Post by Santa Melty on Jun 12, 2006 7:49:13 GMT -5
I don’t get Fab’s new signature. Is the purple hair some sort of inside reference?
*shakes head*
Anyway.
So many things to respond to. And Fab is making me look bad. I can’t compete with the criticism of a professional artist.
Yet, it was fate that I was lead to this thread. There is more to be said, I’m sure.
Again! *ignores lateness and continues*
response@pitch.com
I thought about hiding more characters out to the sides of the image, but I met a slight dilemma.
I was out of time, and I was out of system members. o.o
I could have thrown in more characters, but it would have ruined the system theme. And even if I wanted to do such a thing, I couldn't have drawn and colored them in by the deadline.
I enjoy hiding things, but I failed this round. Next time, perhaps.
What is in a style?
Well, I could explain myself by trying to point out proportions, positioning of features within those proportions, the proportions of those proportions to several obscure linear lengths between points along the subject's body, soft and hard coloring methods and their applied results in conjunction with traditional vs. digital methods and the resulting visual contrast, representation of limbs and skin, levels of detail and depth in textures and folds and how it is achieved, and so on. But I don't know any of that.
So let's all watch mlt squirm as he makes something up.
I suppose that there must be some sort of categorization to styles. Some way they can be grouped. I guess that there is a given look about every major art form. Something that can be considered the generic form. It’s been done before, it worked, and then it was done again. But it still works.
The degree to which one deviates from that unspoken (or spoken, depending on how dramatic you want the explanation to be) norm, the less it can be considered generic, though it does not necessarily mean that it will look good.
Individual style can be anything from that generic form down to whatever yet untouched depths the extremities of art might reach (or... that have been reached. Again, with the drama thing), but it has nothing to do with how nice it might turn out. People will sometimes laud more stylized, unique art, simply because of its distinctiveness, though it could be quite horrendous visually. Ultimately, it is a matter of opinion. The attractiveness of extremely stylized art is a tough negotiation.
But you mention generically made art that looks wonderful. This is possible as well. So, if stylized art is so difficult to judge and generic art is far lovelier, why bother with your own style when you can learn the cookie-cutter version?
*ponders for an hour then comes back to complete post*
It is simplicity itself! What is it about the generic art that makes it so beautiful? One of two things, of course. The attention to detail that is put forth, and/or the creative idea or concept that can be made behind the art itself. But creative ideas and detail can be applied to stylized art as well, can it not? Unless you are talking abstract/interpretive art, or something of that sort, it should still work. People can see the work put into it, and, whether like it or not, they will appreciate it. In that way, the art can still look amazing, though not necessarily appealing. But few things do, and it depends on who you ask. It may sound used, but as long as you put forth your best work, you’ve little to be ashamed of.
So, general niceness, style aside, comes from effort, I suppose. It might also depend on the skill of the artist, yes, but skill is gained through effort anyway, and should be credited as such. There is also natural acuteness to points in a drawing that might need attention, meaning less effort, but that does not change my point of more effort = better outcome. In the grand scheme of things, the mass of personal adaptations that make up your own style really just add to the distinctness of your work, perhaps shifting the group of people to which the work might appeal, but not making it any more or less “good”.
You believe your work to have the outward appearance of garbage because of your own perception of beauty. You attempt to meet the standard of beauty that you have set, and, unable to attain it at this point, write your work off as amateur. Your personal work, at this point, does not include you in the group of people that such work might appeal to, so you attempt to change it so as to fit within those parameters.
I had an example written out about a divergent reality where you were the amazing artist and tried to add a twist to your work with a different style than the one you were using, but it sounded very corny, so I scratched it.
Instead, consider this. Perhaps your work looks like it was done incorrectly because you are trying to do it in a manner incoherent with what is naturally correct to you. I have a method that seems to work most of the time: Whatever you might do, always make it seem as though it was intentional. If you seem unsteady in your work, people will pick up on it and take it as a novice’s fumbling. On the other hand, if you can find a single way to work that you can do consistently, or can at least be consistent in your fumbling, then you can pass it off as a polished and practiced style of your own design. It is much more difficult to fault you for that. I try to point out discrepancies in your work and the official art, but if you were to claim that it was all intentional and that you meant for it to come out in such a way, then there would really be nothing left to say.
Now to try to apply this to our current situation. You aim to match the official art (or so I assume, thought I’ve yet to be corrected if it is not true), which opens the way for many people to criticize the work, whether in an effort to help or otherwise. With more practice, you could easily achieve such a thing, but because it is outside of your natural style, it takes more work to accomplish.
