Manabanana
Member
Cioran, that's really cool! I'm usually not one for abstract stuff, but I really like the use of color in these. Very pleasant to look at.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The New Art Thread
- Thread starter Dagless M.D.
- Start date
- Status
Oy...the more that I know that I don't know what I'm doing, the less I want to try getting better, because I know I'll just screw it up even worse next time. How can I paint it if I can't even do cel shading right?
Edit: I'm not even sure what the distinction of saturated vs. non-saturated colors is. And you need to check your PMs more often Mana
Edit: I'm not even sure what the distinction of saturated vs. non-saturated colors is. And you need to check your PMs more often Mana
Manabanana
Member
Practice! Just keep practicing. It takes years of practice and lots of study. Seek out color theory tutorials, join an art community, draw and paint from life or from reference. Don't get stuck in a rut.
Here:
Left is saturated, these colors seem really bright and there's little to no gray in them. On the right are your unsaturated colors. There's plenty of gray in these. Rarely in life do you see saturated colors. Take a look out the window, or take a digital photo and run the color picker over it. A trick to learning color is to remove what you know from your vision. If you see a red car, forget that you know it's red. You'll be able to see what colors are really on it.
Oh, and sorry about PMs! I always forget they're there...
Here:
Left is saturated, these colors seem really bright and there's little to no gray in them. On the right are your unsaturated colors. There's plenty of gray in these. Rarely in life do you see saturated colors. Take a look out the window, or take a digital photo and run the color picker over it. A trick to learning color is to remove what you know from your vision. If you see a red car, forget that you know it's red. You'll be able to see what colors are really on it.
Oh, and sorry about PMs! I always forget they're there...
Manabanana said:
Yeah, I know that's something I need. It just seems that I've taken steps backward from things I used to be able to do, so I prefer to just do lineart now. Actually, inked lineart is kinda new to me, as I only started doing it with any frequency in the last month, and prior to that, I had perhaps a dozen or less inked works from the last 5 years.
Edit: Doh, and since reminding you about PMs was just an edit to my last message, here it is again. I suppose trying to send a PM reminding someone about PMs would be kinda silly though, so I won't try that.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
I'm seeing shades of Rob Liefield. Namely the mouths.
Some unsolicited advice would be to cut down on the extraneous cross hatching and bullshit line work that is so prevalent in "Image style". I'd suggest you check out from the library, or purchase a copy of Rendering in Pen and Ink. It will show you how cross hatching and detailed line work are used to express depth and texture, as opposed to the bastardized Image LOTS OF LINES FOR THE SAKE OF LOTS OF LINES, ZOMG! style.
Also practice drawing from photos and draw what you see, and not what you think you see - or how you think an Image guy would draw it.
Sorry, my big hang up here is weening you off the extraneous line work. If you want detailed Image friendly art, check out some stuff by Arthur Adams.
A clean page is a happy page! ^_^
DarthWoo said:Edit: I'm not even sure what the distinction of saturated vs. non-saturated colors is. And you need to check your PMs more often mana
Saturated colors, in a "traditional media" sense, would be the ones that come "straight from the tube". They are the colors on the color reference wheel. As soon as you begin to mix colors with their complementary (orange is complementary to blue, because blue + (red + yellow) = all primary colors), they lose in saturation. Same thing happens if you mix them with black or white, but the color richness is not the same when you simply add pure white/black. I'm not sure if it makes sense (English isn't my native language), but that's the basis!
kitchenmotors
Banned
sp0rsk said:
Damn, you look so much older (not a bad thing) in this picture than the other pictures you've posted. Maybe it's just the serious look on your face, teh mature!!@!
This thread inspired me to actually get around to do some drawing. I only have some pictures I did about 5 or 6 years ago scanned, but hopefully in a week or so, my friend will come down from college and I can get my scanner back. I should have a buttload of new work to put up then. This one I plan on trying to color in an hour or so:
Manabanana said:Practice! Just keep practicing. It takes years of practice and lots of study. Seek out color theory tutorials, join an art community, draw and paint from life or from reference. Don't get stuck in a rut.
