Join 500,000+ artists on ConceptArt.Org.
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
The red tint in the pupil only happens when you flash directly into the eyes and it doesn't get fixed in post. In other words, paint the pupils black, not a kinda grey-pink. I think that'll make them sparkle a lot more and look more natural.
Another thing I'd recommend is darkening the outside ring of the iris. You can't tell from the photo, but for most people the iris gets darker towards the outside, if not a quite well-defined outline/ring.
About the diamond sparkles: Currently they're a bit far away from the diamond and look like... not diamond sparkles. Try 1) moving them closer and perhaps toning them down a bit, and 2) add a bit of glow from the diamond (as I think I can see in the picture).
Wow, thanks so much for the plethora of replies! I can't believe how helpull you all are to me, and I really appreciate the loyalty with which some of you are coming back. I hope that its because you see potential and because I am closer to getting it right then further away
Haha, obviously I have seen better photos then my own, but that doesn't mean I know how to take better ones!
I guess next time I will have to plunge my friends underwater, have them throw their head up in orgasmic extasy, blow sand at them, and have sparks shoot out of their tits I can't say I have access to such intensity. For now a simple lame portrait will have to do, no?
That is exactly it. I know the girl and she looks good, but in the photo she has some red tomatoe super muscle facial intesity going on that just doesn't look like her I have to say. I didn't enjoy it one bit so I had to change it. I still don't reckon that giving her the muscly intensity she had in the photo will end well. I did however try to hint at all the muscles with subtlity.
The photographer was me, and we didn't use a wide angle lense. We shot it with his camera that just has a normal lense. I also measured his head last night, and I think the forehead business rings true to me.
Thanks so much for the tip, I darkened the pupils for you! Had to remove the diamond sparkles because the girl didnt seem to enjoy them .
Made a lot of changes based on Velocity's paintover and other comments. Spread the eye lashes on the girl, added dark edges to the pupils, gave shadows to the whites of the eyes and worked a lot on the father's eyes.
Last edited by Pavel Sokov; December 16th, 2011 at 02:54 PM.
i just got you PM so maybe this is too late. i still think youre painting away the lines and creases that give his face personality, leaving it doughy and pudgy looking, with little eyes poking out here and there.
im not sure why this isnt obvious to you simply from playing spot the difference betwen the painting and the photo...
why not leave the glasses in, or paint using them as a way of figuring out positions andthen paint them out later? its clearly throwing off your eye locations at the moment; theyre too small, not level. his hairless face looks strange in the painting; his fine white whiskers give him character; hes a classic rosy cheeked jolly old bloke, you should try to capture that twinkle.
his skull is missng a corner above his eyes making it look like it blends round from the side, in turn making his face seem fleshy and spherical. the effect is similar to when someone suffers an alergic reaction to a bee sting; their facial flesh fills with fluid and obscures their normal features
his moustache is much courser in reality. his skin has highlights where it is pull taught over substructure, his eyebrows are bushier. his skin is creased and folded, not smooth.
that said, the women are looking loads better and thats whats really important here.
i think its looking pretty good though as is..
there are some amazing artists on Finally Finished who specialise is heads and faces who will be more use than me though..
check this guy ou hes fantastic i think
this is one of the nicest drawngs of a face ive seen, id have this on my wall..
looks like a young francis mcdormund from Fargo..
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; December 16th, 2011 at 11:25 AM.
Thanks so much for staying loyal to this thread, you and the others really helped me improve this piece!
I do absolutely agree that the man doesn't seem to be made of skin as much as the other characters. I'm not sure why exactly that happened. I am going to play around with it a bit based on the comparison image you posted! I do feel like I am nearing the end of my understanding and maybe my vision is limited with this piece.
Richie Rich is fantastic, I was the second person to comment on his great thread!
I will post an u[pdate of the greasy guy soon.
You have done some good work throughout this thread. However, you have the potential to do even better work, but you have cheated yourself with your working process. The traced images seem stiff,, lifeless and almost 'too' rendered. I noticed, in your finally finished thread, that your more loose, gestural work was much, much stronger than the slick rendered work (both traditional and digital). I wonder if you took a more loose approach, if it would yield more consistently great results.
