[QUOTE=!LORD M!;39445739]A WIP of a Daemonette of Slaanesh from the Warhammer universe. Still lots to do.
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/6232cca3bd35003637a5fe5faa10a77e/tumblr_mhkxyawFb51rt1xsno1_1280.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
This is the kind of stuff I want to be able to draw.
Super inspiration right here
A really choppy first try at animated gifs:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/QzzC8ip.gif[/IMG]
EDIT:
And another one:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qr5gMZp.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Ehanced_AI;39437992][t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8702336/AI_Drawings/2013/46_Jan30.png[/t][t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8702336/AI_Drawings/2013/47_Jan30.png/[/t][t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8702336/AI_Drawings/2013/49_Jan31.png[/t][t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8702336/AI_Drawings/2013/50_Jan31.png[/t][t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8702336/AI_Drawings/2013/51_Jan31.png[/t][/QUOTE]
I like your shadows and bouncing light, you're getting pretty good at that. Better than me anyways.
[QUOTE=normandy;39445331]Ah, the weekend. I finally get to draw.
[IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/2e6egki.png[/IMG]
Here's a WIP of one of my fav fantasy astronauts. Man, I need to draw more guys.[/QUOTE]
Hey what brush settings do you use to get that blending/gradient within the brushstroke? Really liking the style.
Oh my god this took way too long.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/b9Xsvce.gif[/IMG]
Pretty fucking happy with the results though.
[QUOTE=PLing;39451478]Hey what brush settings do you use to get that blending/gradient within the brushstroke? Really liking the style.[/QUOTE]
If she's using Photoshop then it's just the Transfer setting.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/Transfer.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=dgg;39451635]If he's using Photoshop then it's just the Transfer setting.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/Transfer.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I realised the other day that I very rarely use pen pressure for anything these days
I just find it easier to use the numpad to change my opacity as required
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39451825]I realised the other day that I very rarely use pen pressure for anything these days
I just find it easier to use the numpad to change my opacity as required[/QUOTE]
pen pressure is 1000000000x better
[QUOTE=MenteR;39452006]pen pressure is 1000000000x better[/QUOTE]
I disagree personally; it just doesn't fit into my workflow any more
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452115]I disagree personally; it just doesn't fit into my workflow any more[/QUOTE]
well you should start using it because it's better. that explains why i always get that muddy feeling from your paintings. (even the new ones)
if you started using pen pressure you're gonna dive into a world of top notch hookers and jack daniels.
[QUOTE=MenteR;39452133]well you should start using it because it's better. that explains why i always get that muddy feeling from your paintings. (even the new ones)
if you started using pen pressure you're gonna dive into a world of top notch hookers and jack daniels.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how lack of pen pressure can cause muddiness; muddiness is caused by decisions in picking colours and values
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
It also depends on what you mean by 'muddiness', seeing as it's a pretty vague term that people tend to throw around a lot without specifying whether they're talking about values, tones, forms, etc
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
My reasoning is that nine times out of ten when I'm laying down a stroke, I don't need the opacity to vary at all along the length of it. So I find it easier to just pick my opacity from 1-10 using the numpad than have to be concerned about how hard I'm pressing.
I'm not saying it's wrong to do it this way or that my way is the better way of working, so I'm not sure why I'm getting disagrees. I'm just saying that this is what works for me and my workflow
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452154]I don't see how lack of pen pressure can cause muddiness; muddiness is caused by decisions in picking colours and values[/QUOTE]
Using opacity desaturates your colours and flattens your values.
[QUOTE=dgg;39452369]Using opacity desaturates your colours and flattens your values.[/QUOTE]
it's going to do that whether you use a soft-edged brush, manual opacity control or pen-pressure opacity control. Pressure-based opacity control is no different in terms of colour blending to manually setting the opacity
Proper understanding of colour and not taking shortcuts in creatiing gradients (i.e., manually picking as many shades as you can instead of just picking two and using opacity to blend them) will sort out muddiness in that regard
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452406]it's going to do that whether you use a soft-edged brush, manual opacity control or pen-pressure opacity control. Pressure-based opacity control is no different in terms of colour blending to manually setting the opacity
Proper understanding of colour and not taking shortcuts in creatiing gradients (i.e., manually picking as many shades as you can instead of just picking two and using opacity to blend them) will sort out muddiness in that regard[/QUOTE]
Completely wrong, using opacity only gives you one solid mix of whatever is underneath, using transfer gives a gradual change that gives tons of more control and a natural transition.
