Results 1 to 14 of 14
January 7th, 2006 #1
FIRST POST IN finished section! Thanx to THOG!
So, I have been on these forums for over a year now and I am finally getting to post something for the first time!! I worked on this character for this weeks C.H.O.W. for about 13 hours. Its done 100% in pen (regular Bic Velocity). Ive heard some comments alreay and would love to hear more. 2006 WOOOOOOOT! Gonna be a good year...
BTW- I just noticed that its impossible for his thumb not to be showing. the one holding the club. i thought that his hand or his fingers could just be wrapped around or over the rock and the thumb could be behind it but I think a little thumb should be showing... Anyways... Anything else??
Hide this ad by registering as a memberJanuary 8th, 2006 #2
You should have turned him a bit more, cause this profile doesn't read very nice.
It would be good if we saw more than half of his torso and some leg down there. Your first thought was to include a raised leg, wasn't it? I should've done that.
Also, his hair ends in dreads, which is good, but the dreads don't really look natural, although his hair is rather nice.
The hand in his waist is a bit gay, I think. Nothing wrong with gay, but Thog is definitely a ladies-lover. If he rested his hand in his waist with his fingers, just below the knuckles, it would've been better.
Apart from that, I envy your shading, your rendering. Everything we see here can be recognized at once. Just think about the pose the next time.
January 8th, 2006 #3
is that a moose cock ? AWESOME!! Yes I do agree with the profile not working out so well :| However, I also think that perhaps you could have given him some legs and a dead moose in front of him (headless of course)...If you did that vigo...that would R0x0r5! And congrats you made it to the finished section....I only have 5 more years till I can make it here
January 8th, 2006 #4
Okay Rob - let me first say that just the fact that you are posting in this section deserves props, cheers and hand claps...good for you. I can tell you are going balls-out for 2006 and I just hope you keep the momentum going until you are old, incontinent, crippled and dead
Now - for 2006 let's also get down and dirty and really be brutally honest (with lots of smiley faces to ease the pain)
The hands, face and overall anatomy need work...but I know these are things you are currently studying. The rendering is as always very impressive with those lil pens of yours, and I like the different elements you used for dress and stylization, like the dreadlocks, moosehead..all that stuff. I'd use reference, but not to copy exactly...just to study some things and use them to gain accuracy. Like, look at some profiles of males that you find fits the character. Than kind of do your thing from there. Just until you build up a visual database in your brain so you will eventually have to rely less and less on reference in the future.
I dunno..just some ideas. Nice job...good going..let's see some more dude
January 8th, 2006 #5
zergaloth- hey thanks for the comments and nice words.. Yeah, I could have def. tried a more dynamice pose but, when I thought of this character I said to myself "I want superhero/ player" written all over him. and when I think superhero its always this confident pose and a profile shot to me could show alot of confidence. I should have tried drawn in the leg though.. You were right about that.. I got scared that I was going to really botch the drawing so i took the easy way out! Bad I know.. and the hand resting on the hip.. I dunno, I just wanted him to look relaxed kinda like he knows he's the man.. I dunno.. didnt want to go with the tyical barbaric look.. i knew everyone was going to go for...
tetsuo- i could have def. done lot more.. Could have added a BG which I had intedned to but, i was really limited on time so I just focused on the character,, Thanks for the kind words..
loomer- thanks man.. yeah, I knew some things were off but, I thought as a whole it wasnt waaay off. the hand which are probablly me weakest I thought i did a pretty good job on considering they are my weakest but I also knew that they were porblems with them... and I did use ref. actually a significant amount... the mossehead and some anatomy parts a well.. And f course i was going for a bit more stylized version.. Well, next time.. jotting down notes and hopefully make things better for the next one.. which will be this puppet master thingie...
thanks again to everyone for their comments.. i will use all your comments in a constructive manner!
January 8th, 2006 #6
one thing i've noticed about a lot of your similarly-styled pieces (seen in the trading thread, mainly) is a concentration on detail over form. perhaps this is intentional, but it isn't obviously so when looking at the work, so it leaves a few questions in my mind/eye about what you're trying to achieve. you have a strong control over the pen medium shown here, but the super-abundance of detail created with it can make it hard to appreciate the drawing as a whole, well-integrated figure.
the best way i can describe my reaction to your work is to compare it to sculpture (and your pieces have a sculptural feel to them). to me, many of your drawings are "bas-relief" instead of "sculpture in the round." not flat, because the contrasts have a good range, but i get little sense of a fully three-dimensional figure. i think this is perhaps because the light source is generalized, as if each area of the drawing has it's own little lighting scheme, and lot of effort is put into rendering localized details but the overall forms get swamped by it.
this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it does lend a very identifiable signature to much of your pen work, and can be seen in the color stuff as well. but if you're actually trying for something more naturalistic and "fully rounded," think about dealing more with overall form rather than a wealth of detail. this could also strengthen your stylized approach as shown here, as it gives you more choices regarding emphasis and creating a solid focus for each piece.
January 9th, 2006 #7
Masque- Thank you very much for the very detailed comment. theres one thing that many people say about my drawings and its probably my lack of artistic knowledge but, what specific it wrong with my forms? this one specifically? I understand what your saying about the lighting issues and thats something that everytime I draw one of these pieces I become more attentive to and hopefully get better at each time. for instance Fellah once told me that its cool to leave a large white spot or highlight to show a strong light source so here I wanted to really illuminate his face and thats what i did.. I have another friend that told me about that although my figures have "roundness" to them they light doesnt go anywhere. like a round surface. I would love for someone to demonstrate either by painover or by another art example what they mean. Thank you again Masque for the comments..
