Hey, all. First-time caller, long-time listener.
If I had known about this site years ago, I'd have been here sooner. Most of my working day is spent inventing and designing toys for Mattel, Fisher-Price, Hasbro, and others, so I tend to not have lots of time for my own personal work.
But recently, my old pal Steve Sistilli has kindly pulled me in for a comic series on which he and his crew have been working for a while; Koni Waves.
My experience in Photoshop is not extensive in the 'camera-ready' area, since most of my toy work is pre-production, ..but I have generated a few pieces of my own that I feel comfortable sharing.
This pin-up, commissioned by Steve for Koni: Making Waves is probably the most ambitious undertaking yet. The entire piece was generated in Photoshop. I used lots of photo reference, and though there are a few tweaks in order, I felt it was a pretty well-resolved piece.
I hear ya. I definitely cheated that a bit by lowering the horizon line. Part of the intent of the piece was to draw the viewer into the character's world, so there was decidedly an emphasis on atmosphere, exposition, ..even a suggested narrative (The weird objects, the hidden throwing star, etc). It was a matter of striking an acceptable balance throughout.
Some nice work here, but Dogfood is right, the view out the window is impossible. The converging perspective lines from the interior of the room suggest a horizon line up near the hanging fern. Seeing all that sky through the window just looks odd. It's detracting from an otherwise pretty strong piece.
Based on the comments here, I've begun to play with some preliminary adjustments in a new layer, and it's making a marked improvment. Again; the artistic license was deliberate, but apparently it's more noticeable than I had hoped.
I'll be working back into the piece to correct that. I'll post the revised when it's done.
Thanks for all the nice comments and constructive feedback, folks.
OK, I had to run, but wanted to point out something else that was bothering me: I get lost between her belly button and her crotch (commence the giggling). Now, it just seems like the belt is coincident to another dimension and about 3 or 5 inches of abdomen is residing elsewhere. Follow her abs (nicely defined on the sides) down... there's no room for them to gracefully fall to the pelvis. I guess it just seems like there's no room for that ... well, that Bermuda triangle. And though her hips are slanted slightly, the crotch being that far over seems a little odd (especially when the breasts seem spot-on for such a subtle shoulder tilt).
Sweet work, though.
I think I understand what you're saying, though I can't account for that since I literally used a photograph as an underlay for the figure. There were some tweaks in regard to her definition, and her clothing was fabricated (as it were) for the piece, but I didn't play with proportions at all.
I've had a couple of comments about the proportions of her bust (hey, it's a pin-up, right?), but these are dicey things when considering that all bodies are a little different and not always proportioned the same. The intent was that Koni is 'small' but well-built and dressed provocatively.
Something I've noticed myself (though this wouldn't be obvious to others since there's nothing to compare it to), is that the final Photoshop file is richer in contrast and shadow than the jpg I posted. I'm not sure why or how that happened in file translation, and I'm wondering if anyone out there knows. As a result, it looks less 'noir' and moody than the original file.
Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but to me, there's a marked difference between an underlay and a paintover. Point taken, though.Originally Posted by Rhineville
That being said, A few separate elements in the piece were 'paintovers', just to save time and make the deadline (it's a busy piece, and it was tight), but even those elements had to be worked over thoroughly.
On a philosophical note; Some artists are 'purists' about painting and illustrating, I have no ethical problems with occasional tracing or underlaid elements when it comes to generating published work. This was discussed thoroughly among the students and illustration profs when I was studying art.
Every artist needs to pick their battles when it comes to how they work. Life is too short. The main thing is to take a challenge, improve as an artist and enjoy doing the work itself.
Dogfood beat me to the punch, but I noticed the same thing. I'd really like to see the ref, because something definitely happened.Originally Posted by Edison
Read up on PS color management.Originally Posted by Edison
Last edited by Elwell; September 12th, 2006 at 09:16 AM.
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
This is why you should never trace photos, not only because it's very bad (naughty naughty) but also because it gives you horrible results like this.
To me the pic overall looks broken in a lot of ways, with a very realistic rendering that make things worse. The girl's anatomy definitely doesn't work and the perspective is screwy.
Dude, there is such a thing as constructive criticism, and then there is just being fucking rude. Do not try to scold me like I'm a child. Cool?Originally Posted by black_fish
You've added nothing to the conversation.
Last edited by Edison; September 12th, 2006 at 07:52 AM.
I thought I added that tracing a photo will give you bad perspective, distorded shapes and a pic that doesn't work overall.
I was 'rude' because I hate photo tracing and I'm not saying that all you do, I admire the amount of work you put on that pic. But I hate the fact that countless 'artists' nowadays (especially in the comic world) trace everything they do either from dvd movies (you can sometimes even recognize the actors!) or from some random porn photos from the net.
I didn't want to be rude, just sarcastic.
That being said, I'll say again: don't trace. It's just a crutch that any professional (including art directors) will spot.
I like it, its very sexy with alot of details, but as mentioned the horizon line is too low. Very nice light you got overall but the woman feels kinda "soft" if you compare to some other things in the room, like the hanging plant to her left.
And Black_Fish has a point, tracing is not recommended, but as a help reference when you are stuck is cool.
Despite it's faults I like it. It reminds me of the illustrations that used to appaer in mens magazines (not that type , they were called things like MEN'S ADVENTURE, or TRUE MAN, or whatever, & were filled with implausible stories of adventure in far off lands) back in the 50's & 60's, no I'm not old enought to remember them first hand, but I do have a terrific book which has loads of them in, by artists like Norm Saunders. Any chance we can see a higher res version?
damb shes sexy.. i keep on looking at her cooch for some reason... i guess thats what my brain is telling me the focal pint is... i think this is a very nice piece overall.. i like how the items are situated although some color balance is def. in need... hope you revist this.. thanks for sharing
Mainloop- man i must be dyslexic.. cuz i thought you asked how many people are on lsd
The specific constructive feedback is helpful, indeed.
As stated in my inital post; This is one of the first paintings I've attempted in Photoshop. My experience in print illustrating, going back 20 years, is mainly all by hand on the board. This is all pretty new to me still.
Also; that there is some reworking and tweezing that needs doing.
My plate is full with other 'paying' projects, designing, but I've already taken some steps toward resolving some of the issues pointed out.
It may be some time, but I'll post the revised when it's done.
Thanks for all the feedback.
I liked a lot about your pic, but couldn't figure out what bugged me about it. Some of it have been pointed out by other here. But I took the liberty to do some testing. Whenever I can't understand why my own stuff doesn't work, it is usually the values that is boring.
Top one is beaten up by me with the burn tool, bottom is yours. You already stated that some contrast was lost in conversion, but generally I think you should let that lamp do some work.