You'll have to do a hell lot of work to get the same result that you get with transfer if you use opacity.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/TransferVSOpacity.jpg[/img]
Also to answer the question about muddiness. If your paintings look muddy then it means it's very flat, the values are very similar and there is a general lack of contrast, colours tend to be a coloured greytone and there is usually a lack of any shapes or forms contrasting themselves from the environment. It's muddy, grumsy, foggy, smeared, whatever you wanna call it.
[QUOTE=MenteR;39452133]well you should start using it because it's better. that explains why i always get that muddy feeling from your paintings. (even the new ones)
if you started using pen pressure you're gonna dive into a world of top notch hookers and jack daniels.[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly sure Feng Zhu doesn't use pressure sensitivity for opacity/flow. It kinda makes sense, since you don't have that sort of control in painting. If anything muddiness will come as a result of poor use of pressure sensitivity rather than a lack.
[QUOTE=dgg;39452494]Completely wrong, using opacity only gives you one solid mix of whatever is underneath, using transfer gives a gradual change that gives tons of more control and a natural transition.
You'll have to do a hell lot of work to get the same result that you get with transfer if you use opacity.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/TransferVSOpacity.jpg[/img]
[/QUOTE]
I don't see any difference in colour quality other than the smoothness of the gradient; something that can easily be achieved using manual opacity settings with some practice
[QUOTE=dgg;39452494]
Also to answer the question about muddiness. If your paintings look muddy then it means it's very flat, the values are very similar and there is a general lack of contrast, colours tend to be a coloured greytone and there is usually a lack of any shapes or forms contrasting themselves from the environment. It's muddy, grumsy, foggy, smeared, whatever you wanna call it.[/QUOTE]
That's what I meant - perhaps a better adjective should be used. That's far too much information regarding potential shortcomings to be contained within the phrase 'muddy'. I'd rather we use 'lack of contrast' or 'greytone/undersaturated colours' or 'blurry' to give some real useful feedback rather than just an umbrella term that could mean any of those things.
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
My comparisons
[IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/83454840/Images/Untitled-1.jpg[/IMG]
Using pressure sensitivity for this example was pretty enjoyable and I forgot how it feels to use; it's nice
But it's a matter of preference and convenience rather than 'this method has a better result because of x'
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
The notion that one method gives you an unrealisticaclly coloured and oft. undersaturated gradient ('muddy') while the other doesn't is incorrect. From a technical standpoint, the processes are the same; there's no difference in the way photoshop calculates the HSV of the pixels beneath a straight 50% opacity stroke or a 20-100% pen-pressure opacity stroke. If you're picking your values properly and keeping an eye on your colours as you lay them down, either method works well.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452749]I don't see any difference in colour quality other than the smoothness of the gradient; something that can easily be achieved using manual opacity settings with some practice[/QUOTE]
1. Opacity has a clear quality loss. In order to change the opacity you have to stop painting, so you get overlaps where you wouldn't get them with transfer, which causes an extra line separating the one opacity from the other (which is where using 100% opacity and changing your values manually instead comes in).
2. The red is way less red and vivid and shows whatever is underneath it completely whereas with transfer there is a lot of variation in the strength of the opacity and the layer underneath makes the red a more orange tone where it's transparent, with opacity it's purely red with some yellow shining through, no orange hints at all.
3. If you want to blend you have to do it stroke by stroke with the eyedropper tool, this is a wasteful way or working, you're spending more time on doing something you could have done in one stroke. You have gotten used to this slow and tedious way of working, sure, but you should really pick up on using transfer instead because it gives you more control and saves you a lot of time on the details. Using opacity can have it's use, but it seldom is the better choice because of the problems it gives, it's better to adjust the flow than opacity if you're deadset on using that instead of transfer.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452749]That's what I meant - perhaps a better adjective should be used. That's far too much information regarding potential shortcomings to be contained within the phrase 'muddy'. I'd rather we use 'lack of contrast' or 'greytone/undersaturated colours' or 'blurry' to give some real useful feedback rather than just an umbrella term that could mean any of those things.[/QUOTE]
Saying that a painting is muddy is usually because it is all of those things, it's up to the artist whether or not they agree, as long as you know what they mean then it's up to you to look at the painting and see why they may think it looks muddy and if it is something you want to change. Alternatively ask them to be more specific if you think they are too vague and you can't see it.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452749]My comparisons
[IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/83454840/Images/Untitled-1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
And here we can see how the opacity causes very clear banding and will require minutes of tedious eyedropper picking and stroking to smooth it out, which is something you can do in one fell swoop with the transfer option. The shape is completely clear, the strongest point on opacity is also not as vivid and deep as the transfer one. There is really nothing about the opacity result that says that it is better than the transfer.