Here:
Left is saturated, these colors seem really bright and there's little to no gray in them. On the right are your unsaturated colors. There's plenty of gray in these. Rarely in life do you see saturated colors. Take a look out the window, or take a digital photo and run the color picker over it. A trick to learning color is to remove what you know from your vision. If you see a red car, forget that you know it's red. You'll be able to see what colors are really on it.
Oh, and sorry about PMs! I always forget they're there...
If I was intentionally going for a cartoonish cel shading look though, wouldn't the saturated colors be more proper?
Future Trunks
lemme tell you something son, this guy is SO FARKING HUGE HE'LL FLEX AND DESTROY THE SUN no shit
Thanks TToB, I was just thinking of resurrecting this thread for advice while I was at work.
I would definitely like to reduce the "detail" (notice the quotations) with all of the lines and instead redistribute that detail into the picture as a whole (more detailed/realistic backgrounds, more background/character interaction, etc...)
I would definitely like to reduce the "detail" (notice the quotations) with all of the lines and instead redistribute that detail into the picture as a whole (more detailed/realistic backgrounds, more background/character interaction, etc...)
Future Trunks
lemme tell you something son, this guy is SO FARKING HUGE HE'LL FLEX AND DESTROY THE SUN no shit
Sorry, Boogie, been meaning to get you Alicia, Riley, Jaleesa, and Damian's pics at the very least, but I can't scan 'em. And the reworked scripts.... :| Gotta love being an engineer...
Got the promo poster rough draft done too. Now, gotta get the drafting table here....
EDIT: Really upsets me because I've been promising them for like a year now.
Got the promo poster rough draft done too. Now, gotta get the drafting table here....
EDIT: Really upsets me because I've been promising them for like a year now.
Litigation Manuel
Member
I have a painting done, once I get a picture of it I'll post it.
Laguna X said:
Looks like there's another doorway behind there
I could be wrong, though ^_^olimario said:Pictures from my Museum Trip
Spinning the different wheels in the kids fun room.
A very cool machine
The pictures/mirror thingy. Very cool.
Butterfly Museum was amazing.
Pondering by the water... "what to throw in next?"
Manipulating a whirlpool
Out to lunch
That whirl Pool One is nice
Sp0rks-
Do you ever take unplanned, in-the-moment pictures?
All of yours are so planned out and the setting never changes and it makes them so boring to me. No offense to you or people who like them, because they are obviously of high quality, though.
Photography for me is all about capturing the moment. Conveying with a picture the mood and feel of where I am or what I'm experiencing.
I've trained myself to only take a picture of something once. If I can't capture well that once then I wont capture it well at all. I don't want to create a flip book of an event and pick out the best one.
I don't know how you do it, but you do consistantly.
Wonderful work.
Do you ever take unplanned, in-the-moment pictures?
All of yours are so planned out and the setting never changes and it makes them so boring to me. No offense to you or people who like them, because they are obviously of high quality, though.
Photography for me is all about capturing the moment. Conveying with a picture the mood and feel of where I am or what I'm experiencing.
I've trained myself to only take a picture of something once. If I can't capture well that once then I wont capture it well at all. I don't want to create a flip book of an event and pick out the best one.
Laguna X said:For some reason, Katamari Damacy springs into mind with that last pic.
Here's a couple quick sketches that I did last night.
I don't know how you do it, but you do consistantly.
Wonderful work.
Manabanana
Member
Oooh, I like that whirlpool pic. Was that a museum thing? Sporks, I love how your photography never makes sense :lol It's great. Great sketches Laguna. What'd you use for reference?
Here's what I've done today. The plan is to use for a menu of sorts on my site, but now for we'll have disco-dancin' neighbors.
Here's what I've done today. The plan is to use for a menu of sorts on my site, but now for we'll have disco-dancin' neighbors.
Manabanana said:Oooh, I like that whirlpool pic. Was that a museum thing? Sporks, I love how your photography never makes sense :lol It's great. Great sketches Laguna. What'd you use for reference?
Here's what I've done today. The plan is to use for a menu of sorts on my site, but now for we'll have disco-dancin' neighbors.