Almost always, people seem to automatically despite how they normally draw and instead try to adapt to a style that they think is better. As they make the transition from point A to point B, the intervening work usually ends up looking odd because of the conflict between what they do and what they want to do. But eventually, they end up falling to one side, and it all ends happily, I should hope.
Your style is always influenced by what you’ve seen and observed for yourself, so ultimately, your own style is lost among whatever improvisations you instinctively make in order to achieve work that you are comfortable with. You are shaky because you are not comfortable with your work. If you were comfortable, then that shakiness would probably subside, and you would be left with... well... whatever is left. But you are not and probably will not be for some time, and thus, we move on.
So, to recap. What is in a style, you ask of me?
Effort. Or the intentional lack of effort. It is half effort, half intention, perhaps.
The above makes perfect sense. I probably just phrased it all wrong.
Squarish, eh? I can't really see what you mean, though I suppose it would look a bit stocky if you tried to thicken the waist any more. It might be hard to avoid on such a small body, though. Still, it might be worth a try, simply to see if it looks any better. Perhaps if you were to move the waist up slightly so that the narrowest point is just slightly below the bottom of the breasts, rather than have the chest break into the waist smoothly. Then, there would be more room for the hips where the body breaks into the legs.
Oy, females... not nearly as simple to get right as males, unfortunately.
Not that I’ll be expecting any more updated versions, but it makes for good examples.
Actually, I meant that the gray part should be sticking out slightly, but on a second inspection of the official art, I was mistaken. The shoulder pieces are perfect spheres. So ignore what I originally said. Don’t know what AimMan is saying, though, but if you say he was right, no need for me to crosscheck.
The bit about the nose and eyes was just an observation, really. I don’t know why I said it. Probably just typing to myself. Succinctness is not my greatest strength, unfortunately. I’ll try to leave out the less necessary in the future.
Can’t help you with the bit about the style of the eyes, though. If you give an example of what you were trying to do, I might be able to advise.
Anyway, left eye = smashed. I’m dabbling in areas beyond my understanding with this, but the entire eye should fit into that side of the face, and the entire eye should be visible as long as the side of the face is visible. It just has to be distorted slightly for perspective.
Observeth:
i12.photobucket.com/albums/a235/mltmlt22/Yuna4.jpg
Red lines represent the... eh... those... places. In the center of the face that are represented by such lines. Don’t know what they are actually called, but they are guides for the center of the head and where the head faces. Guidelines, you could call them.
*dodges tomato*
Blue lines represent the area where the eyes should fit. They go in the front of the upper left and upper right sections, and fit the contour of the head. On the left, Trigger is facing at an angle, but the right side of the head is still visible. Because of the way the head curves, the entire eye should be visible in that visible section, distorted as it may need to be. It should remain visible until the bridge of the nose curves around enough to block it from view, as in the right image.
It’s a lot easier if you have a nose or chin to use to gauge the center of the head, but if you don’t use either one, well, more power to you. Less work if you don’t need anything to guide you.
I said something about the leg?
*looks back*
Ah, yes. The bit about the foot? Observeth once more.
i12.photobucket.com/albums/a235/mltmlt22/Yuna3.jpg
This is in response to the front-facing shoe in your drawing. The shading goes straight down from the light blue part to the bottom. In the leftmost image here is the official art, and you can see that the bottom of the shoe sticks out quite a bit. You have light shining in curves on the rest of the armor, so you can tell where those parts bend, but the way you shade the shoe makes in look flat, close to the second image. Since the foot is at a slight downwards angle, you might be able to use some coloring like in the third image to indicate the ledge. Or even something like in the official art, if you like. Anything will work, really, as long as you can make out that sharp dip there.
And please pardon the sloppiness. That image was a rush job.
response@pitchviafab.com
No. Not gonna happen. I hate lineart, I can never get it to look right in the smooth look, at least with this it looks kinda like what it's supposed to. While I'll admit it would look better that way, I pretty much have to say I refuse to make it so.
If you think that it would look better that way, I must agree with Fab. You will gain little distance unless you are willing to push forward, and smoother lineart is inevitable for the style you seem to be trying to do. It would also help to improve your coloring, as well as your drawing of bodies, since smooth lines means that you have more distinct boundaries, curves, and angles to work with. The sketchy lines allow you license to be vague about it, but you need to hone your work down to something more distinct and precise.
