Creative Work That Doesn't Deserve A Thread V6 <3v3ryb0dy Hypocrite Critiques Edition>
5,000 replies, posted
i'm literally crying
now you are one of us! one of us, one of us
gooble gobble gooble gobble
tbh i'd rather see 10 versions of dgg's rat posted than these stupid discussions you guys have
yeah i said stupid!!
Well, I turned the setting of my mermaid painted into nighttime and added DoF.
[img]http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5057/1680x1050nf.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=strider;29053344]tbh i'd rather see 10 versions of dgg's rat posted than these stupid discussions you guys have
yeah i said stupid!![/QUOTE]
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/What.png[/img]
Wait a minute... THERE WERE 15!
[QUOTE=Maya2008;29053407]Well, I turned the setting of my mermaid painted into nighttime and added DoF.
[img_thumb]http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5057/1680x1050nf.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Well at least now the light source can be explained by a blitz.
my first ever attempt at using oils
WIP
[IMG]http://gyazo.com/a1349853e17acd2d4dd9298613e0a505.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=k00lwhip;29046779][img_thumb]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljbegegbyM1qg4tzxo1_500.jpg[/img_thumb]
also by far my most favorite water color image i have done
the black border is Ink of India but the rest is ink and water color. i love water color man.[/QUOTE]
I like the way you've broken out of the border's frame. However it might be a bit too uniform, you have 1 fish pushing out on each border, kind of makes it look too planned and "art'ed?" rather than a piece that looks naturally crafted. Usually artists will tell you to stay away from even things in the line of art, what you have is two big fish on the right and left, and two small fish on the top and bottom, a bit too uniform, some more diversity would have broken that up a bit. Not saying what you have now is bad, it works brilliantly for your composition, however it could have been slightly improved by diversifying what is breaking which border. (even numbers are evil apparently)
Your focal point seems to obviously be the golden/yellow fish. There are plenty of rules to follow when it comes to focal points, direction, color separation, isolation, rhythmic, value separation, and some more. The only thing I see you have on here in terms of determining your first focal read would be color separation, however, even that isn't just strong enough. You have separation from yellow to red and blue. Red on blue contrasts a lot more than yellow on blue, so the yellow fish you have on there isn't as strong and bold in terms of colors as it could have been. My suggestion would have been desaturate the blues to cool greys every along the side the red fish and left the saturated blues only to surround the yellow fish and push it out more than the others. Another thing I would suggest you could have added into this piece was a rythmmic sense towards a focal point. The reason I suggest this is because not many pieces can actually have an oportunity to use this method, because of a statically drawn image/backgrounds, however in a piece like this where you have beautiful flowing water running inbetween multiple fish, you could have directed the viewers eye around with the waves of the water towards or from the golden fish without necessarily pointing towards the fish itself. I feel it would have added a lot more to the piece than randomly added splashes of water. Values on the golded fish could have been a bit more separated than the rest of the painting. Either lighter or darker. At least some temperature change to give it a more distinct feeling.
A sense of chaos is given to your piece, and it works very well in a place like raging waters of sorts. Good job on that. However I'd still like to see a chain of hierarchy in terms of focal reads. As in what would be the most in focus, and what would be the last/least in focus. Right now when I first look at the painting my eyes just jump all over the painting in an non flowing unorganized matter. The tail on the red fish on the right seems to have the most focal power due to its dark and saturated contrast with the water behind it, and then comes in as the second read the golden fish, then following the flow of the yellow fish, the third read would be the red one on the bottom, thus leading you out of the painting before you've even seen the ones at the top. This forces the viewer to manually look back up at the painting and force himself choose what to look at, rather than have your painting guide them throughout the piece. However tiny this issue might seem, it's still a great thing to consider when creating composition of a painting.
[QUOTE=skam;28929969]some drawings of mine
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/309659/IMG_7266.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/309659/IMG_7273.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/309659/IMG_7267.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/309659/IMG_7271.jpg[/img_thumb]
C&C please[/QUOTE]
I was planning on critiquing your piece a while back, however I forgot to actually do it.
First off with the skeletal hand, you have some minor proportional issues. Actually most being minor except for the pinky finger. You have it almost just as long as the ring finger. Each of the phalanges are almost up to the exact size of the of the ring finger itself, and you even have the distal phalanges a bit longer than the one on the ring finger. I think the main problem with it's length is that you have some of the carpal bones pushing the pinky out too much. Some other minor stuff like the distance at where most of the phalanges start are too equidistant, all our phalange have different lengths, and should not start at the same heights (talking about proximal phalanges and up). As for the shading on the hand, nice placements, they help determine some plane changes with using minimal effort on your part. However your line direction is lacking in sense. I'd suggest using more curvaceousness lines to give a better sense of roundness to the cylindrical shapes of the bones. As in wrap the line art around the bone structure, rather than add short bursts of straight lines. Using both these kind of lines are important also, as straight lines would help better determine plane changes and the other more curvaceous form wrapping lines would help determine form and shape.
As for your other hand drawing. You seem to be doing the opposite of your problem in the skeletal sketch, you are not giving enough information for plane changes, in a piece rendered as much as this, you should have given more thought to it. All your linework/shadows flow to wobbly, and without structure. Proportional problems exist as well, like the index finger being a lot smaller than it should be. But the main problem again I mention is the lack of plane changes. This is extremely important especially in hands. As they are the main tool of an artist to determine the direction of each finger and joint. If you're not sure as to what plane changes are, well it's basically when you have light hitting a surface, then that surface was to bend at a certain angle, the part that's bending in an angle would be differently shaded than the part being hit in direct light. What you have done is rounded everything. Nothing looks like it really is changing angles, everything just looks like cylinders. To give good form and shape to hands, plane changes are important, especially on fingers. Have the top of a finger be one value in whole, then the side be another value on it's own, then if you'd like to, render the transition between the two planes better. What you've done is blended all the planes together and it's not really giving a good sense of form at all.
