Ugh, I just don't get landscapes. I have to fix the "anatomy" of those cliffs.
Ugh, I just don't get landscapes. I have to fix the "anatomy" of those cliffs.
I really appreciate your greyscale studies, the one I prefer is the girl in post 21. I'm not able to give you advices (thanks a lot for the one you give me btw !), your studies are also nice to see, the only thing I could say is that, in your paintings, the subject seems to float a bit : the subject himself has volume but seems pasted on the background (probably because of the really hard edges, and maybe the values of colors ?).
It's not the case for the girl on post 21, it's probably the reason why it's the one I prefer ^^
Same thing for your landscapes, it seems that the foreground, middleground and background are all in the same plan (this last one is better though, but I think it's because of the composition).
A general rule I saw somewhere is that the foreground is darker than the middleground which is darker thant the background (also the edges are sharper in the front than in the back).
I hope you don't mind, I played a bit with your last work with that in mind, tweeking the intensity of the different grounds (I also add a kind of tree on the left and croped a bit to balance the composition), it's really quickly and clumsy done it's just to give the idea (and I wanted to see by myself too ^^).
Nice to see more of your works and it seems as you are getting more and more confident and tryiing out different things combined together.
For your problems with stone and cliff, I would recommend you that you look at different pictures to see what you need or if you have a cliff close to you, than go out into the nature and make some real life studies. I guess if you make a lot of studies and get more and more experience, you will see how cliffs work.
But there is another thing, in your last landscape painting, beside the missing atmospheric perspective (already pointed out by Theotenai), you should try brushes with hard brushes. The cliffs are looking washed out. On stone, especially on cliffs you seem to had in mind, there are hard edges, not smoth ones. You could try to make a drawing onely with using a brush with a hard edge and always 100% opacity. You don't need to add details, it is just to get more confident about letting things a bit rough for the effect.
Stay as brave as you are now and keep the ball rolling!
Is the latest one from reference or imagination?
Either way, watch how saturated the colours are on the cliffs and the water, compare it to a photo of a real waterfall. Also, the cliffs and the waterfall look very similar in form, although the way light hits them varies very much. I think using harder brushes might be a good idea. On the good side, the atmospheric effect you've used, making the distant rocks lighter, is very effective.
I'm sorry I'm no expert, but I hope I've given you some decent feedback
Hunin - I used reference of course, since I'm terrible at landscapes. Though I don't think it helped me much in this case.
This is the photo I used as a basis:
Narrenzauber - I use an opaque brush with flow set to pen pressure which lets me make both softer and harder edges. I would have loved to put down strong edges right from the start, but I had trouble figuring out where the edges even were
I can't seem to simplify the shapes on the cliff or reduce it into smaller components.
Theotenai - Haha, I had to go back to check where I even had a background in the pieces I've posted so far
You're quite right, all the early works I posted were done under a self-imposed deadline, and the background (such as it was) was no more than a 5 minute afterthought. I hope I've gotten a bit better with that
Good call on the atmospheric perspective! I was struggling so much with the shapes that I completely forgot about it!
Thanks everyone, here's a quick update.
Went in to define the edges, throwing all caution to the wind, which, I have to admit, was a much more fun way of doing things
Basically ignored the ref this time around. I was paralyzed from too much visual information before. I can't say it turned out any better, but maybe if I started like that next time it might work.
Ah, the water in the photo is really bright! I don't think this is the best photo to use, as you don't get a strong pattern of light and dark.
Maybe you should try practicing texture balls http://www.ctrlpaint.com/home/2011/2...l-spheres.html
At the moment, the trees look like rocks, the rocks look the same as the waterfall. It might be easier to practice in the way described by the video
Yes, choosing usable reference material is a definite weakness of mine. Hmm, now I wonder if the forum has any threads about that.
That photo seemed like it would work well since it had what looked like clearly defined shapes and good variety for practice. Of course, the core of the problem is that I still lack the skill to interpret the reference effectively.
