A few new 1920x1080 wallpapers i've made
[T]https://images3.alphacoders.com/686/686932.png[/T]
[T]https://images2.alphacoders.com/687/687732.png[/T]
[T]https://images3.alphacoders.com/686/686647.png[/T]
Looks professional, smart and easy to read. Very nice work.
I did a rubix thing.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/wiClq4h.gif[/img]
Here's some music to go with it.
[url]https://youtu.be/AqnPA93C8lg?t=3m40s[/url]
Your avatar dances along to the music too. :v:
[t]http://orig04.deviantart.net/8a2f/f/2016/083/e/7/shadow_form_by_yangkee-d9w903n.png[/t]
i just had an idea in pathfinder and i just liked it so much i had to draw it
the way that it works just makes no sense and i love it
Waiting for Mirror's Edge Catalyst to come, so I did this.
[IMG]http://img08.deviantart.net/f250/i/2016/082/d/7/mirror_s_edge___faith_by_tsurumikun17-d9w5tue.png[/IMG]
Background looks solid but faith is a mess. Work on using fewer brush strokes more efficiently so your texture doesn't become so clotted and congested.
[QUOTE=Supermatic200;49989855]Waiting for Mirror's Edge Catalyst to come, so I did this.
[IMG]http://img08.deviantart.net/f250/i/2016/082/d/7/mirror_s_edge___faith_by_tsurumikun17-d9w5tue.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
It looks like she was about to pull a sick parkour move but then heard someone talk shit about her.
Your colouring and shading is pretty solid though, did you use a reference?
[QUOTE=Blind Weasel;49991894]It looks like she was about to pull a sick parkour move but then heard someone talk shit about her.
Your colouring and shading is pretty solid though, did you use a reference?[/QUOTE]
I used some reference images yeah. Basically just to know the details like her face, tattoo, pouches and shoes though.
I do have works that heavily rely on the colours from reference images. Like these:
[IMG]http://pre15.deviantart.net/b171/th/pre/i/2016/073/7/4/mirror_s_edge_environment_fast_sketches_by_tsurumikun17-d9v3ctn.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img10.deviantart.net/cc3e/i/2015/294/5/a/mountain_digital_painting_by_tsurumikun17-d9c5rst.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Supermatic200;49991964]I used some reference images yeah. Basically just to know the details like her face, tattoo, pouches and shoes though.[/QUOTE]
Oh okay, I recommend using references for poses as well and how to draw limbs etc. Don't shy away from using references especially when practicing.
[QUOTE=Blind Weasel;49992019]Oh okay, I recommend using references for poses as well and how to draw limbs etc. Don't shy away from using references especially when practicing.[/QUOTE]
Use references when not practicing too - use them all the time. Professionals use them constantly. Not doing it is like choosing to work on a black-and-white CRT.
Anybody who notes that they 'didn't use references' for a painting has a grossly incorrect set of ideals when it comes to making any sort of art for commercial use
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49992118]
Anybody who notes that they 'didn't use references' for a painting has a grossly incorrect set of ideals when it comes to making any sort of art for commercial use[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry - but this is a really crude opinion.. and its being stated like a fact.
There is a difference between using references and creating one yourself - such as a rough sketch.
In professional/commercial fields of any kind, you want to build an idea of the big picture first.
Building the big picture does not mean you must take references directly from another thing.
Believe it or not, there are human brains that have the mental skills to reprocess visual memories without deviation from precise angles/shading. There is no need for a reference model outside of what these people already memorized beforehand. They understand the mechanics beyond simple comprehension. They can take one visual memory and entirely re-adapt it because they understand it on a nearly intuitive level.
It not a common skill, its rare. Its real though, and I'm willing to bet that there is quite a handful of individuals that work professional careers in art and design who might have a few words about your statement above.
References aren't required for everybody - its up to you and the talent you are blessed with.
[QUOTE=Glock Samson;49993725]
I'm willing to bet that there is quite a handful of individuals that work professional careers in art and design who might have a few words about your statement above.
[/QUOTE]
and they all would agree with maloof
[QUOTE=Glock Samson;49993725]
References aren't required for everybody - its up to you and the talent you are blessed with.[/QUOTE]
i'm sorry but this really makes me question if you know what you're talking about
[QUOTE=Glock Samson;49993725]I'm sorry - but this is a really crude opinion.. and its being stated like a fact.
[B]There is a difference between using references and creating one yourself - such as a rough sketch.[/B]
In professional/commercial fields of any kind, you want to build an idea of the big picture first.
Building the big picture does not mean you must take references directly from another thing.
Believe it or not, there are human brains that have the mental skills to reprocess visual memories without deviation from precise angles/shading. There is no need for a reference model outside of what these people already memorized beforehand. They understand the mechanics beyond simple comprehension. They can take one visual memory and entirely re-adapt it because they understand it on a nearly intuitive level.
It not a common skill, its rare. Its real though, and I'm willing to bet that there is quite a handful of individuals that work professional careers in art and design who might have a few words about your statement above.
