Results 1 to 13 of 19
May 17th, 2011 #1
How can I develop this much further?
I probably won't change much to this one as it is a finished commission, but I'm hoping that someone here can spot some major flaws (or minor flaws) regarding drawing technique and general anatomy here. I don't know where the reference photo is.
Last edited by gfxtwin; May 17th, 2011 at 11:43 PM.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMay 18th, 2011 #2
Looks pretty good - the only thing I'd do is take a really fine point on an eraser and lift out some parallel "glare" lines on the lenses kind of thing. Experiment to see what looks best in PS first if you want, before committing.
May 18th, 2011 #3
I agree that some kind of glare would seem to make sense, but there wasn't one. Also, wouldn't parallel glare lines look a bit...cartoonish? Either way, there were no glares on the actual reference photo and I tried to do what was done in the image - slightly darkening the area behind the lenses. Any other ideas?
Sorry if I sound like I'm throwing your advice in your face BTW, but I've never seen lens glare lines like that in real life.
May 18th, 2011 #4
Without seeing the reference I can't be certain, but my eye expects to see just a bit more anatomy under the mouth. I like Jeff's idea on rendering the glasses. Other than that, I think you have a really nice drawing with a lot of character and life.
May 18th, 2011 #5
No problem - that's why I said experiment a bit with it in PS. I almost always see some reflection notes and a bit of specular highlight in glasses, but yeah, th eparallel lines may be too cartoony but some indication of glare would help establish them as a transparent lens/plane out in front of the eyes I think. Now that I look more closely it's possible that one of the two "lights" in her eyes is really on the lens of the glasses - I would soften one of those anyway and still add some note of glare. Just me - but with PS you can try all that out so easily, might be worth it.
May 18th, 2011 #6
May 18th, 2011 #7
May 18th, 2011 #8
Hate to get technical, but back in the day, that's what artists were for, to COPY the world detail for detail. Then photography came into existence and changed everything.
But anyway, the only thing I notice is that (her) right eye is a bit bigger than the other. Lovely tones
May 18th, 2011 #9
 it aint a good idea trying to copy from life neither btw. making art is about decissions based on visual information in combination with knowledge and emotion, and not about becoming a slave to your subject. copied pictures suck.
Last edited by sone_one; May 18th, 2011 at 08:01 PM.
May 18th, 2011 #10
I am not a fan of the texture of the background or sweater. Fixing those would be a way to advance it.
You could also take a good scan of it, bring it into photoshop and work a digital painting of it.
Otherwise, for what it is... it feels pretty finished.
May 18th, 2011 #11
The example here ofcourse is more about inclusion rather than exclusion. But I think it looks alright without lens glare. If glasses were an important part of her character/how you view her. I might add them but a good argument for excluding them has also been made.
"This is a paint and pixel-splattered furnace that forges the swords of artistic mastery. This is a place where swarthy and belligerent dwarves drink turpentine mead, berate their apprentices and slap the trade into their skulls. It's where the anvils are made of graphite, the hammers are as true as rectangular marquee selections and the fires burn with the light of a thousand lensflares." --Jason Rainville
May 18th, 2011 #12
2. By drawing from the photo, my goal was to capture her essence. I've been told that my portrait looks more like her than the actual photo, but that's just a few people's opinions.
3. Hard to draw a person from life when they are dead.
May 18th, 2011 #13
I think it is easier to draw a person from life when they are dead.
They move around a lot less.