That link is pretty interesting. I might try working on a much smaller scale if I don't seem to be getting anywhere.
And this is what happens to paintings that don't cooperate. I'm putting this up here as a cautionary tale to my future paintings.
And here are some hands. Because I'm also terrible at hands
nice progress man. your on the right track. keep working with your figures. bridgeman is awesome! watch your line work, try not to make bold markings everywhere. Also try to to do the frame work with less opaque lines so its less distracting. And finally make long sweeping marks instead of short ones. Keep it up!
Thanks yogeshj! I'll do my best to improve my line quality more.
I'm more partial to Loomis myself, but Bridgeman is indeed awesome. Cheers
Nothing new to post today, but here is some older pencil-work that I like for some reason or another. They're pretty flawed, but there are aspects to them I quite appreciate.
Hahaha! Manicorn. I love it!
Hehe, thanks JulieSS It is a proud and noble beast!
Some gestures that should look very familiar to many of you.
Oh gawd, lol, Manicorn xD !!
ALso, itItimagination result more than the realistic one . Did it take you long to get it? Environments are not something I can draw yet, unfortunately.
The hand studies are really good.
Ah Loomis, always good practice. I liked what you did with the enviro in the end, a lot more interesting to look at!
@ Sasha Devina - Its ferocity is matched only by its grace
Changing the landscape was much easier than making it. Took about the same amount of time as making it, but was a hell of a lot more fun. I basically did it because it pissed me off.
Well that makes two of us, doesn't it? Come on in - the water's fineEnvironments are not something I can draw yet, unfortunately
@ Hunin - I must say, there's something extremely therapeutic about punishing my own art for insubordination. And doing so by arting it further into submission is also delightfully recursive
A concept I tried and failed at some time ago: I went back in yesterday and tried to fix as much as I could to see how far I've come. Still can't get the legs and arms positioned correctly, but at least I beat my previous score
"The Music Lovers"
And a character / creature concept I'm toying around with. I'll have to figure out how to make it more readable before I properly go into it.
I like this creature/character concept, really cute ^^
Nice work! I like the contrast in some of the soft work with the clearer details.
@ Theotenai - Thanks! I feel accomplished if I managed to get a winged bug snake whale deer girl to seem cute
@ KlineCreative - Thank you I appreciate it.
Pencil sketch. This is easily one of my favorite concepts.
Trying to get a handle on architecture. I have no idea why I chose something so complicated, but I think at least the lines are mostly in their right places. Either way, I'll go with something far simpler next time.
The Chittogarh fort in India.
Phew this is tiring. About halfway done with this study. Will have to finish later.
Great sketchbook so far; it's great that you're really putting yourself out there, trying different subjects, and learning from your mistakes.
My advice for you on the digital painting side is: start with the structure of the object, and work from life. Your studies in general feel very soft and formless; you seem to be focusing on copying blobs of color rather than thinking about it as a study of 3-dimensional objects. I think a big problem with the waterfall study you have on this page is that it's just a confusing photo; the foreground and background blend together and it's hard to make sense of the perspective. One thing to keep in mind when working from other people's photos is that you never really know how different the photo looks from actually being there, so the absolute best way to learn is to work from life. Cameras can't capture the full range of value and color that's visible to the human eye, they can't illustrate the sense of depth that we perceive when viewing a 3-dimensional object, lens distortion can create wonky perspective, and we don't know what kind of post-production alterations the photographer made on the photo before publishing it. Grab a random object from around the house, put it on your desk, and draw it. Start with simple objects, like cups or paper cubes, and move into more complex items later on. Practice different shapes, materials, lighting, colors, and textures.
Good luck and godspeed
Thank you very much for the feedback dierat.
This is true, I always try to think of the underlying 3d shapes I'm drawing, but past a certain point of complexity I simply can't see them anymore.
