a dancer.

**nirupamkonwar** · April 1st, 2009

Hi all,

Its my first Digital painting here, I am waiting for your comments.

Thanks and Regards,
Nirupam.

**FourTonMantis** · April 1st, 2009

I'm diggin' it, especially the clothes. Your edges look a little fuzzy...tighten up your brush around there. The lips seem to shift to the left unnaturally just a tad...but I could be seeing things. The neck seems a little thin as well. Right hand looks great, left pinky is huge! Overall, great piece so far.

**nirupamkonwar** · April 1st, 2009

Hi, Thanks a lot.

**Raoul Duke** · April 1st, 2009

I like it over all, but it is a bit fuzzy around the edges and watch the arm width where the bracelet is.

**Janos** · April 1st, 2009

Edges are a little unfocused, which seems to be the biggest fault. Personally I would add more texture, to the skin and clothes. Shee looks a little flat atm. But this one has many advantages in regard of your priestess pic. Strong shadows and lights, reflected light even a secondary lightsource. Try to convey some of this to teh other pic.

Cheers

**masque** · April 1st, 2009

From looking at your other work on your blogspot, this looks heavily photo-referenced. Could you post your ref source, please?

**SMILEFACE** · April 1st, 2009

i think it looks great the biggest thing i see is that the eyes are a bit off cool beans'

**nirupamkonwar** · April 1st, 2009

hello , here's the original ref :->

**masque** · April 1st, 2009

Thanks, Nirupam. Now, please take this as a constructive crit, not a slam, 'K? This looks very much to me like a direct overpaint of the original photosource. It may be simply a less-than-tight copy, but there are aspects of the image that hint that the photo's been distorted, filtered and painted over to produce the image you posted (as far as can be told in the original post) as an original. The colors look at best heavily sampled, though also filtered.

There can be much to gain by doing exercises by copying refs, but only if done with an honest attitude to yourself and viewers. Honest means:

1) not claiming the result as original, and to be completely open about the heavy photosourcing, e.g. state that "This is a copy of this photo," and post the ref with your copy. This allows viewers to crit the work from a truthful starting point -- as a copy rather than as an original.

2) Not using the original ref in any way other than visual inspection while doing the copy -- no photoshop distortions/filtrations, no color sampling to shortcut the copying exercise, etc., because these cheats also shortcut the learning process that such exercises are intended to provide.

3) Cannot state this more strongly -- do not claim such work as original! It is not. It is (if claimed as original) a form of plagiarism and quite likely copyright infringement unless you own the rights to the original photosource. But worst of all doing so can poison your rep as an artist, because it is a form of fraud you're attempting to carry out on your audience and they will not forget that even as your capabilities mature and you begin producing fully original work.

If you wish an honest crit, be honest with those you wish to do the critiquing.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

EDIT: Looking over your blogspot, there is a great deal there that is much stronger and more interesting than the piece posted above, the aquarelle landscape is very well done and the more stylized and graphic pieces show a lot of good qualities, if it is truly your original work. Now, I have no reason to assume that those works are not original, other than the apparent lack of honesty about copying you have shown in this thread. That is what I mean by poisoning your rep.

**nirupamkonwar** · April 1st, 2009

I apologise for my mistakes as I am having less experience posting in sites.I dint know what meant an original work.
I am really sorry...

Love and Regards,
Niru

**masque** · April 1st, 2009

Originally Posted by nirupamkonwar

...I dint know what meant an original work.

Honesty, Niru, always honesty! You claim to have finished a BFA (in other threads) and yet also claim to not know what an original work is? Either your college has woefully shorted your education or you are copping an excuse.

Suggestion: use that photo ref as the basis for doing a piece with the graphic sensibilities shown in work like Resuffling Boats and ART... and others (which are much more interesting!) and then post that for viewer response. Use the ref honestly -- don't trace, don't cut & paste, don't sample, just use your own talents (and the other work shows some) to interpret the theme of "dancer" in an original sense. Use what appeals to you about the ref -- pose, color, lighting, whatever -- without stealing from it and you'll be much closer to a worthwhile result.

**kev ferrara** · April 1st, 2009

This is pretty good. I would suggest a little crisp line to set off all the blurry photoshop airbrush. Photoshop airbrush is really really ugly and ruins many artworks... its so mechanical smooth and dead.

kev

**FourTonMantis** · April 2nd, 2009

Originally Posted by kev ferrara

This is pretty good. I would suggest a little crisp line to set off all the blurry photoshop airbrush. Photoshop airbrush is really really ugly and ruins many artworks... its so mechanical smooth and dead.

kev

Um...pretty sure it's a paintover.