Beautiful coloring.
The whirlpool was in the giant duckpond in the big park by the museum.
When she stuck the pine needle in the whirlpool the tornado part when all the way down, twisting all the way to the source of the such. Pretty impressive.
The water was so reflective too. You could only see trough the water in the reflection of her hand, really.
Might anyone have some links for some good, practical color tutorials? I've read through some on Elfwood's FARP (a collection of tutorials about many subjects), but I still don't quite grasp everything.
My typical method in the past was to apply a single base color for everything on separate layers. Later, when everything was at least colored, then I would set preserve transparency, and pretty much use gradations of each color, going slowly into the shadow. I see now that the shadows aren't really very shaded in my older colored drawings. I'm still having trouble figuring out how to choose the color that ends up being the darkest part. I've been told that it's just the complement of the base color, or that it's the complement of the light source, or that it's a reflection of whatever is behind it. In other words, I'm very confused.
Let's say I have a perfect red sphere on a green surface with green walls, and there's a white light shining on it from a corner. What color is the darkest region of the sphere? Green? Purple? As you can see, this is why color eludes me.
My typical method in the past was to apply a single base color for everything on separate layers. Later, when everything was at least colored, then I would set preserve transparency, and pretty much use gradations of each color, going slowly into the shadow. I see now that the shadows aren't really very shaded in my older colored drawings. I'm still having trouble figuring out how to choose the color that ends up being the darkest part. I've been told that it's just the complement of the base color, or that it's the complement of the light source, or that it's a reflection of whatever is behind it. In other words, I'm very confused.
Let's say I have a perfect red sphere on a green surface with green walls, and there's a white light shining on it from a corner. What color is the darkest region of the sphere? Green? Purple? As you can see, this is why color eludes me.
Manabanana
Member
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=17837
I haven't read much of that one myself, but it's pretty well-respected and well-rated. Concept art has plenty of color theory threads as does Eatpoo. Those are the two best art forums I've come across. I hope that helps.
I haven't read much of that one myself, but it's pretty well-respected and well-rated. Concept art has plenty of color theory threads as does Eatpoo. Those are the two best art forums I've come across. I hope that helps.
olimario said:
I do the same thing you do. And the reason all the locations are always the same is that i intend for them to become a part of the language of my work. The more i show you the same places the (planned effect) is that people begin to understand that its not the places you are in that make the moment its the people in them. To me these locations are generic. They are in everyones houses and everyones been in them. The emotions these people feel are magnified by this and by use of icons. Its like classical painting stripped down and tied to real life.
The love seat thing is about peoples fear of being alone. The love seat personifies a human being as a symbiot. So in a way the love seat is a human, but instead of simply making it about two or more people as i usually do, i decided to highlight the essense of what makes one person feel a certain emotion. It's this collision of two entities that make life interesting and keep us from being vegetables.
So where as my normal work is about specific feelings people have. The love seat is about why people have these specific feelings on a very cold level.
yeah.
I dunno, olimario, the picture of hte old man is pretty good, but the rest of the stuff is kind of meh. Dont be afraid of taking more pictures, you deserve to get what you want. thats what photographers do.
Manabanana
Member
A slightly different version -
This is the one I'll probably be using. It makes sense, except for the "repetitious" being out of context.
This is the one I'll probably be using. It makes sense, except for the "repetitious" being out of context.
Not an answer you're going to like, but it depends on how shiney the ball is
The more reflective the ball, the more green you'd see in it. It also depends on how intense the light is, generally speaking if your overall color tone of the drawing is warm, you're going to want to bring cool colors into the shadow to increase contrast. The highlight on the red ball would be white with a tinge of green to it, the shadow would be what it normally is, a dark neutral value with a hint of cool green. Color is all about enhancing contrast and drawing attention. but to accurately color an object isn't to know color at all, its to know light. (because what is color but light bouncing off an object?)
sp0rsk said:
I think it's a good thing to strive to take fewer pictures. Any old fool can take a hundred pictures of the same thing, pick out the best one, and call it art. It takes an eye and a feel for the setting to click once and capture it all.
