lieutenant protrait

Make art for user-made content.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting critique in this forum, you must read the following thread:
User avatar
sacred_chao
Posts: 32
Joined: December 15th, 2007, 11:53 pm

Post by sacred_chao »

thespaceinvader wrote:Jetryl has very exacting standards for mainline work *shrug* i guess this isn't up to them.
Grandfathering in work of a lower than necessary doesn't really help.
From the context I think you may misunderstand the term "grandfathering". Grandfathering means that, when new standards or rules are brought in, some or all preexisting 'grandfathers' are exempted. New submissions cannot be "grandfathered".

For example, the Dwarf Guard portrait (IMO) wouldn't be accepted if it was submitted today (too simplistic and 'cartoony'), but since it's already in there it's being left until something better comes along.

If you were just commenting that the left-in grandfathered art confuses new artists as to the required standard, I tend to agree.
All things are true. Especially false things.
User avatar
thespaceinvader
Retired Art Director
Posts: 8414
Joined: August 25th, 2007, 10:12 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Post by thespaceinvader »

I probably did misunderstand - it was my understanding that this was the process of adding substandard work to the project because you like the work's author and feel that they should get in whether their work's good enough or not. Certainly that's a context i've seen it used in.
http://thespaceinvader.co.uk | http://thespaceinvader.deviantart.com
Back to work. Current projects: Catching up on commits. Picking Meridia back up. Sprite animations, many and varied.
User avatar
Federalist marshal
Art Contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: December 17th, 2007, 12:02 am

Post by Federalist marshal »

I myself don't fully understand why this protrait can't be accepted. I don't see how, after a lot of polishing, why this portrait doesn't meet the standards. I know it needs work (perhaps, a LOT of work), but I think that the final product (which may very well be in sharp contrast to the original concept), would meet standards.
But apparently, I'm wrong. Why I'm wrong, I don't know (I'd like to know, though). But regardless, I want this portrait to at least end up as part of a campaign. And that, I am sure, can be achieved.
Well, thanks to the holidays, I can't post my progress, but I can't go anywhere without the help of all the other art contributors, so please, continue to comment and suggest.
User avatar
Jetrel
Posts: 7242
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Post by Jetrel »

thespaceinvader wrote:I probably did misunderstand - it was my understanding that this was the process of adding substandard work to the project because you like the work's author and feel that they should get in whether their work's good enough or not. Certainly that's a context i've seen it used in.
Yeah, I think that's a valid way to use the word, although the other one that was mentioned is very common, too.

Federalist marshal wrote:I don't see how, after a lot of polishing, why this portrait doesn't meet the standards. I know it needs work (perhaps, a LOT of work), but I think that the final product (which may very well be in sharp contrast to the original concept), would meet standards.


Semantically speaking, yes, you could "after a LOT of polishing," bring this up to snuff. But that would literally be years of polishing. You've got so many technical errors in this drawing that the alterations you'd need to do would basically change the drawing completely.

By the time you're actually good enough, this individual drawing will be far, far away in your past.
Federalist marshal wrote:But apparently, I'm wrong. Why I'm wrong, I don't know (I'd like to know, though).
Basically, this is like that scene in any childhood, where the kid builds a robot out of cardboard and aluminum foil, and doesn't understand why it won't go. Why it wont stand up and do robot things, and instead just sits there lifeless.

So if I may, I'll try and illuminate some of the skills/errors you're lacking, and don't realize you're lacking:
Anatomy: You're drawing from memory/insight, and you're missing out a lot of things and/or drawing them wrong. Anatomy is basically science, and a good part of it is the old "the hip bone connects to the leg bone". There are thousands of rules like that, though, that make up the field, and attempting drawing without actually studying up on these rules will probably result in you breaking a bunch of them without realizing it. The arm in lieutenant 4 is one example; his shoulder construction has none of the elements of a real shoulder; it's just a amorphous blob, like gumby. Real shoulders are made of a number of separate parts, which combine to make the final shape. Another example is the face - every single one of these has a receding chin. Every single one of these has a random line on the cheek - you're probably doing that because you've seen some drawing of "stoic, angular men" which had a line there, but you've failed to consider WHY it had a line there. You only should draw such a thing if the same conditions are true for this drawing - those would be that the person has the same facial shape, the light is coming from the same angle, the surfaces surrounding the face are reflecting light back at the face in the same proportion; etc, etc. It was not there because "it's that kind of character and those kinds of characters always have a line on the side of their face". Vis-a-vis for the cleft chin.