January 9th, 2006 #8Originally Posted by vigostar
January 9th, 2006 #9
paintover: wish granted
as requested, i did a paintover to try to illustrate my comments about form vs detail.
i think of form as the 3-dimensional expression of an object in space. it's an extension of shape, which i think of as the 2-d expression. for example, a circle (shape) can have the form of a sphere when extended into 3-d. shape doesn't require light to define it, but form does. when drawing/painting naturalistically (to one degree or another), i see a major part of the task as interpreting the interaction of light with form. that's what creates the shadow/highlight duality and all the values in between.
basic forms are familiar -- sphere, cylinder, cube, cone, etc. very geometrical, not very organic. but learning how light plays across these forms is critical to being able to interpret much more complex forms like the human body. without knowing how light & form interact, no amount of detail can make a drawing/painting fully successful.
looking at vigostar's original Thog, the details are beautifuly rendered, but the underlying forms are not because the way light interacts with them hasn't been well-portrayed. individual areas have interesting highlight and shadow structures, but overall there is a lack of unity in the way the lighting has been handled. the parts of the drawing don't seem to share the same lighting scheme.
in the paintover the first thing i did was decide on a single key light source, upper left and somewhat behind the figure. i then added a weaker fill light coming from middle right. this plan is in keeping with what i thought was the intent of the original. for the paintover, i actually painted these sources in, though that's not a usual practice. i also converted the image to greyscale to simplify working with the file, and put a medium tone over everything to give the new highlights i'd be painting in more snap.
i then took the smudge and brush tools to the original and created the tonal form version, obliterating most of the original's luscious detail in favor of modeling the figure's forms more as they would respond to the key light & fill. the key light creates a highlight/shadow hierarchy that starts with the head and falls off toward the lower right. the brightest highlights on Thog's profile help insure that this is where the viewer's eye will move to naturally. the deepest shadows are, of course, where no light falls, on the inside of the cape. the key to maintaining a good sense of form is how to deal with all the tones in between. note that starting at the head, the use of brighter tones diminishes as the light falls off. there still a shadow/highlight structure, but it is less contrasty in all areas, and more relative to the total amount of light that falls on a particular surface.
the tonal form version was painted with only basic anatomical detail, but with more attention to modeling the play of light on the figure, which meant thinking critically about the light sources (e.g., in the original, where did all that light come from that illuminates the loincloth(?), hand, back, and inside of the cape?) and re-doing a lot of the high-contrast areas, especially in the lower right quadrant of the drawing. since the light falls off from upper left, these areas were knocked way back in tonal range, though the tones were not entirely eliminated. they were re-interpreted according to the new unified lighting scheme.
also note how the arms and torso have been repainted to better portray their basic forms -- cylinders. irregular, lumpy cylinders, indeed, but still they respond to light as dictated by that basic form. the club head and hands show a similar treatment -- the basically spherical rock and the cylindrical fingers are now shaded according to the position of the key light. since this is overall a fairly high-contrast pic, and the light source is pretty directional, i also added in a few cast shadows that help describe certain contours, another method of describing form without detail.
in the combo i used some photoshop layering tricks to reintroduce a great deal of the original's detail, but not enough to overwhelm the depiction of the forms. here, i think, a better balance has been struck, giving the figure a better sense of being fully rounded, and occupying a space well-defined by the chosen light sources.
i put this together quickly, so some of it looks a bit rough, but i think it illustrates the form vs detail issue fairly well.
January 9th, 2006 #10
effin' 'ell! Damn... Vigo, that is a great piece, and Masque, that is a great description/crit/lesson.
I'm blown away.
January 9th, 2006 #11
Thanks a lot Masque. This indeed is a very good crit. Printed it and pasted it in my 'book of tutorials'.
You should get one of those Honorable Critic icons for this one.
January 9th, 2006 #12
Great work Masque. thanks so very much. Just a couple of notes. when I draw wih pen being that there isnt and color involved one of my biggest problems right now that Im trying to build more accuracy and depict objects as they are and what their various colors may be? this I have come to realize is rather tricky, for instance. One thing you pointed out with a lighting problem wasn't that I didnt realize it should have been darker but, for some odd reason I thought that everyone lives in my imagination and would know specifically what im trying to depict and in this case the smaller rock was simply a lighter colored rock. Why would I think the viewer would know this?? Also, the large light source on the left arm. I had a feeling I was going to get some crit on that as well but, I took a "visual" chance on it for asthetic reasons, big mistake I guess... Everything else is well pointed out. So, its not really that the lighting wa off as it was more of a tonal value issue.. Thanks again masque. you were great..
January 9th, 2006 #13Originally Posted by vigostar
for the artist, the intended lighting helps define the tonal structure; the rendered tonal structure is what defines the lighting (and forms) for the viewer. so the two (lighting and values) are really tightly linked. which is not to say you shouldn't experiment or sometimes even go against the obvious or "usual," but do it knowingly and with sound reasons (which admittedly may not always be a totally conscious process).
January 10th, 2006 #14