Also you seem to have mixed up the placement of opacity and transfer.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452749]Using pressure sensitivity for this example was pretty enjoyable and I forgot how it feels to use; it's nice
But it's a matter of preference and convenience rather than 'this method has a better result because of x'[/QUOTE]
Transfer objectively has better results than opacity. Opacity should only be used if you are looking for the results it gives you, like banding and more muted or tinted colours. If you want to paint an image that has flatter values and doesn't really pop, then using opacity is a clear winner and will require a lot more work as well.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39452749]The notion that one method gives you an unrealisticaclly coloured and oft. undersaturated gradient ('muddy') while the other doesn't is incorrect. From a technical standpoint, the processes are the same; there's no difference in the way photoshop calculates the HSV of the pixels beneath a straight 50% opacity stroke or a 20-100% pen-pressure opacity stroke. If you're picking your values properly and keeping an eye on your colours as you lay them down, either method works well.[/QUOTE]
From a technical standpoint they operate differently with the same basis, the one gives much more control than the other as well. With opacity you can not get 22,3543% opacity that gradually goes up to 24,5342%, this lack of fluid transition is why opacity falls on it's ass and should be used to achieve a certain look, rather than being used as a do-it-all tool.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/rxEysxi.png[/img]
Batz
[QUOTE=dgg;39453105]1. Opacity has a clear quality loss. In order to change the opacity you have to stop painting, so you get overlaps where you wouldn't get them with transfer, which causes an extra line separating the one opacity from the other (which is where using 100% opacity and changing your values manually instead comes in).
2. The red is way less red and vivid and shows whatever is underneath it completely whereas with transfer there is a lot of variation in the strength of the opacity and the layer underneath makes the red a more orange tone where it's transparent, with opacity it's purely red with some yellow shining through, no orange hints at all.
3. If you want to blend you have to do it stroke by stroke with the eyedropper tool, this is a wasteful way or working, you're spending more time on doing something you could have done in one stroke. You have gotten used to this slow and tedious way of working, sure, but you should really pick up on using transfer instead because it gives you more control and saves you a lot of time on the details. Using opacity can have it's use, but it seldom is the better choice because of the problems it gives, it's better to adjust the flow than opacity if you're deadset on using that instead of transfer.[/QUOTE]
If we disregard the banding of the colour that occurs to some extent in both of the examples (the transfer one simply because I haven't had a lot of practice in using pen pressure recently), I see no difference in the quality of the colour where the lower opacity strokes in each overlap the background.
[QUOTE=dgg;39453105]
Saying that a painting is muddy is usually because it is all of those things, it's up to the artist whether or not they agree, as long as you know what they mean then it's up to you to look at the painting and see why they may think it looks muddy and if it is something you want to change. Alternatively ask them to be more specific if you think they are too vague and you can't see it.
[/QUOTE]
You have a point
[QUOTE=dgg;39453105]
And here we can see how the opacity causes very clear banding and will require minutes of tedious eyedropper picking and stroking to smooth it out, which is something you can do in one fell swoop with the transfer option. The shape is completely clear, the strongest point on opacity is also not as vivid and deep as the transfer one. There is really nothing about the opacity result that says that it is better than the transfer.
Also you seem to have mixed up the placement of opacity and transfer.
[/QUOTE]
Opacity and transfer markers are in the right places, I'm fine with the 'extra work' required when using manual opacity; it has no bearing on the final image quality and should be regarded as a personal choice re: process
I don't see any visual difference between the outcomes in terms of colour quality.
