[Fatpo]

Greetings,
Here is a pass at a painting of a plumber. (I am still working on her outfit). I think her face is a little flubbered a bit, any tips on cleaning the lighting for it, I'm worried its starting to look overworked.

Cheers,
Po

[Awetopsy]

Arent plumbers supposed to be fat and have a crack??? j/k

well I dont know I think the face is alright but definetely loose the lens flare.

the shading on the rest of the body is not consistant with the face, thats why the pic doesnt quite look right. try matching shading with face and body. make the darks ion the face darker like on the hands.

hope that helps a bit


------------------
I think Im wearing out my CTRL-'z'
http://noelsart.cjb.net

[Bizarde]

well, i can't give you any tips about the colouring stuff. she have some anatomy problems, and you have to fix it before you corect the shading and stuff, here:
first. the link between head and neck is in a wrong place, so if you move the link point a bit to the right, i guess will be better
second. her right arm is way too short
hope have sense

and about the light/shading and stuff, i submit above.
now, don't hate me for all this.

btw i like the idea and the pic, nice colours/mood

don't hate me

~bizarde



[This message has been edited by Bizarde (edited January 24, 2001).]

[Anthony]

There's the skeleton of your figure. Not pretty is it? Many many things are misproportioned. The neck's too long, the hips are too big for the size of the shoulders, the face is out of wack as far as proportion and perspective, the breasts are too high up, the stomach is too long, the hands are HUGE, the arm is in an unnatural position, and the left leg is bent abnormally. Good luck with it-the rendering itself is OK, just think about anatomy first. Just trying to help ya become better. ;]

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[Digital Genesis]

I for one dig this picture.

I don't have much to say about cleaning it up, but I don't like the criticism you're getting.

Sometimes realism is not what someone goes after at all.

If Everyone drew accurately proportioned people, where the heck would the fun be?!

There certainly wouldn't be such a thing as Manga..
A great deal of Comics illustrators in the states would have to pack it up as well.

The only thing that bugs me are the breasts which look too strange. However, the big hands and elongated proportions, etc - are all valid artistic expressions.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

[Fatpo]

I take crits in stride, so I'm not too worried DG). This style has a bit of charicture, and a bit of graf influence so these proportions are contrasting and boyant (i.e. very thin waist vs. big hips), that was intended. However, that being said, there is no reason why it cant be accurate in its exicution. Having proper joints and musculature connections, along with lighting will only make it better IMO..

--Po

------------------
icq #3597721
[email protected]

[skyediver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digital Genesis:
Sometimes realism is not what someone goes after at all.

If Everyone drew accurately proportioned people, where the heck would the fun be?!

---

Gotta disagree with you there. At the basis of any strong piece of artwork is a solid foundation, if you will. (ie- composition and ANATOMY) It doesn't matter if you're a virtuoso colorist, shader, etc, because no amount of expert coloring/shading can make up for an image with a poor foundation. Let me try and re-phrase. If the picture isn't solid from the very beginning, it's going to look funny no matter how much you do with it afterward.

The thing is to get your anatomy down before you start messing with it. I confess I hate doing realism myself, but the fact of the matter is I can do a realistic figure when compelled. That way, when you start playing with proportions, your figure will still be "believable". No, I'm not counting SD/chibi anime kids or caracatures (sp?) of people with huge faces and teeny bodies.

I think the matter of anatomy and proportions are two slightly different things. Anatomy seems (IMO) more concerned with having your body parts in the right places. =) Proportions (look up the word, people) deals with the size of one thing in PROPORTION to another. So an SD person has a head way out of proportion to the rest of his/her body. The trick is to try and balance them out. People I draw tend to have relatively large heads and narrow bodies, but it more or less evens out with the big feet (biggest complaint I get) and hands. Most of the time anyway. =P


So at this point, I more or less forgot what I was talking about, and decided to stop typing. Maybe if it comes back to me I'll post later. To sum it up, correct anatomy is not a bad thing. Just defending the opinion of those who crack down on my ass all the time...

[Horg]

I think skyediver is right. Even is the person you are trying to draw is heavily caricaturised (well something like that), there must be a basis on the antomical side. As I heard so often, Crap-In-Crap-Out (not saying yours is crap-in though)

[black_fish]

I think Skyediver is talking out of his ass. I don't want to be insulting but saying that 'the basis of any strong piece of artwork is a solid foundation' - in that case, anatomy - is just ridiculous. What about Picasso? What about Monet? What about Pollock? And what about Ingres? If you don't know this artist, he was a very realistic painter from the 19th century who was disregarding proper anatomy for a purpose.
So what the fuck with anatomy as a basis for 'good' art? And I don't even talk about cartoons, anime/manga, wghich are artforms that frequently forget everything about anatomy.
Please skyediver, you have the right to like 'solid foundations' but don't be so pompous in lecturing other people about what should be 'good art'.