The sketchy work you’ve been doing thus far could be used as sketches of sorts that you can use to draw these smoother lines. Or you begin sketching with pencil and making your lineart from that, if you like. There are many methods, but you’ll need to choose one sooner or later. And later will only mean more time before you can make any dramatic improvement. Even if your lineart work is bad, smooth lineart is still much easier to correct and to find errors in, meaning we can help more.
Once again, I would recommend learning the pen tool, but there are many other methods. And if you are dead-set on not doing any such lineart, then do you even know where it is you are trying to get to? If you are dissatisfied with what you have now, doing more of the same thing probably won’t help matters any. o.o
But you know yourself better than I do. If you think sticking with this method would suit you better, heck, go for it.
*shakes head*
Anyway.
So many things to respond to. And Fab is making me look bad. I can’t compete with the criticism of a professional artist.
Yet, it was fate that I was lead to this thread. There is more to be said, I’m sure.
Again! *ignores lateness and continues*
response@pitch.com
Well, I can't say I've ever really done a background myself, but I still thought yours was pretty okay. And I suppose something was a bit off about the Master's face, but I sure don't know what could've been done about that. And well, hide some other character
I thought about hiding more characters out to the sides of the image, but I met a slight dilemma.
I was out of time, and I was out of system members. o.o
I could have thrown in more characters, but it would have ruined the system theme. And even if I wanted to do such a thing, I couldn't have drawn and colored them in by the deadline.
I enjoy hiding things, but I failed this round. Next time, perhaps.
Well, I'm not really sure, I mean, what's in a style? I've seen people draw things the normal, generic way that came out amazing. I've seen people try to do things in their own style - shoot, I'm one of 'em - that came out like absolute crap.
As far as style goes, it's actually a dilemma I had in spriting too.. I'm not really sure how to put it, but I'd sit down to do a sprite, and, well, it would look right, but it'd be too simple. It'd look right, but not very good for some reason. I dunno, I've never really had my own style, even when it came to those cheap little sprite edits.
As far as style goes, it's actually a dilemma I had in spriting too.. I'm not really sure how to put it, but I'd sit down to do a sprite, and, well, it would look right, but it'd be too simple. It'd look right, but not very good for some reason. I dunno, I've never really had my own style, even when it came to those cheap little sprite edits.
What is in a style?
Well, I could explain myself by trying to point out proportions, positioning of features within those proportions, the proportions of those proportions to several obscure linear lengths between points along the subject's body, soft and hard coloring methods and their applied results in conjunction with traditional vs. digital methods and the resulting visual contrast, representation of limbs and skin, levels of detail and depth in textures and folds and how it is achieved, and so on. But I don't know any of that.
So let's all watch mlt squirm as he makes something up.
I suppose that there must be some sort of categorization to styles. Some way they can be grouped. I guess that there is a given look about every major art form. Something that can be considered the generic form. It’s been done before, it worked, and then it was done again. But it still works.
The degree to which one deviates from that unspoken (or spoken, depending on how dramatic you want the explanation to be) norm, the less it can be considered generic, though it does not necessarily mean that it will look good.
Individual style can be anything from that generic form down to whatever yet untouched depths the extremities of art might reach (or... that have been reached. Again, with the drama thing), but it has nothing to do with how nice it might turn out. People will sometimes laud more stylized, unique art, simply because of its distinctiveness, though it could be quite horrendous visually. Ultimately, it is a matter of opinion. The attractiveness of extremely stylized art is a tough negotiation.
But you mention generically made art that looks wonderful. This is possible as well. So, if stylized art is so difficult to judge and generic art is far lovelier, why bother with your own style when you can learn the cookie-cutter version?
*ponders for an hour then comes back to complete post*
It is simplicity itself! What is it about the generic art that makes it so beautiful? One of two things, of course. The attention to detail that is put forth, and/or the creative idea or concept that can be made behind the art itself. But creative ideas and detail can be applied to stylized art as well, can it not? Unless you are talking abstract/interpretive art, or something of that sort, it should still work. People can see the work put into it, and, whether like it or not, they will appreciate it. In that way, the art can still look amazing, though not necessarily appealing. But few things do, and it depends on who you ask. It may sound used, but as long as you put forth your best work, you’ve little to be ashamed of.
So, general niceness, style aside, comes from effort, I suppose. It might also depend on the skill of the artist, yes, but skill is gained through effort anyway, and should be credited as such. There is also natural acuteness to points in a drawing that might need attention, meaning less effort, but that does not change my point of more effort = better outcome. In the grand scheme of things, the mass of personal adaptations that make up your own style really just add to the distinctness of your work, perhaps shifting the group of people to which the work might appeal, but not making it any more or less “good”.