The best way to tackle this is to actually buy a book on the subject. Christopher hart makes a good one called "Human Anatomy made amazingly easy" - look for it on amazon.


Perspective: The way that shapes recede in the z-axis is wrong. Most of those visors don't curve correctly, assuming they're symmetrical. This is pure science again - you can use a 3d rendering program, or a photograph of real model to "fix" this nebulous 3d shape onto a 2d plane, so you'd know how it's shaped from a given angle.

Linework: Why do we make drawings out of lines? Objects in the real world don't have these marker outlines on them, so why does it work when we put them on a drawing?

The reason lines work for us is that human minds are good at recognizing shapes. Objects in the real world have no outlines, but they do have places where there is dramatic contrast between two arbitrary points. I like to call these edges; if you look at, say, a person's face, there will be no dark line around the edge of the face. But there is a place where it changes from the color or brightness of his face, into that of the background. The reason lines work for indicating these edges is that when we draw them, the sections of paper they cordon off are exactly the same shape as the real object. It's like the old Rorschach ink blot trick, or seeing shapes in clouds. If we divide the paper up into the same shapes of light and dark, and/or of "this color and that color", we can see the thing we're depicting.

Now here's the trick - linework can be better than just indicating the same shape if you take a few other tricks into hand. Linework conveniently is dark, and your paper is usually white. When you lay down linework, you can lay it down in different thicknesses, and you can make these thicknesses match up with the sections of the real object that are light and dark. The line at the highlighted edge of his far cheekbone might be very thin and faint, the line under his chin where his neck is in shadow might be very thick, leaving more dark area on the page, there.


Symbolic shapes versus real shapes: Probably the worst sin you're committing, though, is that you're using "symbols" to draw things. Huh?

Basically, for different features, you've learned "a quick method to do it in a few steps". Like the eyes, for example, you're drawing all the eyes as ovals with a dot in the middle. That's too simple; that won't ever look like anything but a child's drawing of an eye. In fact, from some angles, like the side, that won't even look like real eyes do at all - from the side, eyes are shaped something like wedges. Drawing an eye well has a ton more steps to it, and a ton more details you need to indicate.

Your problem is that you've decided you already know what an eye looks like, and after you run through your little program, and draw the oval and the dot, you think that you must be done. It's wrong, but hey, you did it "the way you learned to draw eyes", so clearly, it must be alright. That's the big fallacy here - you're assuming that that's all there is to it; that you already know everything important about drawing eyes. Or noses, or cheeks, or chins, or whatever. You tackled the problem once, or were taught by someone once, and now you know how to do it.

Wrong. It never, ever works that way. You never suddenly stumble on the "master blueprint" of how to draw a nose. You cannot follow a recipe; you have to reconsider the problem every single time you draw one. You have to rediscover how to draw a nose every single time you draw one, because the appearance of any nose will change radically if the slightest thing is different about the setting - if the light is coming from a different angle, if the face is turned slightly. You can't just draw them the same way every time and hope they'll be right. They'll almost never be.


You have to re-evaluate your whole method behind drawing; you can't draw facial feature #1, follow the recipe to make it, and then draw feature #2, and follow the recipe to make that. There is no recipe. You have to make one up from scratch every time.

