lot on the way.

The only thing I personally would change in the first, are the rings around the lightsource. I know they are probably meant as lens flare, but I think it would be better without. I think they are distracting.

Well, this is just my opinion, but in my opinion, the first one is best. :)

Keep up the good work.

[sandman]

Thanks for your comments John,

Often with things, the first tends to be the best. I definately agree with ditching the lens flare effect.

David