My old man one is good because it's candid and unplanned. I didn't tell him where to stand or how to act... I didn't even let him know I had a camera. I didn't fiddle with the lights or anything. I saw the tired, anxious grandfather-to-be and I had to capture him like he was and I feel I did.
The others may not be serious and may not have a deep message, but the once I want to take as 'art' successfully capture what I want them to. I saw a couple park workers sitting, having lunch, and talking. It was really cute, if I'm allowed to use that word. I think I captured that lunch conversation well.
But I'm open to suggestion and do consider the things you say. I would love to see some photos from you that are planned less and require less of an explanation.
BugCatcher
Member
What do you mean by this? For example, if you've taken a picture of flowers before, do you mean you will never take another flower picture? Or if you're taking a picture of a particular flower, you'll only take one and move on? If it's the latter, aren't you basically saying "if I can't do it well on the first try, I never will"? That seems a bit strange; I am hestiant to believe that your first effort will always be your best.olimario said:
EDIT: Oh, it seems you do mean the latter.
BugCatcher said:
Flowers are a bit different, I think. I don't really view flower Macros as 'art' as much as I do 'potential wallpaper'.
When it's something like the old man or the 2 having lunch, I'm patient with the picture and only take it when I feel everything is correct in the frame... then I'll snap.
If I don't capture it then, I move on. If all that pre-planning did nothing for the final outcome, then it's not worth it to take 100 more.
Now if I take it and something unexpected happens like a bird swoops in front of the camera, then of course I'll retake it.
BugCatcher
Member
Well, as I said, I only used flowers as an example. Whether pictures of flowers qualify as art is another matter.
Patience is a great quality for a photographer to have. It's not uncommon for photographers to wait hours for the few seconds or minutes when their subject is "just right". Wildlife and nature photography are good examples. If you're watching a herd of wildebeest hoping to catch a leopard attack, you may spend days for two minutes worth of opportunity. When it happens, you can be sure even professional photographers blow through rolls of film during those two minutes. In fact, it's a safe bet to say that professional photographers would take more pictures than an amateur. It would be a colossal waste of time to take only one shot in light of the effort involved.
Another other problem is that, unless you are psychic, you can't predict how the conditions will change after you take your one shot. When the sunlight falls between clouds onto the landscape as sunbeams, it is only for a few moments. It may be beautiful now, but how do you know that five seconds from now it won't be even more radiant? Not even a world-class meteorologist-photographer could predict this. So to get the best shot, you have to take as many pictures as possible during the event.
Finally, there are so many factors to consider when shooting (exposure, shutter speed, composition, etc.) that your initial settings may not be the best ones. It's not as big of a deal with digital cameras, and practice makes it easier to gauge what these settings should be, but it's still commonplace with film to bracket exposures to avoid over-exposure/under-exposure.
Also, if you take only one shot, it's not possible to do composite photos. Some really neat things can be done by manipulating multiple exposures (I'm not talking about simple double exposures, either).
Patience is a great quality for a photographer to have. It's not uncommon for photographers to wait hours for the few seconds or minutes when their subject is "just right". Wildlife and nature photography are good examples. If you're watching a herd of wildebeest hoping to catch a leopard attack, you may spend days for two minutes worth of opportunity. When it happens, you can be sure even professional photographers blow through rolls of film during those two minutes. In fact, it's a safe bet to say that professional photographers would take more pictures than an amateur. It would be a colossal waste of time to take only one shot in light of the effort involved.
Another other problem is that, unless you are psychic, you can't predict how the conditions will change after you take your one shot. When the sunlight falls between clouds onto the landscape as sunbeams, it is only for a few moments. It may be beautiful now, but how do you know that five seconds from now it won't be even more radiant? Not even a world-class meteorologist-photographer could predict this. So to get the best shot, you have to take as many pictures as possible during the event.
Finally, there are so many factors to consider when shooting (exposure, shutter speed, composition, etc.) that your initial settings may not be the best ones. It's not as big of a deal with digital cameras, and practice makes it easier to gauge what these settings should be, but it's still commonplace with film to bracket exposures to avoid over-exposure/under-exposure.