The 'too smooth' finish hides the planes of the forms in the figures' features and creates a kind of 'fake' look. I realize that the portrait of the family is basically done, but i would urge you to avoid tracing next time. The time spent drawing the forms allows you to adjust the lighting and colors to make a portrait that is enhanced by the photo rather than reduced by it. I made a small painting to illustrate what I mean. With a little time and refinement a good likeness could be developed that would definitely please the client. It has probably taken much more time trying to adjust a paint-over of a photo that's not working very well.
The only thing I can say about your current version is that the man seems to be lit by a different light than the women. His skin color, highlights and shadows seem darker than the women and I think that is what is contributing to this 'different light' effect. I hope this helps. Keep up the great work.
Last edited by JavierP; December 22nd, 2011 at 06:05 AM.
First of all, Wow!
Well thank you for the compliment! And I agree that the two images I traced were a bit of a cheat. But I learned a lot about rendering and what a photograph is compared to real life.
I am very curious about your commentary about my "loose" work. I have noticed that often times the less efort I put the more I get good feedback (not a direct correlation of course!). Which pieces specifically are you refering to? I need to really think hard about what makes people like my work and what only I like.
I do have a fear of loose work because I feel as though only a trully skilled man can give enough information in broad and loose strokes. A bum like me might need to show every hair in order to make himself understood. I am really interested however, in becoming a more loose painter.
On to your painting! Wow! That looks so alive and he has such a bright mood! The likeness is there without being the same exact trace. He does however appear much older I find. Is that a traditional or a digital with traditional style brushes? I can't decide which it is.
I am not on that level yet where I can nail it so fast and effectively. I can only hope one day...
I made some changes to the father and came up with a new signature because Velocity, and my gf don't like the digital one. Should this be my new signature?
I call it done, its getting printed tomorrow 9 am, no more putting it off.
I think if you approach the issue a little differently it might be easier. I find that deliberately trying to 'construct' a loose, gestural drawing is often difficult and usually yields poor work. Instead, if you try to focus only on making the drawing (or painting) and try not to over-think the medium and technique aspect of the image, good things often happen. So I guess its not really a matter of rendering technique so much as your mental state while working. Before you "show every hair in order to make yourself understood", think about whether that is really necessary or not. In your quick paintings, you are forced to make clear statements about your subjects in order to communicate, and that is where their strength lies.
Your new signature is much better. I am sure the clients will be happy.
this is so great
That is definitely something to think about. Maybe in the new year I can try to be more gestural and loose!
I have been hard at work creating my new architectural sculpture "Ginger Bread House"!
I hope you like it! Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
Medium: Ginger Bread.
Last edited by Pavel Sokov; December 26th, 2011 at 04:57 PM.
Ahhh - I think I see some of what's going on here.
Are you worried about making people not look 'good'? There's a hesitancy toward form and detail that makes me think you're very concerned about 'pretty'. I do that too. It's a tough thing to let go of. It makes me use a lot of similar colors and smoothing rather than upping the contrast (both with shadow and hues), and leaving out details like wrinkles.
Yea exactly, I don't feel that way at all if I'm drawing a character out of my head. With real people, its a little more.. delicate?
I printed, framed, and gave the portrait. They loved it and cried and stuff. Seems like a succesful transaction!
I think you need to realize that you're an artist, not a copying machine . Should be saying this to myself as well, but you need to let go of the idea that you will mess things up if you don't follow your references 100%.
Reality really isn't that pretty or special, we see it around us every day. I think your art will benefit from you not trying to show reality, but rather your interpretation of it. Much like what Javier did to the man's face; you can't do that with a camera, which makes it all the more admirable.
I printed, framed, and gave the portrait. They loved it and cried and stuff. "
Ok... So I just spent the last 45 or so minutes reading this thread and I'd like to say this first. You're very skilled and should be proud of the things you've accomplished along with wanting to get better.
