Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread: Portrait Crit.
May 7th, 2012 #1Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Hi. I would really appreciate some critique on this picture. It was supposed to be a "sketch" from a newspaper image, but I seem to wander around so much it has actually taken a couple of evenings. I am hoping to cut down my process duration in the future. Too much back and forth.
Also, no matter how many of these I make, I cant seem to learn how to properly replicate facial features. The face reads, but its a different face. Anyone have any tips for this?
Oh, and how do I keep the hair from looking like hay?
Please feel free to be brutal and exact.
Edit: Here is original picture. I apologize for the lack of quality.
Last edited by Sneak; May 7th, 2012 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Noob problems.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMay 7th, 2012 #2
OK,then brutal and exact.
Get a mirror and study your own facial features,or get someone to pose for you,and don't use a tablet for this,use a pencil and copying a photograph from a newspaper is difficult because your attempting to draw a flat image,plus they have probably manipulated the image..much easier just to draw from life.
Last edited by Artimatum; May 7th, 2012 at 12:59 PM.Formerly Ultimatum.
A smooth sea never made a skillful sailor.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
The Following User Says Thank You to Artimatum For This Useful Post:
May 7th, 2012 #3
The Following User Says Thank You to Chris Sanders For This Useful Post:
May 7th, 2012 #4
Edit - Okay, with the original picture there now, obviously some of this paintover is way off. Hopefully it still helps a little?
I kind of agree with dog-faced, but I went and did a quick paintover anyway, to point out some specific things. But yeah, going back to basics for a bit, doing some Loomis heads and the like, will do you a world of good.
The main disclaimer here is that, without being able to see your reference, it's hard to know which of these corrections make sense. Certainly any likeness you might have achieved is probably gone in the paintover. Also, you may just have chosen a poor reference picture to begin with - can't see it, don't know.
That said, some points:
- The first thing that jumps out at me is her overall head structure. The features are placed at more or less the correct areas of the face, but she's got a bulbous forehead and jaw. Her hairline looks very high, and her cheek and chin are drifting to the side. (And her chin doesn't seem to quite exist as its own thing either, instead blending into the line of the cheek and jaw.) Overall, you're looking at the face as much too rounded - study up on facial planes. The forehead is closer to flat than round, for example.
- The feature placement is okay, but the features themselves need work. The most obvious example is her eyes - both the shape and the size aren't working. On top of that, you've flattened them out. Your process shows in step 8 that you understand how eyeballs sit in eye sockets, so apply that. On top of that, they're different sizes from each other. The eyebrows aren't wrapping around the edge of the eye socket as they would. The nose structure is odd. (But so is the nose structure in the paintover, uh, ignore that part.)
- As in the earlier point, facial planes. This is where Loomis will help you immensely. Your lighting is very diffuse, and doesn't show much of the structure of the face - and this may be a weakness of the ref. Your first step shows the contours, but none of the structure, which is what's really important. Then when you get into shading, you do it with small, scribbly brushes. Big shapes first. Then worry about everything else.
- Colour. Maybe stick with greyscale a while longer, until you get a better sense of the structure you're missing. Your colour's looking very washed out, and she has kind of a sickly look about her.
- The hair. Didn't do much to that in the PO, but here's a hair thing I did for a crit a few months ago. The gist of it is, stay away from individual strands for as long as you can. Instead, think in sections, and pull out strands from the ends of those sections to blend them into each other. Only add in a handful of individual highlights and shadows at the very end. The same would apply in pencil, by the way - never draw too many strands, just imply them.
Last edited by Revidescent; May 7th, 2012 at 02:51 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Revidescent For This Useful Post:
May 7th, 2012 #5Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I will make sure to think about all the things you said. Thank you very much!
Edit: Also you mentioned the ref. might be bad. Having seen it, do you still carry that opinion?
I think choosing a backlit/softlight subject(if one can call it that), was a half-consious decision. I know other lighting setups provide a better "read" of the objects, but I figure that this setup would be more challenging? I cant stand working with soft light, so I guess I should do it relentlessly.
I think though, that I will go back to more basic structural understanding / anatomy before making any more "renders". As you said.
Have a nice. Sneak.
PS. Due to low gladiator-level, I cannot Send PM’s to "super moderators"; in case anyone expects mail.
Last edited by Sneak; May 7th, 2012 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Vanity, elaboration, noob problems.