[QUOTE=dgg;39453105]
Transfer objectively has better results than opacity. Opacity should only be used if you are looking for the results it gives you, like banding and more muted or tinted colours. If you want to paint an image that has flatter values and doesn't really pop, then using opacity is a clear winner and will require a lot more work as well.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dgg;39453105]
From a technical standpoint they operate differently with the same basis, the one gives much more control than the other as well. With opacity you can not get 22,3543% opacity that gradually goes up to 24,5342%, this lack of fluid transition is why opacity falls on it's ass and should be used to achieve a certain look, rather than being used as a do-it-all tool.[/QUOTE]
Again, not fussed about the banding. I've been doing it for so long that I can quickly get smooth enough gradients when I want to. I also often enjoy having visible brush strokes.
I'm not seeing anything that suggests that using opacity gives muddier colours than transfer. My point about the technical colour was regarding how photoshop deals with the hsv of pixels; neither opacity control nor transfer settings give great results unless you use them in conjunction with good manual colour picking to create a gradient. Relying on opacity or transfer to take you from shadow to highlight without picking any colours in between is going to look like balls.
[B]My only real concern in this discussion is retention of colour quality and having good, realistically coloured values.[/B] The results are identical for opacity and transfer.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AytxHN8.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39453352][B]My only real concern in this discussion is retention of colour quality and having good, realistically coloured values.[/B] The results are identical for opacity and transfer.[/QUOTE]
You need to calibrate your monitor or something, I blocked out the different colours that came out in my example for you.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/TransferVSOpacityColourStripes.jpg[/img]
Can you honestly not see how much better the Transfer option handles colour?
Transfer: Yellow-orange - Orange - Orange-red
Opacity: Pale orange - bright red - saturated red
[QUOTE=PLing;39451478]Hey what brush settings do you use to get that blending/gradient within the brushstroke? Really liking the style.[/QUOTE]
I use the Paint Tool SAI oil brush on a single layer. I've got Blending, Dilution and Persistence around 50.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
Sorry for sparking such a big debate....
Oh, and I'm a she, not a he.
[QUOTE=normandy;39454643]Sorry for sparking such a big debate....[/QUOTE]
You didn't spark any debate so you have nothing to apologize for. Also why is having a discussion a bad thing?
It's not, it's just leaving a lot of gaps between content. It's no biggie. I've used both the transfer and opacity methods in photoshop, and I prefer the opacity method.
[QUOTE=dgg;39454488]You need to calibrate your monitor or something, I blocked out the different colours that came out in my example for you.
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655193/TransferVSOpacityColourStripes.jpg[/IMG]
Can you honestly not see how much better the Transfer option handles colour?
Transfer: Yellow-orange - Orange - Orange-red
Opacity: Pale orange - bright red - saturated red[/QUOTE]
I see slight desaturation on the leftmost band of the opacity section as well as a trend towards desaturation; are you colour picking in order to get your gradient or are you simply using low opacity and building up the gradient gradually?
[IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/83454840/Images/Untitled-2.jpg[/IMG]
(Original image split apart just to show that all strokes being sampled have been painted above the same base colour so that they're consistent)
The image above demonstrates that if you use a bunch of low opacity brush strokes (say 10% opacity) to build up a soft edged form it has the same hsv results as using transfer; so the only thing that should effect your decision on the use of each one is convenience. For me, I like to slap down brush strokes quickly and not worry too much about whether I'm pressing hard or soft; therefore manually setting the opacity for each stroke works best for me at this point in my life.
The way I tend to work when I'm doing actual paintings is pick a few tones in the gradient, block them in, then use low opacity to blend them - laying down a low opacity stroke, picking from that stroke, then laying down another one, keeping a close eye on the hsv and re-doing a stroke when the hsv has become muddy or otherwise undesirable. You'd have to do the exact same if you were using transfer.
more character animation. cleaned up this time.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DoZsuaI.gif[/IMG]
(pretend the lines are a couch)
You've got good follow through and arcs, but you might like this for future reference:
[URL="http://www.silmanjamespress.com/shop/pc/Character-Animation-Crash-Course-p3406.htm"]http://www.silmanjamespress.com/shop/pc/Character-Animation-Crash-Course-p3406.htm[/URL]
It's cheaper and shorter than Illusion of Life.
-Snip
Nevermind
This page started off pretty well but took a sharp turn for the worse
Pretty rough little landscape to practice colours..
[img]http://i.imgur.com/oaCS88w.png[/img]
Trying to figure out colours for something like this was pretty tricky I found. Anyone got any advice other than do more landscapes?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
