[arctic2002]

Hey all,

Now, I was hoping to get a post going where expert/professional/very skilled artists and people who are good at detailing pictures, to give a few pointers for the beginner type people who are just switching from old school, hand-drawn art to computer/digitalized art. I know, for one, that people will disagree with me and not post anything to this topic because detailing is what seperates the artists from the scribblers.

I was hoping that people would share their techniques in detailing their artwork. I was look at the dhabih little "how to" guide in going digital. However, I constantly find myself refining pictures with the "smudge tool", giving me bland 2-dimensional drawings which need "exciting" detail to give it some life. But how exactly do you detail the dings, scratches, agings, molds, etc. without making the picture look very pixelized?

So, I hope people (experienced or know what they're doing) will put up some techniques that they go about in refining and detailing their pictures in PS or PSP. Thanks!


-Arctic2002

P.S. In creating flowing hair, do some of you create another layer above the head, and draw wavy hair lines with the paintbrush tool, dodge and burn accordingly, and then smudge to make it look smooth?
_________________
"...I think it's time to blow this scene. Get everybody and their stuff together. Ok, 3, 2, 1, let's jam!..."

[Socar MYLES]

http://www.gorblimey.com/tutorials/5.html

http://www.gorblimey.com/tutorials/6.html

http://www.gorblimey.com/tutorials/fur.html

None of them are precisely about detailing...but they all explain how I paint, including details. My method of painting in Photoshop isn't that popular, though--I think most people like to use a few more of the available tools. But, hey...it's a starting point.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[AndyT]

I didn't exactly get that sentence

[Ian Jones]

np AndyT

[spooge demon]

God doesn't live in the details, I think s/he is more in the gesture. I work hard at eliminating details that are unimportant. But yeah. important details should be done exactly.

I know that this is not everyones thing, so to detail pictures, just make sure you have enough rez and take the time, as much as you can stand.

Think of it this way. You have a pic of a guy standing there that is 2000 pixels high. You think it would be greatly improved by a wristwatch. OK, paint a wristwatch in roughly the same perspective and lighting in a new file, also at 2000 pixels. Then cut and paste and scale. done!

It is harder to make it look good without the watch.

Also tougher to make it look good without maximun color and value contrast that dodge and burn creates.

That tends to be the first reaction if something doesn't look right, more contrast, more detail. If works, but only up to a point.

[Malachi Maloney]

I'm a detail fiend. I'm obsessive, anal about it even........ Probably to a fault if god's watching me paint.

Anyway, everybody's styles and working methods are different, so basically the only advice I can give you (as stated above) is to work at a very large resolution. At least 300ppi or more.

Get in there and paint your details at full resolution, then when you print it or reduce it's size for web viewing all the details tighten up. Resulting in a tightly rendered, highly detailed piece.


Hope my blabbering was helpful.


Malachi
_________________
l i q u i d w e r x

[Matthew]

Wow!

[Drunken Monkey]

weeeeeeeee i am a fanboy.

[Pat]

Detail can be a crutch.

Many artists pile one detail on top of another because viewers respond to them. After all, aren't details like the special effects of painting? It's as if there's some unwritten rule that every square inch of the canvas needs to be painstakingly rendered to the nth degree and then you'll have a good painting. I don't think that's true. I'd say an accomplished artist controls his use of detail so the painting has a visual sort of rhythm. There needs to be contrast --areas where details are less focused so that in other areas where they are needed they'll have more impact.

In some respects it's easier to master the logic of detailing than good painting; they're not always one and the same thing.

-Pat


Details

[Lunatique]

If I could start all over again as a 13 yr-old art fanatic, I would STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM DETAILS.

Believe me, I was a detail freak from early on, and it wasn't until my mid-twenties that I realized I was so so so wrong. It was too late. The bad habit of over-rendering already became ingrained in my brain and it JUST WON'T GO AWAY.

I was fascinated by Bouguereau's work when I was 13 and on up. But in my late teens, I discovered Sargent. From then on, I started to take more interest in a looser brush work than the kind of insane detail that Bouguereu mastered.

I've been struggling to GET RID OF WORKING IN DETAIL for the past few years, and I'm not there yet.

Details are only worthwhile when you use it sparingly. Rendering the entire painting that way is very tedious and very predictable to look at.

But I guess for some people, it's the most desirable style to achieve.

[Max]

I have to agree with Lunatique.
That's totally right.
As I was 14 I also got into detail way too much and just a few weeks ago I realized that it's the worst thing you can do when you start with art.
At this time I rendered from up left to bottom right.....puuhh
Now I am 15 and I try to understand the whole construction and placement of forms and their volumen and perspective.
I don't care much about shading and stuff at the moment at least not in my pencilwork.
Yes, sometimes it's good [for me] to paint/draw a finished detailed pice of art but as long as the proportions etc. is wrong (which is in my art) it doesn't make much sense, at least for ME.
You can learn alot more in the same time you paint a hyper detailed image.
Well, that's my opinion......

[spooge demon]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with detail, it is just that it is generally the focus of beginning artists to the exclusion of more basic and important stuff. A solid head is good whether it has detail or not. And I don't mean naturalistic drawing only.

Beginning artists gravitate to detail and contrast like moths to a flame. It takes years for them to realize that that amazing pectorals they spent three days rendering is not sitting on the ribcage. "I meant to do that!, that's my style!" Why I don't teach anymore. Good drawing is a prerequisite to just about every kind of representational art there is. If someone is weak here, it screams from 952 miles away, especially to those who know better. I am still struggling to learn how to draw, it is really hard and takes a lot of effort. For years I was not even aware of my vast ignorance. That is probably still true.


Good drawing is, well, it is tough to say, but I think of it as clarity of thought revealed on paper. Look at the le soupe guys- they draw really really well, but it is stylized. Look at Disney animators drawings, does not look like a photo but it is excellent drawing. Look at Rockwell, looks like a photo, it's good drawing too.

So my thought is for a beginner to focus on design and drawing and structure and not worry about the details.

But, with that foundation, details are great. Mister B could draw a lot better than some of his contemporaries, IMHO. And yes, Sargent was an athlete of drawing. Different levels of detail, really great art just the same.

[sear]

really wise words in here... thanks for sharing..

REDUCING TO THE MAX, that's it


to quote a friend of mine (frost)

I would say that the amount of high frequency details take away from the impact of the image, in the sense that high-detail or high-contrast should be kept in places of interest to bring those parts forwards. Simplifying the artwork and focusing on the overall readability of the image is something to work on.

[Drunken Monkey]