Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
Haven't posted here for quite a while. Here's some: The Gentle Ladies of Port Royale...
the larger version, details and studies at: www.scrawnypaws.com
Just an experiment in realism. I think it's overdone, but here it is, anyways.
Angel Intheuk, arenhaus, armando, Artimatum, artmessiah, aspenboy, Baron Impossible, chris bass, clanlord, Craig D, Danny_K, DHTenshi, Fitzin, Holland, HULKFish, HumbleEgo, imnotanoob, Ivan Turcin, JackRabbitSlim, JohnMalcolm1970, jsn, keith_v, kingkostas, Lunart, manlybrian, Munin Raven, PHATandy, Pinecallada, redisauruss, ryan mcshane, sala leota, Sammy, Sidharth Chaturvedi, Sivonja, smokenmirrors, stezsen, Stricken, Way, Windmaker, witcrack
have always enjoyed your works.. Love the way you set-up the scene here... Thanks for sharing...
Mainloop- man i must be dyslexic.. cuz i thought you asked how many people are on lsd
i used to answer such questions, with step by step demos. it brought me nothing but grief, i'm afraid. i don't do this anymore. thanks for understanding.
2 Pavel Sokolov
the upload is limited to 537Kb and the image is too detail-intense to compress it more. i've a medium size (3072 px wide, the orinal is some 10K wide) version of it, too. but it can't be uploaded here.
thank you friends, you're too kind. Like i said, it's overdone. i also picked the most difficult kind of lighting to show off but got mired in detail without resolving critical issues first. fragment are ok, though. at least the technique is alright.
still, CG is quite frustrating, in a way. this could have been done in oils with much less effort and with a higher degree of success. unfortunately, i've no place for my good old easel and paints where i live at present.
i apologize for not being able to answer all your aimable comments and crits. Thank you.
How the Renfest went horribly wrong....
You posted this for only one reason - to be told how brilliant it is, that you might walk away smugly. Well, it's brilliant, you smug bastard.
same thing is noah says .. the foreground figure bothers a lil .. expressions of all the figures are very nice .. i love the accommodation of pirates in the background .. all in all a brilliant detailed work .
Dammit. Perfect! You said overdone, but where?? but seriously, I hope you answered that, it's prob'ly my lack of knowledge, but I don't see where you overdone it. Keep it up, you!
I do not understand the controversy on the photos. What's the problem if an artist uses photographs as reference or not? What really matters is the final result. And the greatest proof that the difference is in the artist's hand, is that if we give the same picture to two artists, one with talent, and another one without it, the talented one will create a piece of art, and the mediocre will be limited to making a copy of poor quality.
Sasha is really a master artist. I've never seen a better translation of an analogic technique into a digital one. The results speak for themselves.
Dude what are you talking about???? I would say about 95% of all the Master Painters used some sort of point of reference. The difference between a master and just a copier of a photograph is the ability to translate a 2D image to life. At the end of the day your imagination is going to lie to you but, a photograph is always accurate to the point of your translation that is.
Mainloop- man i must be dyslexic.. cuz i thought you asked how many people are on lsd
thank you for kind words. For those interested in professional discussion, here it is:
This is the most difficult type of lighting - 3/4 frontal with distinctive cast shadows. It sculpts form nicely and is probably the most handsome one. However, such lighting requires certain restraint. The image needs significant enough shaded areas to create balance between bright and dark zones. It should work almost like an abastract composition: dark and bright, tight and soft, vast and tiny. I didn't do a greyscale general sketch to solve that (kinda hoping my experience would sort it out by itself). This always leads to disaster, mark it. If you look at prelim studies, each fragment work fine. In fact, they are even better than the final image, because the yeye has no difficulty identifying what is primary and what is secondary. Some of vignettes and secondary figures should have been "toned down" to make the principals stand out. The background should have shaded areas to tie together the whole thing and provide more value variety for the eye. But once everything was in place, I didn't have strenght or courage to radically chnge what was necessary. So, it's an experiment that somewhat fell short of what it should have been. It was a good lesson, too, that one should always repeat to oneself - always solve basics first. That's why I say it's overdone. The image barely holds together.
Now, educating someone who doesn't want to be educated is an ungrateful and hopeless task. Nevertheless, let's end once and for all that "from mind" nonsense, at least in this thread.
The overall idea, the composition, the basic color and tonal palettes come "from mind". But "basic" is the key word. For those poor misleaded souls I say IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, hear it? NOT POSSIBLE to paint a PARTICULAR human form in directional lighting without a model. Even divine Michelangelo couldn't do it - he used multiple models and fused them into sublime beauty, but models he DID need.
So, I've spent counless hours looking for fotos that had a figure, a detail, a head that matched - more or less - the idea. some were close, some weren't. The foreground head had a good experession but had a flat frontal lighting and from the wrong direction, too. I did my best to extrapolate, but there are limits... Just look at your hand in directional lighting! Turn it just one degree and everything is different, the outline, the muscle shape, all has changed! How one's mind can "figure out" this infinite richnes of form?!! What a silly notion!
Now, I can raytrace by hand, like they did in the old days. If you give me front, side, top and precise sections every inch or couple of inches, I can construct a quite precise shading model, cast shadows and all. Even approximate the color bounce from experience. But who can provide such information? It's an immense task. It's absolutely prohibitive in ternms of time and effort. And it would still fall short of any study from a live model.