You believe your work to have the outward appearance of garbage because of your own perception of beauty. You attempt to meet the standard of beauty that you have set, and, unable to attain it at this point, write your work off as amateur. Your personal work, at this point, does not include you in the group of people that such work might appeal to, so you attempt to change it so as to fit within those parameters.
I had an example written out about a divergent reality where you were the amazing artist and tried to add a twist to your work with a different style than the one you were using, but it sounded very corny, so I scratched it.
Instead, consider this. Perhaps your work looks like it was done incorrectly because you are trying to do it in a manner incoherent with what is naturally correct to you. I have a method that seems to work most of the time: Whatever you might do, always make it seem as though it was intentional. If you seem unsteady in your work, people will pick up on it and take it as a novice’s fumbling. On the other hand, if you can find a single way to work that you can do consistently, or can at least be consistent in your fumbling, then you can pass it off as a polished and practiced style of your own design. It is much more difficult to fault you for that. I try to point out discrepancies in your work and the official art, but if you were to claim that it was all intentional and that you meant for it to come out in such a way, then there would really be nothing left to say.
Now to try to apply this to our current situation. You aim to match the official art (or so I assume, thought I’ve yet to be corrected if it is not true), which opens the way for many people to criticize the work, whether in an effort to help or otherwise. With more practice, you could easily achieve such a thing, but because it is outside of your natural style, it takes more work to accomplish.
Almost always, people seem to automatically despite how they normally draw and instead try to adapt to a style that they think is better. As they make the transition from point A to point B, the intervening work usually ends up looking odd because of the conflict between what they do and what they want to do. But eventually, they end up falling to one side, and it all ends happily, I should hope.
Your style is always influenced by what you’ve seen and observed for yourself, so ultimately, your own style is lost among whatever improvisations you instinctively make in order to achieve work that you are comfortable with. You are shaky because you are not comfortable with your work. If you were comfortable, then that shakiness would probably subside, and you would be left with... well... whatever is left. But you are not and probably will not be for some time, and thus, we move on.
So, to recap. What is in a style, you ask of me?
Effort. Or the intentional lack of effort. It is half effort, half intention, perhaps.
The above makes perfect sense. I probably just phrased it all wrong.
In all honesty, I didn't notice the waist till you mentioned it, and yes, it is thin. I'm not sure how to go about fixing that without making her seem squarish, but that's okay.
I've got one more revision in mind for this picture, but beyond that I really think I oughta try moving on to other pictures.
I've got one more revision in mind for this picture, but beyond that I really think I oughta try moving on to other pictures.
Squarish, eh? I can't really see what you mean, though I suppose it would look a bit stocky if you tried to thicken the waist any more. It might be hard to avoid on such a small body, though. Still, it might be worth a try, simply to see if it looks any better. Perhaps if you were to move the waist up slightly so that the narrowest point is just slightly below the bottom of the breasts, rather than have the chest break into the waist smoothly. Then, there would be more room for the hips where the body breaks into the legs.
Oy, females... not nearly as simple to get right as males, unfortunately.
Not that I’ll be expecting any more updated versions, but it makes for good examples.
Jawbone? Can't say I noticed that, but no, it most certainly wasn't deliberate...
Yeah, the gray things I messed up on. Did those last, actually... >_< They should've appeared to be under the shoulder/arm, but yeah.. Aim pointed that out to me kinda.
No nose, simple eyes? Why no, no there isn't, and yes, yes they are. Your point? Honestly, I tried a nose on this one, I just really didn't like it. I also tried some more complex eyes, the typical style, really, but they didn't seem to be facing the right way. I couldn't get it to look right. It was maddening.
Never considered the left eye smashed, but I suppose it is.. I dunno, I could fix that if I were planning on revising this one at all.
Is the neck covered by that blue thing?... Well, it's not exactly covered, but there definitely is too much of his neck showing. Didn't notice that, though I suppose it is a problem..
I didn't really get the thing about the leg... >_<'
And for the hair, I guess so. That did seem a little off to me.
Yeah, the gray things I messed up on. Did those last, actually... >_< They should've appeared to be under the shoulder/arm, but yeah.. Aim pointed that out to me kinda.
No nose, simple eyes? Why no, no there isn't, and yes, yes they are. Your point? Honestly, I tried a nose on this one, I just really didn't like it. I also tried some more complex eyes, the typical style, really, but they didn't seem to be facing the right way. I couldn't get it to look right. It was maddening.
Never considered the left eye smashed, but I suppose it is.. I dunno, I could fix that if I were planning on revising this one at all.