References aren't required for everybody - its up to you and the talent you are blessed with.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's really an opinion. In the same way that 'setting your ISO to 20,000 and taking grainy, underexposed photographs is going to make your clients find a new photographer' isn't an opinion. It's just a statement that explains and perpetuates good practice.
I don't understand what you mean in the bolded bit - are you using a different definition for 'reference'? I'm defining it as 'photographs, drawings or physical objects related to the subject matter that you are attempting to design or depict'. This means sourcing both from the real world and from existing media products.
I also don't understand what you mean about the 'big picture' stuff. If you're not looking at similar products and getting a sense for what else is happening in the field/genre that you're working in, you're risking producing stale work or missing your demographic entirely.
There are people with eidetic memory, but they're pretty rare and I don't get why I'd tailor a general bit of solid advice for a tiny, tiny minority. Unless you're talking about the construction and use of a (mental) visual library, which isn't some skil you're blessed with or not, it's just a product of hard work. You build it by drawing a lot, and you can recall that stuff to use in your designs.
Whenever you're drawing or designing something, it's good practice to use reference. Whether it's a creature, vehicle, architecture - whatever. Whether or not you've got an eidetic memory, a solid visual library or no experience with your subject matter at all, not using references is hamstringing yourself. Relying purely on memory is going to produce stiff, stale designs that are probably similar to things you've done before. It doesn't allow you to explore, through searching, the thing you're depicting, nor does it allow you to explore and discover neat and helpful things that will help you depict the nuance of the particular client's needs - you may know how to draw a bridge at noon, but you may not know how to draw an overgrown, Victorian-era bridge on a humid day. And sure, you can make educated guesses about how these things would look. But references are absolutely going to help you construct a solid and believable image. Choosing not to use them is not a good move.
I might be wrong! But I cannot think of a single instance in the commercial art world where it's a smart move to not use reference images.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]I don't think it's really an opinion. In the same way that 'setting your ISO to 20,000 and taking grainy, underexposed photographs is going to make your clients find a new photographer' isn't an opinion. It's just a statement that explains and perpetuates good practice.[/QUOTE]
Umm. What are you talking about?
You're comparing an idea that somebody portfolios a low quality finished-result product (grainy photographs, what?) to my argument regarding your overgeneralized statement. That comparison is entirely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]I don't understand what you mean in the bolded bit - are you using a different definition for 'reference'? I'm defining it as 'photographs, drawings or physical objects related to the subject matter that you are attempting to design or depict'. This means sourcing both from the real world and from existing media products.[/QUOTE]
We are all sharing the same definition of reference.
No need to be condescending.
Basically, I was making a statement on what the difference between using literal references (photographs, models, etc) and mental references comes down to, and why you are incorrect for assuming that all references used must come from a literal source (photographs, models, ETC.).
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]I also don't understand what you mean about the 'big picture' stuff. If you're not looking at similar products and getting a sense for what else is happening in the field/genre that you're working in, you're risking producing stale work or missing your demographic entirely.[/QUOTE]
Familiarity is a given with any approach to a theme or element. I never once said anything against this.
I suppose I will repeat myself again, because this question warrants the same answer:
You do not need a model or photograph when entering your production phase.
You study what needs to be given study. You make notes. You may use visual references if you wish, because its up to you, you give yourself what you need to make it happen.
[B]You are not REQUIRED to use visual references - you may not need them.[/B]
Do you understand?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]There are people with eidetic memory, [B]but they're pretty rare and I don't get why I'd tailor a general bit of solid advice for a tiny, tiny minority.[/B][/QUOTE]
:speechless:
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]Unless you're talking about the construction and use of a (mental) visual library, which isn't some skil you're blessed with or not, it's just a product of hard work. You build it by drawing a lot, and you can recall that stuff to use in your designs.[/QUOTE]
I'm familiar with muscle memory.
That is not what I was talking about either.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]Whenever you're drawing or designing something, it's good practice to use reference. Whether it's a creature, vehicle, architecture - whatever. Whether or not you've got an eidetic memory, a solid visual library or no experience with your subject matter at all, not using references is hamstringing yourself.[/QUOTE]
There is nothing wrong with using models or pictures. I never said it was.
I'm here because I want to publicly state that I entirely disagree with you on the subject that ALL individuals require a visual aid.
I do not believe an individual with eidetic memory would be fond of using visual references while in the live production of their work.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]Relying purely on memory is going to produce stiff, stale designs that are probably similar to things you've done before.[/QUOTE]
Speak for yourself.
I watched myself and many friends develop unique approaches and techniques through repeatedly drawing the same general idea over and over again.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]It doesn't allow you to explore, through searching, the thing you're depicting, nor does it allow you to explore and discover neat and helpful things that will help you depict the nuance of the particular client's needs - you may know how to draw a bridge at noon, but you may not know how to draw an overgrown, Victorian-era bridge on a humid day. And sure, you can make educated guesses about how these things would look. But references are absolutely going to help you construct a solid and believable image. Choosing not to use them is not a good move.[/QUOTE]
Again - I am not against people using visual references.