I won't be critiquing the second picture you have on there, because well I'm not entirely sure what's in the piece, however critique for technique will be covered in the final pic of the still life. What you have here with the banana is an excellent show of plane change, and nice flow of line work. Overall your line work is shown excellently and most of the previous problems aren't existent in this piece. Couple of things I'd like to talk about though. Compositionally speaking your values are too grayed out. You have no sense of local tone in this piece, everything is one value of gray with lighting being the only method of changing values. This doesn't work well when trying to convey a piece that shows some form of atmospheric depth and a good balance of composition. What you have right now is something that looks flat, because of everything being almost the same value with each other, if you were to blur out your vision just a bit, everything would disappear. Not saying add a huge amount of contrast, but at least some would help the composition of the piece. Like pieces in the back could be a bit more faded/washed out, while pieces in the front could definitely be darker and have a lot more contrast. This will help add a lot of 3 dimensional depth to your piece. You are lacking a focal point in this piece. One of the main things still lifes are meant to do is train you in terms of finding a compositionally balanced set and try to have it read well with a variety of different focal reads. Here everything is contrasting and clashing with each other, if you were to concentrate on the banana, the sliced peach distracts me, if i were to look at the peach, the pomegranate pulls me away, and it just goes back n forth. What I see is you might have tried to arrange the pieces in a way so that you follow a circular path of knife, pair, pomegranate, banana, then peaches. However this would have been better pulled off with having a darker handle on the knife, which would pull you in as the starting point of the piece, and have the blade be lined on one edge with a dark line that pulls you into the peach. Have the peaches shadowed side be higher in contrast as it's also nearer to the light source, it would also help pull you up away fro the knife into the pomegranate and back to the banana down to the sliced peaches. Also the back tip of the banana is a bit choppily rendered.
Nice job overall though.
This is turning out really scary.
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/ScaryVector.jpg[/img]
I think I'll go for something different.
lets hope that was ur intention
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29053945]lets hope that was ur intention[/QUOTE]
Sadly not.
I was trying to find out a way to make it fit together with the bottom part here:
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/ScaryVector2.jpg[/img]
And thus a clean vector style wouldn't have worked out.
But then where the heck to add the details? Other than hair... Well, bottom point is it turned into that.
nice flourishes, did you do them yourself?
[QUOTE=Autumn;29054050]nice flourishes, did you do them yourself?[/QUOTE]
Sadly no. Found them and tweaked parts of them here and there and compositoned them.
well theyre nice so probably not
HEHE im just kidddin dgg razzin ur berries
[editline]9th April 2011[/editline]
aw fuck i was right what an unintended sting im sorry
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29054063]well theyre nice so probably not
HEHE im just kidddin dgg razzin ur berries
[editline]9th April 2011[/editline]
aw fuck i was right what an unintended sting im sorry[/QUOTE]
Ahahaha. No I think it's quite clear to see that I didn't make them both by how they look in comparision as well as the general quality of my works as a whole.
No sting taken.
Just pills.
Lots of em.
[QUOTE=theLazyLion;29053832]lots of interesting informative helpful words[/QUOTE]
Thanks man! I appreciate it.
I know this isn't really creative work, but it is related to it and don't want to make a whole new thread. Does anyone know why in Paint.Net, if i make the background transparent, it Copies the Transparency instead of ignoring it, defeating the purpose?
Say, i have a red square with a transparent hole in the middle. If i copied the square and moved it over a green plate, the transparency is copied as well. The green inside the hole is replaced with Transparency, instead of green being inside.
[QUOTE][IMG]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/funny2.png[/IMG] Funny x [B]1[/B][/QUOTE]
Wait what
[QUOTE=strider;29053344]tbh i'd rather see 10 versions of dgg's rat posted than these stupid discussions you guys have
yeah i said stupid!![/QUOTE]
Go back some pages and you'll see 20.
Finished 7 pieces today in art..
Damn I'm good
[QUOTE=NateDude;29055282]I know this isn't really creative work, but it is related to it and don't want to make a whole new thread. Does anyone know why in Paint.Net, if i make the background transparent, it Copies the Transparency instead of ignoring it, defeating the purpose?
Say, i have a red square with a transparent hole in the middle. If i copied the square and moved it over a green plate, the transparency is copied as well. The green inside the hole is replaced with Transparency, instead of green being inside.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to come off as impatient, but i would like an anwser.
[QUOTE][IMG]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/ratings/box.png[/IMG] Dumb x [B]1[/B][/QUOTE]
:smith:
[QUOTE=JoeyZ;29055924]Finished 7 pieces today in art..
Damn I'm good[/QUOTE]
depends on the quality really
[QUOTE=JoeyZ;29055924]Finished 7 pieces today in art..
Damn I'm good[/QUOTE]
well gee looks like JoeyArrogant walked into the house today
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29056310]well gee looks like JoeyArrogant walked into the house today[/QUOTE]
Bow down
[QUOTE=JoeyZ;29056330]Bow down[/QUOTE]
so are you going to show us any of the 7 pieces of perfection you've create Mr. Dickey?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29056394]so are you going to show us any of the 7 pieces of perfection you've create Mr. Dickey?[/QUOTE]
Alas, your mortal eyes could not comprehend their beauty.
In related news, I had a talk with my teacher about self confidence today.
guys be NICE to eachother
[editline]8th April 2011[/editline]
>:(