PS: I'm not as pissed as I sound Don't take it too hard

[Fatpo]

Hehe, "if you cant take the crit, get out of the kitchen...". No worries at all. I have a tendancy to 'gloss' over some technicals and focus on mood. thanks for the points.

[waylon]

black_fish: I'm not too familiar with Ingres, and I don't think Pollock really applies to this conversation, but if you think that Picasso and Monet didn't learn the foundations of art before moving on to a more stylized approach, you're way off. Before you can get truly good at abstracting the human form, you have to understand it. If you look at some of Picasso's earlier sketches, they look like anyone else's beginning work - poorly proportioned, but not because it was a stylistic choice, but because he wasn't very good yet. He was still learning how people are put together, and of course, developing his own style at the same time. That's what set Picasso aside as a visionary - he developed something new based off of real life. Anyone can draw poorly proportioned humans. But you really have to know what you're doing to draw non-realistically proportioned people and make it look RIGHT.

The one exception is when you're drawing from a formula that someone else has developed - take manga art, for example. Early in this century, Disney artists created a very distinct style of cartoon. A few decades later, Japanese artists took the disney style, exaggerated certain aspects, toned back others, and basically came up with a "formula" for manga - big head, big eyes, tiny nose, etc. They were visionaries. They came up with something new, based on life, and on the work of other artists. Nowadays, plenty of people can draw anime, but they aren't really creating something all that exciting. They're just following a formula, laying out certain proportions that other artists figured out.

So I guess, getting back to my main point, if you're going to abstract the human form, and do it well, you have to have an understanding of anatomy. I bet if you research any abstract artist who deals with the human form, you'll find that they put in their time taking figure drawing classes, and they probably didn't develop their abstract style until later. And if they did get away from realism early on, they probably suck.

[Horg]

Not bad, but her breast is waaaay too high on her chest. Reverse-gravity chick ? As well her hips/butt seem to be quite large.

[anticz]

black_fish,
What waylon said is correct. The artists you mentioned had a very well developed sence of proportion before they moved on to develope their own styles. You have to understand the rules BEFORE you break them.

Fatpo,
I realy like this piece but, as other's have mentioned there are some basic anotomy problems that could improve this a lot. Here's a quick paint over with a coupl suggestions. These may or my not improve this image. Hope a few of them help.



------------------
=======================
Mike B. - Supervising Janitor
anticz.com
=======================

[duckstab]

I really love those huge gloves she has on and the huge wrench, very nice work there Fatpo

Nice to see someone not being so picky about anatomy etc when they draw, i think this image has more charecter than most anatomically correct paintings / drawings

Keep up the good work.

------------------
An ether eating Eskimo would gag upon your sight, convulsed into oblivion from laughter or from fright.

[Tree Merchant]

A lens flare!?#%$

[synj]

How come nobody ever tells me the skulls wont fit inside my flatheaded guys.

Judging by the style it sure doesn't look like he was going for complete realism. If I had to say it I'd say this was more cartoony, hence the skeletal structure stuff not being at any signifigant at all.

IMHO the lens flare was used properly. Get off it already, it's not null and void for everything ever again.

i was expecting some kinda fat lady bent over under someone's sink pantry hehehe

keep up the cool work!



------------------
synj industries, inc.

[seas]

fatpo: if you render the lensflare on a black layer and then change blending mode to screen you can change the colours to make it blend in more with the surroundings, instead of having that ugly green/blue tint to it.

[Fatpo]

Woot, thanks Seas I never thought of that, I always found it a pain that you did it over a final rendered layer, I wonder if the same would work for lighting effects?. Oh, and please pardon my spelling of the word execution in that last post.

[skyediver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by black_fish:
I think Skyediver is talking out of his ass.

---

I imagine that'd be anatomically impossible. And fyi, I belong to the female half of the population, thanks.

Don't worry, I'm not offended (I don't think). But I still more or less stand by my opinion. Thanks to waylon for giving that extra two cents, I think at the moment my brains are too fried for me to have considered that. Though I do remember that plenty of picasso's early work was very realistic.

And I'm sorry if I come off as pompous, because I was just giving my own OPINION. I'm not trying to shove my views down other people's throats. And did I use the word "good art" anywhere? Nope. I get plenty of crap from art teachers about what is "art" and what is not. As for the way I like to draw; they usually stick their noses up and say that it's not.

And if you didn't notice, I tried to seperate the words anatomy and proportions, as they often get confused (and lead to misunderstandings like yours). And as for cartoons, anime/manga forgetting anatomy completely, I wouldn't be sure. I mean, hey, two legs, two arms, and a head connected to a torso. That's anatomy, yes?