I've scrounged around for a few objects that should be fun to draw, so I'll make several still life 3d studies and put them up
Would you say my greyscale studies suffer from this problem to the same extent as my landscapes? At the moment it doesn't seem as pronounced to me, but I do wonder.
I like what you did with the last landscape study, dinosaur rock formations! You have some inventive work here, also your observational drawings show that you think of form, they came along well.
As far as critique goes, I'd say, PARAMOUNT, remember to draw Everything in Perspective! Even if the subject matter is abstract, Always think of it in perspective, and remember to think of the "General Shape" of anything you draw.
Everything is made of shapes ---> be it fluid water or smoke, or folding paper, a train, dented piece of crumbling architecture, an ice mass, there's no difference whatsoever between these.
Also remember to think of anything you draw as a 3D object, whatever it is, you must be able to take the object in the drawing, and draw it from any angle.
Check this out, see how the drawings are almost "sculpted", you can take any of these and make a 3d clay model:
and keep in mind symmetry of shape wherever it applies in your designs:
What I mean by this is, make sure you always check that the two identical parts of an object are symmetric to each other in perspective.
Lastly, when you draw from life, don't focus on drawing what it is you see, but "understand" the underlying shapes in what you see, especially when studying anatomy and landscapes! Overall shapes, perspective, and flow. 3D
Hope this helps.
Thanks a lot danomatic! I agree, and knowing everything is made of 3d shapes is still very different than actually seeing those shapes. As I mentioned a few times, the latter is something I still struggle with. But I like to think I'm gradually improving nonetheless
I'll keep a closer eye on getting the symmetry right. So far I noticed my ovals are absolutely disgraceful
Here's a super-quick object study. Lamp, tissue box, pen holder, and a shoddy little vase I made.
A few quick raven studies from ref for a concept I want to try.
My apologies to Esperanza Spalding for failing to get her face right
Trying out the balance between warm and cold color schemes. Sorry about the sudden change from the neck down - I wanted to see the contrast
The vase looks pretty good, best out of those sketches on that piece of paper I'd say (with my poor, unskilled eyes!). Elliptical and oval shapes are a bi***.
What's the raven concept idea like?
I also really post 50, the monochrome woman study, very nice progress.
As for faces, I think it's just a matter of consistent practice, really go for and target things you find difficult to draw.
With environments and concepts, maybe learn a little bit about perspective, David Chelsea's book 'perspective for comic book artists' is particularly good.
keep up the good work
@ Hunin - Thanks! I'll check out that book.
Heh, the category of "things I find difficult to draw" is pretty huge still, so it's a safe bet that anything I post counts as practicing something I'm bad at
Well, practice is technically the least efficient way to learn something, but I'm in no rush, and this is a very helpful community, so either way works for me.
@ Julie - Yeah, the vase is the one I took by far the most time with. At least 20 minutes. Though I still feel the box is the one I screwed up the least.
Ah, thanks for asking: I was thinking of maybe something like this, except with (hopefully!) a better composition.What's the raven concept idea like?
What's the most effective way to learn? I know it's not just hours, drawing is a thinking mans art...Well, practice is technically the least efficient way to learn something, but I'm in no rush, and this is a very helpful community, so either way works for me.
That one's gonna depend greatly on one's personal learning style, but speaking very generally, efficient learning requires pinpointing "root weaknesses" (I forget the official term). Basically, any person learning something will have any number of gaps in their knowledge or flaws in their technique. These gaps and flaws are not all equal.
A simple example is when someone is learning how to swim: you can tell them how to angle their legs, and arms, and the flow of movement, and breath control etc etc. Or you can just tell them to straighten their back. 90% of the time, everything else falls into place once they learn to do just that one thing.
It's a much better solution than playing whack-a-mole with one's weaknesses, but it also requires a good deal of insight. That insight is one of the reasons many of us came here to CA
Hope that made sense to you. I'll be happy to clarify anything you're curious about.