Is the neck covered by that blue thing?... Well, it's not exactly covered, but there definitely is too much of his neck showing. Didn't notice that, though I suppose it is a problem..
I didn't really get the thing about the leg... >_<'
And for the hair, I guess so. That did seem a little off to me.
Actually, I meant that the gray part should be sticking out slightly, but on a second inspection of the official art, I was mistaken. The shoulder pieces are perfect spheres. So ignore what I originally said. Don’t know what AimMan is saying, though, but if you say he was right, no need for me to crosscheck.
The bit about the nose and eyes was just an observation, really. I don’t know why I said it. Probably just typing to myself. Succinctness is not my greatest strength, unfortunately. I’ll try to leave out the less necessary in the future.
Can’t help you with the bit about the style of the eyes, though. If you give an example of what you were trying to do, I might be able to advise.
Anyway, left eye = smashed. I’m dabbling in areas beyond my understanding with this, but the entire eye should fit into that side of the face, and the entire eye should be visible as long as the side of the face is visible. It just has to be distorted slightly for perspective.
Observeth:
i12.photobucket.com/albums/a235/mltmlt22/Yuna4.jpg
Red lines represent the... eh... those... places. In the center of the face that are represented by such lines. Don’t know what they are actually called, but they are guides for the center of the head and where the head faces. Guidelines, you could call them.
*dodges tomato*
Blue lines represent the area where the eyes should fit. They go in the front of the upper left and upper right sections, and fit the contour of the head. On the left, Trigger is facing at an angle, but the right side of the head is still visible. Because of the way the head curves, the entire eye should be visible in that visible section, distorted as it may need to be. It should remain visible until the bridge of the nose curves around enough to block it from view, as in the right image.
It’s a lot easier if you have a nose or chin to use to gauge the center of the head, but if you don’t use either one, well, more power to you. Less work if you don’t need anything to guide you.
I said something about the leg?
*looks back*
Ah, yes. The bit about the foot? Observeth once more.
i12.photobucket.com/albums/a235/mltmlt22/Yuna3.jpg
This is in response to the front-facing shoe in your drawing. The shading goes straight down from the light blue part to the bottom. In the leftmost image here is the official art, and you can see that the bottom of the shoe sticks out quite a bit. You have light shining in curves on the rest of the armor, so you can tell where those parts bend, but the way you shade the shoe makes in look flat, close to the second image. Since the foot is at a slight downwards angle, you might be able to use some coloring like in the third image to indicate the ledge. Or even something like in the official art, if you like. Anything will work, really, as long as you can make out that sharp dip there.
And please pardon the sloppiness. That image was a rush job.
response@pitchviafab.com
Further suggestions in general... If you're not spriting, get your butt out of Paint! If you have Paint Shop Pro, USE IT! Also, clean up that line art. Messy and stylized is one thing, but scribbling is another. Trigger looks like he's got hairs hanging off him or something. XP Lines can be wavy, they can be thin in some areas and globby in others, fine, but that scratchy mess look just looks awful, IMHO. Getting the line art right is just as important as the shading, or even drawing the picture properly in the first place. I think if you took the time to make some really smooth line art, you'd find yourself feeling a lot better about your skills.
No. Not gonna happen. I hate lineart, I can never get it to look right in the smooth look, at least with this it looks kinda like what it's supposed to. While I'll admit it would look better that way, I pretty much have to say I refuse to make it so.
If you think that it would look better that way, I must agree with Fab. You will gain little distance unless you are willing to push forward, and smoother lineart is inevitable for the style you seem to be trying to do. It would also help to improve your coloring, as well as your drawing of bodies, since smooth lines means that you have more distinct boundaries, curves, and angles to work with. The sketchy lines allow you license to be vague about it, but you need to hone your work down to something more distinct and precise.
The sketchy work you’ve been doing thus far could be used as sketches of sorts that you can use to draw these smoother lines. Or you begin sketching with pencil and making your lineart from that, if you like. There are many methods, but you’ll need to choose one sooner or later. And later will only mean more time before you can make any dramatic improvement. Even if your lineart work is bad, smooth lineart is still much easier to correct and to find errors in, meaning we can help more.
Once again, I would recommend learning the pen tool, but there are many other methods. And if you are dead-set on not doing any such lineart, then do you even know where it is you are trying to get to? If you are dissatisfied with what you have now, doing more of the same thing probably won’t help matters any. o.o
But you know yourself better than I do. If you think sticking with this method would suit you better, heck, go for it.