The meaning of an english word is usually debatable, and I'm not fond of confrontation (sigh). Unless someone tells me I'm talking out of my ass. =)

[black_fish]

Skyediver

You didn't say 'good art' you said 'strong piece of artwork'. Sounds about the same to me.
You also can be a woman and talk out of your ass. Anybody can do it. I do it all the time.

To make it short: I think it is stupid to talk about rules when you're talking about art. That's my opinion and it's worth about nothing, but since it's a free country and a free message board I feel like writing it.

Now let me go back to my weak artwork...

[skyediver]

I think "strong piece" is something entirely different. Art can be "good" and not be a strong piece, which is why I did not say "good", understand? English is such an inadequate language for such things. Maargh... that's a good word to decribe what I'm thinking. =P

I wasn't talking about rules, either. But face it, humans look a certain way, and to draw an effective human, they have to be drawn in a way that makes them LOOK human. (aargh human used too many times there) Call them rules, call them what you want. But it depends on the type of art that the artist is creating. And as for this specific pic, I'm thinking it's not abstract/inmpressionist/what-the-hell-ever.

But Fatpo agrees with me, so nyah! (sticks tongue out in a brief lapse of immaturity) And I do NOT talk out of my ass. =P

[Anthony]

It's a cop out and rediculous to suggest that any anatomy goes because "who's to say what's right?" That's just foolish. Skilled artists who have spent any time drawing people can draw realistically. That includes manga artists, who are often very skilled figure artists. The reason is that to make a figure convincing it must be anatomically consistent. Sure, you can go off the deep end if you want, but if you don't learn realistic drawing first, you're just scribbling. Personally I can't stand Picasso, except his early drawings. But I can see where his studies paid off even in his most abstract pieces. Monet was good anatomically-don't know where he comes into it. He just wasn't as accomplished in that area because it wasn't as important to him.

Perhaps if Fatpo was trying to create a new paradigm of inconsistent anatomy he would have succeeded. But he wasn't, by his own admission. Look at a comic book-you see exaggeration, but you also see good anatomy. Look at manga. You see really crazy styles, but you also see good basic anatomy. Look at Disney. Those characters wouldn't look right if they didn't have a solid anatomic base. If you try to get good at figures, even cartoons, without knowing basic anatomy, you're just kidding yourself, and will be stuck doing sunday comics. If you advance past that, then you have already started to learn good anatomy.

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[Collosimo]

Cool pic.

Regarding this discussion though, I think despite correct or incorrect 'Proportion' or 'Anatomy' you should strive to make a figure look convincing! Sure as people have pointed out, those breasts defy gravity. There is however some relevance in making the hands so big. I think this is good because it emphasises them and the large wrench. A caricature, comic style! Its good. Can you see that there is a difference between 'Correct Anatomy and Proportion' and 'Effective Anatomy and Proportion'?

I think its a combination of Correct and Effective sides that would make this pic look better. Sure there are gravity defying breasts, but the style of them and the rest is effective in portraying a character.

I think your pic is good! But you need to fix a few things up so that it looks and works more effectively. Lower those breasts, fix that center line, other than that the neck and forehead as already mentioned.

Fatpo uses the work 'Credibility' and this is kinda what I meant by 'Effective'.

Credible, is the character credible? <<Thats important above everything!

Any comments on my ideas?

------------------
/COLLOSIMO

[Fatpo]

Greetings,

Skyediver, Horg, Waylon, Anticz all have an excellent point. A good foundation is key to final exicution. Although the rendering is 'attractive', it is does lack some basic foundation elements. If I had take a little extra time establishing some of these details in the line drawing it would have only helped the 'credibility' of the final work. I agree, we shouldnt use 'flavah or style' as a crutch for understanding the workings behind our concepts.


Re: lens flares. Hehe, yeah they are chimpy. However, when I put it on, that bottom circle looked like a water drop got on the lens to me. I plan on exploring this a little more.

Cheers,
Po

[black_fish]

I totally agrees with you Collosimo.


On the other hand it's totally cool to be lectured by people about correct anatomy and correct proportions (and also about what makes art 'strong') when obviously they don't really know anything about it

[Collosimo]

Black-fish: I dont think they were lecturing you. I think they were trying to say what I did. Just didnt click in there minds to say it. It's true you need anatomical and proportional understanding. On the other hand you also need style, expression and mood etc.

Its a proccess that involves both 'rules' and 'expression'. All for a Credible and effective character portrayal.

ONCE AGAIN! COOL PIC!

------------------
/COLLOSIMO

[Bradford]

realism isn't always the objective. you can tell this piece isn't. i think if he wanted to the girl's figure to look more real he could do it if he wanted to.

------------------
[email protected]
icq:3704871

[Krazy]

damn lots o replys...i like but the legs are a lil big for my taste looks good other wise