In a way, it's like musical improvisation, versus playing from sheet music. You have to make it up as you go; BUT, you can't just do completely random stuff. There are underlying principles that will determine if it is good or bad - for example, certain notes (chords) sound good when played together, and other combinations don't. Any good sheet music was originally improvised; even if it was written by a composer and not actually played, he had to make it up from scratch. You can't just imitate what worked for someone else, it will usually fail for you if you do that blindly - you need to figure out WHY it worked for them.

A good book that helps for this is "drawing on the right side of the brain". Look for it on amazon.

:eng: Anyways, that should be enough to keep you busy.
User avatar
Federalist marshal
Art Contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: December 17th, 2007, 12:02 am

Post by Federalist marshal »

Semantically speaking, yes, you could "after a LOT of polishing," bring this up to snuff. But that would literally be years of polishing. You've got so many technical errors in this drawing that the alterations you'd need to do would basically change the drawing completely.
I don't see anything really wrong with actually spending years working on it. It's not as if I would spend every second of those years working on it.
By the time you're actually good enough, this individual drawing will be far, far away in your past.
I think I'll remember this attempt quite nicely, even after years since it's inception. It's the first time I stepped out of my comfort zone as far as art goes.
Yeah, that'll keep me occupied for quite awhile. I do understand what I'm supposed to do, though.
But there's no reason why this portrait can't serve as the image I apply all this on, right?
User avatar
Thrawn
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2047
Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
Location: bridge of SSD Chimera

Post by Thrawn »

Federalist marshal wrote:
Semantically speaking, yes, you could "after a LOT of polishing," bring this up to snuff. But that would literally be years of polishing. You've got so many technical errors in this drawing that the alterations you'd need to do would basically change the drawing completely.
I don't see anything really wrong with actually spending years working on it. It's not as if I would spend every second of those years working on it.
By the time you're actually good enough, this individual drawing will be far, far away in your past.
I think I'll remember this attempt quite nicely, even after years since it's inception. It's the first time I stepped out of my comfort zone as far as art goes.
Yeah, that'll keep me occupied for quite awhile. I do understand what I'm supposed to do, though.
But there's no reason why this portrait can't serve as the image I apply all this on, right?
I'm glad that you realize and seem to accept the commitment! That is something that most people give up when they encounter. Great start--you seem to have part of the attitude necessary.

Also, it's good that you seem to understand what Jetryl says you need to work on.

What Jetryl means is give up trying to edit this picture into a workable piece. Part of this process is not focusing on one "project." Instead, spend your time following jetryl's advice on what to improve (using the method I descibed) Put actually working on this on the back burner until you have the basics down. The, as you get the fundamentals solid start working on this again, with all that you learned in mind.

If you only focus on this as you try to improve you will]/b] get frustrated. You'll also be narrowing your goals, because (even if subconsciously) you'll keep focusing on this, rather than improving in general.

Hope this helps explain--if I'm misreading Jetryl's intentions then I'm sure he'll correct me, and further enlighten you.

Merry Christmas (unless you aren't Christian, in which case have a great time celebrating the holidy of your faith!)
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott

this goes for they're/their/there as well
User avatar
Federalist marshal
Art Contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: December 17th, 2007, 12:02 am

Post by Federalist marshal »

Very well, then. I'll take this one off the shelf after a few years, if someone doesn't already make another portrait by then.
But what should I do now? Should I find a book and learn from it? Or should I try another portrait?
commanderkeen
Posts: 183
Joined: November 16th, 2006, 6:41 am
Location: In your browser cache!
Contact:

Post by commanderkeen »

Make portraits for User-made Campaigns. UMC's (as they are called) often use portraits that don't make it into mainline. Have a look at the campaigns in the dev version that have missing or inadequate portraits and make some. Even if they aren't up to mainline standard as such, the campaigns in the dev version are missing stuff, and were put in dev mainline in the hope that it would encourage people to improve them.
User avatar
Blueblaze
Posts: 418
Joined: June 24th, 2007, 12:16 am

Post by Blueblaze »

Jetryl's response,
The best way to tackle this is to actually buy a book on the subject. Christopher hart makes a good one called "Human Anatomy made amazingly easy" - look for it on amazon.
User avatar
Federalist marshal
Art Contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: December 17th, 2007, 12:02 am