And for those who don't understand words, just try something VERY simple. Paint a subject you're intimately familiar with. Something you've known for years, seen every day.
Now, my "from mind" friends, please paint me your self-portrait. Head tilted 15 degrees to the right and 20degs back. The light source vector is (I'll make it REAL simple for you) is 45degs from right to left and 45 degs from top to bottom, just like in architectural renderings. Your viewing axis is tilted 5 degs to the right and 20 degs upward.
Greyscale would be OK, just shading and cast shadows, alright?
And please, NO MIRROR.
Then we'll take a head shot of yours (to the secs) and compare the results.
Go for it.
I apologize if my manner is somewhat brash.
Aaron_, Angel Intheuk, aspenboy, Baron Impossible, Beelow, Bossmosis, clanlord, Colin Boyer, Craig D, Craig Paton, Dana_T, Elwell, emdeegee, griffinfly, JackRabbitSlim, JBurrough, jcpahl, JeffX99, kab, Kfeeras, Leunam, littlebones, manlybrian, meth, NeecHMonkeY, PHATandy, Pixie Trick, rumpenstiltzkin, SaintLConcept, Sammy, Serpian, shyamshriram, Sidharth Chaturvedi, Sirielle, Stricken, Voodoo_Mama, witcrack, ~FPudiU~
SHIT...THIS IS an OUTSTANDING WORK!!!!
Great work!! I would have to agree on the statement that Noah made. The guy in the foreground bothers me a bit. Keep it up.. I don't think it's overdone!!
If you don't know.......research !!
@ scrawnypaws, i didn't wanna be rude by asking about refs, just wanted to see your method of painting, or better, how you make those collages in final composition.
As i said in first thread i follow your work from 2006 and i like it very much.
I also think it is not over done. Reminds me of a Russian realist school
i didn' take it as such, you weren't rude at all. i used to explain and show things, but it really doesn't pay off. that's the sad truth. people often say, "i wish i could do something like this" and ask to show them the "tricks". but their reaction is "oh, that's too much effort.", because there are no tricks.
alright, i will try answering it. once i have the initial idea, i try to visualize it in my head , do some thumbs - 2-3 variations. but i don't commit because i can't be sure i'd have necessary material.
i wish i was rich and could afford a studio, a stock of props and models that i could pose exactly as i see it in my head. Alas...
so, i start looking for key characters (emotion, posture etc.). often it's impossible to find the right one and the figure has to be spliced out of 4-5 fragments. here's where you need to know anatomy and perspective to do it successfully. when i have all characters i make sure they all have consistent lighting and the horizon matches.
there are many problems realted to the use of photos - again, i wish i could work with models, that would make many "fixes" unnecessary.
first, the human eye "sees" differently than a cam. it's said that a 55mm lense is the closest one, but that's just an approximation. when you draw something your eye constantly changes viewing axis (and exposure) and your brain "assembly" it all into an image. the space depth is different, too. so, one has to adjust all these things.
second, a photo has too many insignificant details. so i prefer to do it the old way: linear drawing/tracing, then monochrome underpainting, then color.
this way i'm forced to understand the form and - simply because there's too much stuff - pick only those features/details that are absolutely necessary.
so, i'd slap the comp together in greyscale, paint it over to solve light distribution (darks vs. brights.), then do a color thumb do solve the palette. that's about it. and of course, if one has specific costumes in mind, they need to be designed first, refs founds etc...
there are no miracles, i'm afraid.
thispic took seven weeks to complete (i was between gigs and i wanted so much to do this image). i work fast, but it's still 5-6 days per principal. girl's head alone took almost three days. No tell me, what production can afford to pay for it ?
hope that helps. Thanks.
Aaron_, Aly Fell, Angel Intheuk, artmessiah, aspenboy, Baron Impossible, Beelow, Bossmosis, conte, danihel, Elwell, i hate art, JackRabbitSlim, jcpahl, jsn, kingkostas, littlebones, meth, NeecHMonkeY, PHATandy, rattus, shyamshriram, Sidharth Chaturvedi, Sirielle, Stricken, Voodoo_Mama, Windmaker, witcrack, ~FPudiU~
Scrawnypaws: I can understand now why you said it's overdone, but still I cannot see it It's still a perfect image for me. Off course you used photo-refs and off course there are still flaws, especially from your eyes as the creator (though I failed to see one, I feel that even the foreground figure is necessary to lead the viewer, the composition is masterfully crafted, imo). Hmm, you said you used to explain and show things, do you have a link to it? I just thought it's nice to see. Hope it's not asking too much
Hey guys, enough these discussions about using photo references, it's too boring at this moment, it was discussed so many times how it could be. To make a really good interpretation of a photo reference artist should be a really skillful guy, for sure. It's obvious.
Sasha, man, it looks really great, maybe if you'd change the scale of a characters on foreground and in perspective you'll get it ideal. But in any case it's a great artwork, thanks for sharing here.
amazing! "overdone" my ass, there's a great range of polish and painterly energy. bravo!
-- playing: "Pikmin 3" and "World of Tanks"
-- reading: "Death of the Liberal Class" -Chris Hedges
O my soul, do not aspire to immortal life, but exhaust the limits of the possible. - Pindar