This is just a sample I've been working on to show book publishers. I'd really like people to give me some honest feedback that I can improve on for my next piece. It's lacking gradual depth and the characters are all very two dimensional.. but I think there's also some issue with the colours and values but I can't put my finger on it. It's just lacking some life or something! Anything anyone can suggest would be a huge help!!
Am I right in guessing those are Tasmanian wolves?
Personally, the two elements that appear "wrong" to me
are the rear wolfs head. It's appearing quite flat in comparison
to the lead wolf. Perhaps its also being affected by being
conveniently parallel to the rear wolfs tail, almost as if
it is resting along the curve of the tail itself. Also his
muzzle does not appear as accurately rendered as the
lead. His front leg also does not appear to be anywhere
near as convincing as the lead wolf. Right now he is
more of a distraction then a companion to me, I think
he needs to be redone.
The girl bothers me. I think its in her head mainly.
Her face appears a bit too old for that body, in my
opinion at least. Also while you are indicating a
bouncy sense of movement from the gallop, none
of that is being shown in her hair, which is resting
in one solid piece.
I do think you have done a good job in creating
a happy adventurous Utopian atmosphere. But
now you will need to tighten up the elements
within to make it all work together.
For me, the reason it lacks depth is because there's aren't enough repeated elements going into the background, like even some trees or bushes getting smaller and smaller as they go back in space would help sell the depth much more.. I'm no professional but I hope this helped you in some way.
What is the kid pointing at? The image would suggest he's pointing at the animals by the stream but all the characters are rigidly staring right in front of them and going straight to left, making it hard to figure out exactly what will happen or is happening. Overall straight profiles tend to look bit unnatural, especially in scenes like these where the difference in height (the animal head height compared to the height where the kids heads are) doesn't seem to affect the head angle at all.
Also the clouds in the back look bit too evenly applied. They're so light that it's not much of an issue to my eye, but having those generic cumulus clouds like that makes the sky remind me more of a tapestry in a kid's bedroom, than an actual sky. Same goes to the very even and sharp "zig-zag" shape of the river.
Star Eater: Thanks for your feedback. I'm so relieved to have some fresh perspectives on this! You've made some really good points that I didn't even consider. I admit I rushed the second wolf because I felt I had spent too long on the painting and since he wasn't the main subject I could get away with putting less detail in him, but I guess that's not the case. I see some fantastic paintings with hardly any blending/detail in the less important areas... I'd like to be able to achieve that "detail economy" too one day. His head was flat because I was attempting to make it look as if his head was raised so we would see more of the bottom and less of the top (but I seem to have forgotten this with the girls). The girl on the other hand.. you're right she looks too old or something.. The original sketch actually looked a lot better, she was cuter and had her head turned towards the background. That's something I need to improve too... not losing the movement of the original sketch.
si3g: Yeah I agree, I'm definitely going to fix that in my next piece!! Thanks for your input!
TinyBird: That's great feedback thanks! I think I got so caught up in the details I forgot to consider how things might act in this situation (such as the hair blowing and the characters facing different directions.) Wow I didn't realise how much was actually wrong with this, thank you so much. I'm going to make a note to think more about the physics/ reality of the objects I paint!
PS: I'm really sorry but I accidentally clicked your comment and rated it with a two. I would have given it a 10.
Last edited by Elissimo; April 11th, 2012 at 07:42 AM.
Reason: le tired!
I like this picture a lot and don't mind the lack of depth at all.
It has a clear children's book illustration vibe, so the zig-zag river and the clouds fit perfectly in my oppinion. The hidden parrot in the leaves is a cool idea, children love pictures where they can discover things. Maybe also add another small detail in the leaves, the girls seems to be looking at something slightly above the parrot.
I think the connection between foreground and background is lacking a bit- the colors in the foreground are rich and nice, everything is detailed, saturated and there's action and cool wolves.
Compared to that the background with the river is boring. There's no interesting landscape and just some small grey animals, barley dull clumps in a field of grass - I think I can spot a kangaroo (the silhouette is barley readable) and some.. uh.. bears or rhinos? What is the boy pointing at, it doesn't look that interesting.
If you could add something outstanding to that valley, big animals, a running herd of creatures, cool light, a mountain.. something.. that would explain the reaction of the boy and the viewer would really want to look at the stuff in the background.
I personally think that this works very well as a childrens illustration and its the lack of some of the points that tiny made oddly enough that help it to work for kids.
Kids have a very simplistic way of looking at things and are not good with foreshortening etc or the more complicated aspects used in art illustrations. In fact personal experience with writing with kids and for kids leads me to believe that the more direct the image the easier it is for them to read. This is dependant upon age of course.
I tested this one with my kids 10yrs and 7yrs old and they both liked it and thought that the kid was pointing at the animals by the river.