Aight, now to critique. I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said when it comes to specific pieces. Everyone is correct when it comes to all of the "anatomy/structure/educational" part of art, but I think you're missing something that is very important for everybody in the creative field. I think you're missing you're joy, your expression, and your voice in your work. Honestly, it's easy to see that you're talented, but when I look at your work I don't really feel anything. I don't see anything unique. I understand that they're portraits and supposed to be "true to life", but remember the JOY of being an artist is being able to EXPRESS yourself. It doesn't always have to be exactly what you see, it can be what you WANT to see. You can through in crazy colors to create mood and mess up alignment just a liiittle bit every now and then. I'm not saying throw art school out the window, I'm just saying that I think you need to remember what made you love art in the first place. What did you want to create? I think you need to discover a style that is distinctively you. And, like a few others have said, let loose! Yes, you need to work on structure ect. ect., but the foundation to being an excellent artist isn't getting the anatomy right. It's about how you see things, what your vision is. It's about color and mood and capturing not only the lines and colors, but the essence of what you're painting. So, next time, do a speed paint. Don't draw anything. Just paint something from life. Go to the park and watch people, watch how they interact and ask yourself "what do I see? How can I capture the spirit of this person AND draw them 'correctly'?" And then, without too much think, lay brush to canvas and just create. It probably won't be the most beautiful thing you've ever done, but it'll remind you of who you are.
Actually, Arenhaus said something quite brilliant, "However: the entire point of drawing it, rather than tracing, is that your interpretation of the form is going to be more interesting than a mechanical reproduction." This is exactly my point. If you want to become a popular, "wealthy" artist you must find what makes you you.
One other tip in my very sappy way of explaining art, I think you need a break of digital. Using traditional media gives an artist much more of a chance to express a style. Sketch (a lot) and sketch from LIFE. You would not BELIEVE how much more your style improves when drawing or painting from life. So, put the computer on stand by and go and sketch and paint on real canvas. My sound sappy, but you'll feel a connection to your work more then you can in the digital world.
.....That was a really long ramble and I hope it made sense O_O.
I absolutely understand the last few comments. I am looking at my portraits for example and thinking yea it looks neat and sharp, but doesn't really arouse the mind. Lately I have been focusing on what makes me love other people's art. I always thought that it is the realism, but I have recently started finding pleasure in some non realistic works too. I enjoy the vibrations of seeminly random colour, the smudged edges of things, the difference in hues here and there,etc. These seem to be the things that make you feel something towards a work.
I was looking at impressionists, and it seems the joy of their work lies not in the realism (it is often lacking), but in the pleasure of the strokes themselves. I on the contrary attempt to not display any strokes.
It is a little strange because I am often a fan of those digital paintings that are rough. This is a testament to why sometimes a speed paint can be even more enjoyable looking then a finished rendition.
But.... I think the creation of personal style is a difficult endevour and should be appropriated after the artist has some sort of grasp of realism. How can I hint at something, if I don't even fully know the full detail of what I am hinting at? How can I exagurate something well if I don't know what the real form should be?
That, is my challenge now.
Dynamic of light on form comes better with less changes in value, such there is a strong sense of the direction of a lightsource. Also, rendering everything to its finest details based on a photo makes your work worst off than the photo you are copying from, and at the same time a camera can do a better job with some retouching in photoshop. You want to improvise using artistic knowledge sometimes.
Last edited by Vay; January 6th, 2012 at 04:34 PM.
Twinkle, twinkle little star
I don't wonder what you are
For by spectroscopic ken
I know that you are hydrogen - Ian D.
Well, I am starting a new piece. I used google sketchup here, and took an orthodox church from the model warehouse.
I am trying to be more loose and interesting this time!
I kinda like this one. It's looking really good. I think the girl needs to be darker and the house's shadow less dark, to keep your "atmosphere" more organized from front to back.
Good work dude, keep it up.
Firstly "Happy new year!", I hope you had a great time!
secondly "I printed, framed, and gave the portrait. They loved it and cried and stuff."
all I can say is very well done they obviously got what they wanted, congratulations.
On to the last image which I think its good, dont get me wrong but in my opinion its just lacking a little depth mate, I think thats whats bothering me anyway, the snowy overcast sky is more coming across more as smoke than snowy sky. I think maybe if you hinted at some hills or mountains in the background it would bring it back.
I could be wrong though, I can be a bit of a cock sometimes, LOL. Just my thoughts All the best matey.
A great kind hearted lumbering bullock
http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209918 = my Sketchbook
Just wanted to add my two bob's worth.
It's a long thread with lots of indepth discussions going on that I skimmed because it's not really any of my business, but now there's a fresh image, I feel like I can join in.