Furthermore, you need to see a Victorian bridge to know what theme it carries.
Seeing it, and remembering its distinguishing qualities - allows you to re-create the bridge regardless of having its visual (photograph, sketch) copy present during your hands-on productions.
This all depends on how well you make note of the details
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49993987]I might be wrong! But I cannot think of a single instance in the commercial art world where it's a smart move to not use reference images.[/QUOTE]
I think you're wrong.
I'm not going to do a quote-by-quote breakdown because time is tight.
I'm sorry if you thought I was being condescending - I was trying to make sure we were all on the same page.
I'm stating best practice for any visual design or other commercial art project. No client is going to hold a gun to your head and force you to pull out reference images for your project. But for all the reasons I elaborated on, you [I]should[/I] use references.
Sure, not everything in an image needs to be referenced. If I have a character eating an apple on board a zeppelin, I'd reference the shit out of the zeppelin but probably wouldn't think twice about drawing a generic apple. If there's a distant bridge I might just draw some lines and pillars and be like 'eh, it's a bridge'. But the minute it needs to be an actual designed object with some prominence in the product, it's gonna need to have references images.
The point of reference images is
-to give you real designs to influence your imagined ones, thus giving them plausibility
-examples of shape language to help your designs emote whatever they are supposed to emote
-fresh ideas and insights on how otherwise unrelated objects could influence your design
-a board of stuff to share with your design team or art director so that you're all on the same page regarding the direction of the product
Half of this you can maybe get away with if you've got an eidetic memory. But even then, you have to have pushed that eidetic memory and your design process really far to hold all of those images in your head as they would appear on a reference sheet and juxtapose, compare, make connections with each of them, etc.
And for the vast majority of people with boring old regular memories - the human memory is ridiculously plastic and changes constantly. Unless you're drawing the same thing every day, there's no way you're holding enough information in your visual library to confidently design a well thought out product for a client without sourcing references.
Like if you draw tanks, and the only thing you ever draw are tanks, and you spend hours every day drawing tanks, then sure, you might not need reference images to design a tank for somebody. That will take your design somewhere. And iterating on ideas will take you further. But having reference images will accelerate any design you're working on and will bring in fresh ideas (especially if working for a speculative fiction product). Maybe when you're 45 and you're well-known as 'that guy who can design tanks' you could get away without using reference images.
Regarding my comment on why I wouldn't tailor my advice to be wishy-washy to accommodate people with eidetic memory - I'm pretty certain if somebody can clearly visualise absolutely every image they've ever seen, they're intelligent enough to know that certain rules that apply to 99.9% of the rest of the world surrounding memory and good design needn't necessarily apply to them at all times.
[editline]24th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glock Samson;49994252]
Speak for yourself.
I watched myself and many friends develop unique approaches and techniques through repeatedly drawing the same general idea over and over again.
[/QUOTE]
Can I ask what industries they work in/want to work in, and can I see some of their work?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49994463]
No client is going to hold a gun to your head and force you to pull out reference images for your project. But for all the reasons I elaborated on, you [I]should[/I] use references.[/QUOTE]
So, basically - [B]its not required.[/B]
Thanks for actually debating with me Maloof.
Its much more stimulating then having someone rate me dumb.
I'm not sure if its loyalty or ignorance - but there is a lot of it in this thread.
[QUOTE=Glock Samson;49994974]So, basically - [B]its not required.[/B]
Thanks for actually debating with me Maloof.
Its much more stimulating then having someone rate me dumb.
I'm not sure if its loyalty or ignorance - but there is a lot of it in this thread.[/QUOTE]
So you drug out that whole discussion on a stipulation between "required to" and "should" use?
Well jeez guy if you just want to argue say something and people will gladly oblidge, but there's no need call people out because you got offended over a rating.
Maloof clearly had it handled anyway, I personally didn't see a need to type out a paragraph so say basically what he was saying.
Maloof was a good sport. I respect anybody that is willing to drive their point, same as mine.
I don't think anything was "drug out", except for your reply.
you don't [i]have[/i] to use reference, but try putting 'i don't use reference!' in your CV when sending portfolios off to studios.
[img]http://jul.rustedlogic.net/images/smilies/words.gif[/img]
WIP for artstation challenge C+C please
[img]http://i.imgur.com/WIlV73b.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Skerion;49986289]I did a rubix thing.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/wiClq4h.gif[/img]
Here's some music to go with it.
[url]https://youtu.be/AqnPA93C8lg?t=3m40s[/url][/QUOTE]
I didn't think the music would match so [i]thickly[/i]
like I feel insulted by the 00's new age arcadey game aesthetic nostalgia
[QUOTE=salmonmarine;49999564][img]http://jul.rustedlogic.net/images/smilies/words.gif[/img]
WIP for artstation challenge C+C please
[img]http://i.imgur.com/WIlV73b.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
the perspective looks off on the top part
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
