hi guys im new here and this is my first submission
hi guys im new here and this is my first submission
Last edited by naxareth; September 12th, 2007 at 12:37 PM. Reason: everyone was commenting on the stupid watermark
not bad. a little too soft for my taste and could use more variations in the colors. also more contrast and darker parts in skin and hair shadow would be good.
playboy? In all seriousness the bright cream colors feel rather harsh as apposed to warm. And yeah Arne S is right there could be more color variation. and why does the lace have that kind of specularity? Make her feel like she is wearing plastic lingerie?
As a pinup piece this is pretty cool.
If you are looking to inject a bit more realism, this lady needs to cast some shadows.
On an different note, I think the watermark needs to go. It detracts from the piece as a whole. Everytime I try to look at her boobs, I find my eyes wanting to figure out what is chiseled into her arm, lol.
As the ego shrinks, so the spirit expands.
lol u want me to post one without the watermark???
and abt shadow casting...i really dunno how it works
shes wearing leather lingerie
It's too flat to be leather. It needs to look thicker and not so shiny. Right now it looks like plastic or rubber.
And yes, I also like to see people post art without watermarks. A normal signature would do just fine to identify it as your work. Like this. http://www.conceptart.org/forums/att...1&d=1186409746
People are here to learn, not to steal art.
In general, the larger your watermark, the less professional you look.
heres the reference pic...why do u think that its traced
and i was joking abt the leather i just dunno how to do lace stuff
im just a beginner :/
Last edited by naxareth; September 12th, 2007 at 12:38 PM.
u guys might wanna check Al Rios art, hes got some big assed watermarks lol
so i dont think it makes u look less pro
Hi, naxareth. I hope you don't mind, I did an overlap of your work and the reference. I have to say, if you didn't trace the reference, you've got to have the most accurate eye I've ever seen. For me to get that kind of accuracy it would take anywhere from weeks to never. Especially with the foreshortening.
Other than that, I agree with the comments above.
Good sense of form, none of the anatomy seems contrived or "off"... basic figure works very well.
There is a distinct lack of detail in this piece. The two areas where this is the most apparent are the hair and the lingerie. In each, the basic volume/form is represented, but none of the details come through. This lack of detail through the entire piece serves to give it an almost cartoonish feel. If that was your intention, then that's fine. However, if you were looking for a more realistic rendering, you need to start refining and defining details in this painting.
As has been mentioned already, shadows, shadows, shadows! At present, the entire piece is very washed out, creating the overall effect of the scene being lit with at least 20 high-watt lights set up in a random array.
A lot of the problem may have to do with the fact that the light source(s) don't seem to be clearly defined. For example, there is a VERY bright highlight on her forehead, indicating a light coming from the front, but her arm, chest, clothing etc. don't indicate this same bright light. Since you've got the basic forms down already, select 1-3 light sources, and start building up the shadows and highlights from there.
EDIT Looking at the reference pic, you'll notice that there is a good deal of ambient light, but there is still one major bright light coming from above and a little behind the figure, creating highlights at the top and darker shadows below, especially between the figure and the bedsheets. In the piece, there is no such definitive light source.
I'm as big a fan as anyone of putting a visible copyright notice on a piece, but your watermark is large and very distracting. It really does detract from the piece, especially as it is emblazoned on the element in the picture that is closest to the viewer. If you are trying to prevent someone from stealing your image, then this is not really a good way to do it, as watermarks can be easily removed. (see attachment - < 30m, PS/mouse) If you're really that concerned about others stealing your work, then you may not want to put it online at all. As mentioned, this is a professional forum, and nobody is looking to steal your work. EDIT I looked up Al Rio (nice art). The only piece I saw a watermark on was an illustration he was selling prints of. This is common practice. I seriously doubt that, were you to order the print, the watermark would appear on it.
I'd like to see what you used as reference for this piece... many of the details and lighting issues may be addressed by analyzing the source. If no reference was used, then you can create them. EDIT Whoops... was posted while I was posting.
Overall, a really good start, and I look forward to seeing how it progresses. Keep at it!
P.S. - Apologies for the pic alteration... just illustrating a point. I'll be more than happy to pull it down if so desired.
Last edited by Imagus; September 12th, 2007 at 12:09 PM.