Post by Federalist marshal »

Sounds reasonable. So, unless someone objects, I'll go ahead and make something for a UMC. Does anyone know a UMC which I could help?
Samantha
Posts: 65
Joined: December 13th, 2007, 3:50 am

Post by Samantha »

I think that drawing completely from imagination is very difficult to do. Personally, I get the feeling that these drawings are the first things to hit the paper. What I would suggest is that you get yourself a bunch of pictures of whatever you want to draw and create a quick sketch. The quick sketch, to get it right could have a lot of extraneous lines to it to help with setup etc... And you should have a lot of them for different things such as one to set up composition, another to set up posture, expression, another to set up shading. Only then should you start to work on the finished piece.

The prep work will never look "professional," I don't care how well you do it it's not going to work. Then what you need to do is to get a tool that gives you a lot of freedom and that you are comfortable working with. I personally like to work with metalpoint dip pens for my finished drawings because they provide a wide degree of freedom between line widths. An electric ink eraser helps a lot too ;-)
User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

Jetryl wrote:The best way to tackle this is to actually buy a book on the subject. Christopher hart makes a good one called "Human Anatomy made amazingly easy" - look for it on amazon.
Is this really a good book to go with? Just from flicking through various art books, Hart has always seemed oversimplified and cartoony to me.

P.S. AFAIK "grandfathered" officially means "There's a new policy but old instances are exempt". It's possible an unofficial meaning has fallen into common use, though...
Samantha
Posts: 65
Joined: December 13th, 2007, 3:50 am

Post by Samantha »

I would actually discourage the use of how-to-draw books like (what I gather) Heart books. The problem that I have with them is that they teach a formulaic method of drawing that becomes a crutch circumventing the real problems that aspiring artists have.

The real problems that I find artists struggle with when creating a work are twofold.

The first problem is obvious. In order to create a good drawing the artist has to have good control of the medium that the artist is working in. In other words, the artist has to have the ability to use the medium to recreate what the artist has in his or her head and transfer it on to the paper. The solution to this is easy, get some books on the specific medium for pointers and practice making abstract marks until you can reliably make any arbitrary mark that you can think of and have it come out exactly like you intended it to.

The second problem is less obvious: most people don't actually know what things look like! Don't believe me? Try turning around in your chair right now and describing your desk lamp including it's colors, shapes, and relative proportions ect... Just spend a lot of time looking at the objects that you want to draw to better internalize what they look like!

Of course, a lot of mediums require a great deal of simplification to handle correctly so you need to not just study the actual items but how other artists interpret the items that you wish to draw.

One of the classical ways to learn to draw is to do masterwork studies where you simply copy other people's work as faithfully as you possibly can. This is part of the "knowing what things look like" solution because, in drawing the piece, the artist gets a much more intimate understanding of the drawing that they are copying than they otherwise would have simply looking at it. This also is part of the brute mechanical practice as it provides the artist an opportunity to get used to the medium without having to worry about creating a composition; also it allows the artist to compare their work directly to what it "should have" looked like.

Of course, the most important thing to remember is that you are drawing for yourself, and not for other people (even if they are paying you; don't tell your client this, however). Enjoy the process of learning, you are not going to be creating masterworks overnight so unless you learn to enjoy the process you will never reach your goal.
User avatar
Federalist marshal
Art Contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: December 17th, 2007, 12:02 am

Post by Federalist marshal »

For me, part of the problem is that I have less experience drawing faces and armor. The bulk of my experience comes from drawing machinery. Apparently I got cocky and thought that was enough. Oh, well, this is all learning experience, I think.
As far as drawing books go, I never find the right one. Everyone draws with a different style, so everyone prefers different books.
Anyway, I appreciate the suggestions, as I am sure they will help me, but I would still like to contribute to a UMC, and I would appreciate it if someone would post some recommendations.
Post Reply