The lack of detail on wolf no 2 helps as it does not pull the attention away from the ones the kids are riding on.
The colours are bright and colourful and the action works, so yep Thumbs up from my boys.
If this was a realistic image for adults then yes it needs loads of wotk but its not its for kids and it works so thumbs up from me too.
As an asside I wandered through your sketchbook and website and if you are aiming at childrens illustration then lose the monsters from the portfolio and get more of this style of work in there.
Have a look at this website it has all sorts of tips and information for illustrators and authors:- http://www.littletigerpress.com/lyndall/index.htm
look in the submissions section and the a-z of illustrators and you will see what youare up against.
I hope this long ramble helps you out and also hope that the guys are still speaking to me for arguing the points they made!!
I like this, the only things that bug me are that the small girl looks like a midget and that the wolf to the right has a very stiff smile. The wolf on the left looks more naturally happy. I agree with Lightship, this is a good illustration for a kid's book! (If I like something, that is usually the case
Kiera: Thanks for the input. It's good to know that someone likes the ziz-zaggy river and cloud patterns. I think about where I would like my style to go though.. and I'd like to make stylistic decisions like this on purpose and for a reason, which admittedly I didn't. I think I could probably get away with it in children's books but ideally I would like my style to be a bit more realistic (or deliberately non-realistic).
The de-saturated and uninteresting background was on purpose to give the foreground maximum attention.. but perhaps this is what is making it looks so 2 dimensional now? The other animals were supposed to be megafauna (giant, prehistoric wombats and kangaroos) which would be shown more accurately in the rest of the book but you're right, they're still a bit blobby, unrecognisable and uninteresting... especially since this is a standalone image. I totally love the idea of stampeding animals and I was ready to move onto a new piece but I think I might give this one another crack with the new feedback I have Thanks!
Lightship69 That's awesome. It's great to have feedback from the target audience I can see how children might appreciate simpler images but my most favourite illustrated books as a kid were those by James Gurney and Greame Base both which were more detailed and realistic than most kids books. They are a big inspiration for me.. so I'm not so eager to abandon that kind of feel. I could have been older though, maybe between 10 and 12.
Thanks for the feedback on my site as well. I'm still trying to decide where to focus at the moment so I'm starting with a broad portfolio. This is something I've struggled with for ages... the cute stuff is marketable but the concept art/game stuff is something I aspire to (but is a saturated market, especially here in Australia). I feel like the combination of the themes from children's books with the realistic but painterly style of concept art would be happy medium for me.. so that's kind of where this is going. I can give some examples of where I'd like to be.. perhaps that will help people give me feedback. For example, I'd love my work to be more like Sem Nielson's recent image, or any of his storybook stuff and I've always had a love for Anry's stuff if I could do a children's book of that kind of artwork but maybe faster the way concept artists do, I'd be pretty damn happy!
Thanks also for the link to littletigerpress and the samples there!
_Devilry_ Thanks Devilry. Lol hey some kids actually look like midgets! Yeah point taken, I think it's the same reason as before: her face looks old. The wolf at the back was supposed to be panting with a hint of a smile. Actually I am surprised no one has mentioned that he looks like he wants to eat the midget... I think a full smile would have made this worse so I tried to make it more sublte
Nice piece...the color and rendering are very nice, although I don't know if all the colors need to be so sugary. Those leaves might feel greener if the sky and the dirt were less saturated.
The figures feel stiff right now because they're all facing rigidly forward. If you turned their heads it would help a lot. Also, the little girl's positioning doesn't feel right to me...I'd move her forward a bit so it feels more like she's clinging to the boy. JPEG below.
Those specific tweaks are secondary to my larger point, which is that you'd do well to engage a bit more with the precise physicality of a figure's pose so it tells the story in a specific way. (In the long term, taking dance and yoga classes can be tremendously helpful in this regard. Really.)
shockowaffel: Yep, I didn't think about that I never planned for this to go across a spread... but since you mentioned this I now realise it doesn't work as a single page. I was going to mock it up as a cover, but that's definately something I will remember to consider now. Thanks!
Giacomo: Thanks Giacomo, that's an interesting point about taking yoga classes XD Actually I'm not doing any life drawing at the moment either and I think that shows too. I'm not confident with turning forms. What's also interesting is that a lot of people think the front kid is a boy... it's supposed to be a (tom-boyish) girl. Actually I don't mind if it's a bit ambiguous because that's kind of how I imagined the character. More bold and adventurous than other girls her age.
I agree that they would look more natural closer together thanks for the revised drawing!
Eeeeyeah. If you're trying to get work doing kids' books, I'd strongly recommend you get better at conveying character and narrative through gesture (i.e., being able to draw more subtle and complex poses than what you've got here.) Right now everything on your website is extremely static-looking. If I were an art director, I'd want to see more examples of your ability to get the story across.