Also, if you take only one shot, it's not possible to do composite photos. Some really neat things can be done by manipulating multiple exposures (I'm not talking about simple double exposures, either).
Precicely because you spent so much time planning, you should make the most of a spontaneous event by recording as much of it as possible, and deciding what you think was the best part later, instead of trying to anticipate it before shooting. If taking 100 more pictures won't improve the final outcome, then either all 101 of your pictures are exactly the same, or your pictures must get progressively worse for each shot you take, but I doubt either of these are the case.olimario said:
I'm sorry oli, your theory is bunk.
Garry winnogram, one of the greatest photographers of all time, you know how many pictures he took? After he died he left over 10,000 rolls of film that werent even developed yet. What made him great wasnt that he took pictures of what he saw. He took pictures that were better than what he saw. And theres no way you can do that by just taking one picture and be done with it. If thats all youre doing then youre not seeing the whole thing, youre only seeing a general idea. You have a digital camera, it would be a crime not to take as many pictures. not taking pictures is the worst thing you could do as a beginning photographer. Whats gonna happen if they turn out bad? You wont use em? who cares? just keeeeeeep shooootinnggggggg. trust me on that you have no reason to think that you already have this incredible eye for things and that every picture you take is 100% GOLD!
And you probably wont see many photos unplanned without any sort of explaination from me.
Garry winnogram, one of the greatest photographers of all time, you know how many pictures he took? After he died he left over 10,000 rolls of film that werent even developed yet. What made him great wasnt that he took pictures of what he saw. He took pictures that were better than what he saw. And theres no way you can do that by just taking one picture and be done with it. If thats all youre doing then youre not seeing the whole thing, youre only seeing a general idea. You have a digital camera, it would be a crime not to take as many pictures. not taking pictures is the worst thing you could do as a beginning photographer. Whats gonna happen if they turn out bad? You wont use em? who cares? just keeeeeeep shooootinnggggggg. trust me on that you have no reason to think that you already have this incredible eye for things and that every picture you take is 100% GOLD!
And you probably wont see many photos unplanned without any sort of explaination from me.
And that's not the type of art I'm going for. It's like painting the same picture 1000 times and picking the best one. I don't like that. It may work for some, but not me.
I think there's beauty in imperfection. I think there's beauty in capturing a moment.
I don't want to position lights and arrange, I want to experience and capture. It's just my way and I'd say I'm not so bad at it.
And my photography absolutely has a different focus from National Geographic Photography. Of course it makes sense for them to take as many as possible.
It some instancing, it makes sense for me to, as well.
Here's a new one. Back road in North Texas where we switched drivers.
I think there's beauty in imperfection. I think there's beauty in capturing a moment.
I don't want to position lights and arrange, I want to experience and capture. It's just my way and I'd say I'm not so bad at it.
And my photography absolutely has a different focus from National Geographic Photography. Of course it makes sense for them to take as many as possible.
It some instancing, it makes sense for me to, as well.
Here's a new one. Back road in North Texas where we switched drivers.
Manabanana
Member
Very nice! Sooooooo much better than that last version!
Oli, your view on art is really confusing. I mean, even the greatest photographers in the world arent arrogant enough to think that they can get it right on the first time, every time. And your example of paintings seems kinda stupid too since paintings often get adjusted quite alot throughout working on them. Mona Lisa has 5 or 6 layers I seem to remember hearing.
Since getting a digital camera earlier this year and comparing my photos with my film based ones, the difference in quality is amazing from being able to capture so many images.
One last thing, why should photography be any different to, say, painting when it comes to being planned/unplanned. sp0rsks stuff is completely different to your stuff. It like comparing a documentary to a film.
Since getting a digital camera earlier this year and comparing my photos with my film based ones, the difference in quality is amazing from being able to capture so many images.
One last thing, why should photography be any different to, say, painting when it comes to being planned/unplanned. sp0rsks stuff is completely different to your stuff. It like comparing a documentary to a film.
Silverbolt
Member
Took me around 5-6 hours. I messed around with the face for around 2 hours to get it to look right. Done entirely in photoshop 7.0.
- Status