Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
orginally there was a background, but it was crappy, so it was removed...
basically i need help on how to make it look less "claylike" and cartoony. or help on anything else that need to be changed, improved, etc...
umm heres some more that I have done.
C&C on these would also be appreciated.
messed up the cockpit..
thanks for looking..
The biggest factor contributing to the clay-like or cartoony feel is that it looks like a clay sculpture. All of your shapes are rounded as though they were hand-formed clay blobs put together in an almost entirely additive process. Thinking of ship design in sculptural terms (which, if you're considering game or movie design, it essentially is), your shapes are highly tectonic. They don't engage their surrounding space to any real extent, and thus appear lacking in dynamism. While this might be desired in other kinds of designs, the apparent fighter-type roles of the ships are not immediately compatible with a feeling of mass and inertia. Experiment with various sorts of appendages on your thumbnail sketches, along the lines of the second and last images, pushing scale and mechanical practicality as far as you can. Of all of these, the second is most successful. While still tectonic in its engagement of its space, it is not locked into a feeling of intertia. The surface is divided and activated compositionally with repetition, line, shape, etc., which may be the most important factor in bringing your designs out of a cartoony feel.
I think the reason they look too claylike is the lighting and shading. You use very blurred lighting and soft shading, and make the texture feel soft. Try some hard strong lighting, and see how it turn out. And don't forget reflective lightings.
hmm okay guys thanks for the help
so basicly i should go stronger lighting, faster-darker lines.
my drawing looks "claylike" because it has pretty soft lighting, and it uses claylike shapes.
I just dont really understand what is meant by tectonic shapes or "dynamism" or mass or inertia though...
basicly these parts I am not sure I am understanding...
"your shapes are highly tectonic. They don't engage their surrounding space to any real extent, and thus appear lacking in dynamism. While this might be desired in other kinds of designs, the apparent fighter-type roles of the ships are not immediately compatible with a feeling of mass and inertia. "
"While still tectonic in its engagement of its space, it is not locked into a feeling of intertia. The surface is divided and activated compositionally with repetition, line, shape, etc., which may be the most important factor in bringing your designs out of a cartoony feel."
also, when said i should try to use "scale" does that mean i should include more reconiziable objects like the cockpit to indicate the size of a human and thus the size of the vehcile compared to the human...?
again thanks for the help.. xD
Scluptural terms are hard to define, they really require examples to understand fully. A tectonic form might be a sculture by Noguchi, while an atectonic form would be a Giacometti. Tectonic forms isolate themselves from their surrounding spaces, with not many extreme ins or outs to reach out and compositionally activate the space (activation meaning to give it interest as a part of the composition). Atectonic forms do the opposite, connecting themselves to their surrounding space with more pronounced positive and negative forms.
Inertia is a feeling of mass and immovability, implied in this case by a stone-like shape. There's no strong indication of direction or motion, little tension in its lines to indicate energy. Dynamism is the opposite of inertia, exemplified by tension in the lines and forms, distributed mass, balance pushed to the extreme- think of that famous Discus Thrower statue with his outstretched, angled arm, the discus a massive counterweight to his body. Or also consider a mobile sculpture by Alexander Calder. Balance in this case is dictated by actual physical mass, but pushed to the edge of comprehension nonetheless.
Scale can mean recognizable forms to relate to the human body, or it can simply be expanding a feature to a dominating size to have a strong counterweight to balance another dynamic, extended element. I think you definitely should look at Calder's work, but also just look at as much artwork as you can with these ideas in mind.
hmmm thank you a lot for explaining. I will go look at the artists you mentioned...