I really like it. The milky effect from the snowstorm works well and if you keep things indistinct and loose, it'll really help with the atmosphere.
One thing thats bothering me though. The perspective makes the building read like it's toppling over to the left. Not sure if thats intentional but it looks wrong to me.
I got a new computer upgrade! I made a test with 4 of my large photoshop files by noting down the time it takes to open and save the files. I tested only one of the files on the new pc and had great results! I saved the image in 8 min,14 seconds before the upgrade, and now I saved it in 12 seconds. Hard to believe. This file is 1.53 GB ( I am usualy at 1.8 GB). I might of contaminated my experiment though because enabling OpenGl setting slows everything down by 2 times, and I forgot if I had it enabled in my old build.... there goes my accuracy.. I think it was off though, but there is no sureness.
Which one if the girl you meant? The woman is supposed to be in the door of the church, with the hankerchief around her head like Russian grandmothers do!
Yea the shadow is a problem area.
You are absolutely right about depth, but I already have a tree line, and a large mountain on the right. Do you mean I should keep on drawing hills in the distance, upwards through the image? I think that would add depth, but I am a bit worried because the perspective I used in Googlesketchup to take the screenshot was really from a low height, and maybe further hills wouldn't be visible from this camera angle.
However I am afraid that I didn't keep up to the camera angle, and thats why the church is toppling over.
Yea, the shadow isnt very distinct, I will fix it.
I am afraid I must of fucked it by not keeping up with the camera angle I used in my google sketchup screenshot. I shot it from very down below, but I started painting the ground and the person close to us in a rather straight on camera angle instead of from down below.
Last edited by Pavel Sokov; January 15th, 2012 at 01:45 PM.
I tried to stick some mountains in the back of the snowy house pic, what do you think? any more depth or not, I'm not sure I think I should have made them a bit stronger.
all I did was copy your image into photoshop and put it on two layers, with a blank one in between.
Then drop the opacity on the top layer by half, Painted some big dark blue triangles in the empty middle layer then got the biggest soft edged brush as an eraser and wasted the bottom of them to bring your trees back.
Lastly cleaned off dark blue from the house and fade mountains till happy then flattened the whole thing and posted it back up.
The idea was to put something faintly in the background and add some more depth to the whole thing, but like I said I dont think I went quite far enough.
Ah Well it was just an idea all the best with the art matey, I really like your work.
A great kind hearted lumbering bullock
http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209918 = my Sketchbook
All just my opinion matey, ignore if you want to.
You really need to work on your storytelling - be more of a movie director, tell us the story!
When I look at your church pic, well, nothing is happening, it doesn't have to be an action shot but your not telling me or directing my vision in any way.
Is it a happy scene? a sad scene? what's the story - where do you want me to look?
Push it some more, use lighting, value, even brush strokes to lead the viewers eye.
What's our primary focus?, lead our eyes to it!
Technically if I drop this to value it becomes a muddy mess, admittedly a snowstorm won't help that but everything is hard to read.
The placement of your objects is a little weak within the frame, it's all a little bottom heavy.
Quick OP for you showing 2 approaches, play with it some more.
For your environment piece -
Well the copy and paste guy is out of place, he's at the wrong angle for everything else that you're showing us.
Again with the storytelling composition - the primary focus is our distant guy (who needs to be knocked back), use the secondary focus (the environment) to direct our eyes and support the primary.
You're onto a good thing with the scaling figures, you need to support them with objects in the environment.
Show the road more to lead us to the seated figure and to show how large he is, stronger lighting is a good one for this.
Actually see OP
Anyway, hope is helps and hope my waffle makes sense!
Oh wow, thanks so much Venger. I miss your famous paintovers!
For the church I agree completely that the story telling aspect isn't so good. In fact, I never think enough about the story telling aspect of any of my pieces. I don't really ever think at all to be honest. One thing I don't like is how big your church became. In reality the church fits like 5 people, and I found the tiny scale of it kinda cute.
As for the environment piece, I absolutely love everything about it. I will finish it the way I have it, and then a second version as a "zoomed in" view of the first one. I really dig it!
I am really lucky to frequently have your paintovers by the way. Thank you!
So here is where I went with the version I had. Might attempt to add colour, but I suspect I will fail.
I still want to try painting your version too!