next »

[xfry]

Hi guys.
I want to share with you, a creation that i make for the University now. This is a map of the game platform 2D, not big deal but What do you think?

[xfry]

she is a character who accompanies you, and will discover an inconvenient truth.

[xfry]

This is other map

[ANtY]

all objects and the scene itself lack any depth IMO

[xfry]

@ANtY you are right, I would like to know what you think about other things, I like the criticism made. next week I will rebuild the graphic look and I'll go sharing, for now I want to see more Critias 

[Lee]

I find the best way to draw a person is by drawing a mannequin first (an artists mannequin http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31X1ThB%2BhqL._CR150,25,220,460_.jpg ) it's easy to establish the perspective in this way (plus if you actually use an artists mannequin you can actually rotate it and put it in the perspective you want but with some talent you should be able to do this without a physical representation). I've got James Gurney's "Imaginative Realism" (good book as with "Colour and Light") and he's a big advocate of figure studies and using models for finished pieces.

In your pieces you don't separate foreground and background very well and the mid-ground is hardly represented, you should make the foreground be less detailed, desaturated and lose the variations in colour (possibly restrict yourself to just 5 colours for the foreground). Remember also that foreground and background objects should be less defined (i.e, more blurry) whist the mid-ground should have the most crisp edges. Right now your foregrounds pop out the most and are distracting (especially the rocks in the first image).

Also your objects seem very haphazardly put together, palm tree, bent tree with round canopy, straight log, regular tree stump... you should have consistency in your designs.

I had a little shot at demonstrating some of the things I was talking about but I'm not too great either, in fact I'm hesitant to even include it but whatever here it is: http://i.cubeupload.com/LwLgGE.png

[xfry]

Thanks, by the way, when you talk about first plane i know that that should be blur, that help to view the scenary  most definite. about the links. thank its a good examples, and expected much criticals

[ink.inc]

what i see in your drawing of the human: the body is tilting towards the left unnaturally. it helps to set up a sort of skeleton, a basis from which you can determine proportion, perspective, and pose.

here's a couple of ones i did to illustrate what i mean:





my biggest tip to you: look at pictures of actual human beings when you draw humans, and try to develop an understanding of drawing in a 3d space to prevent visual flatness and anatomical monstrosities

[eyeliner]

What if the drawer intends skew reality a bit?
From the characters' design, xfry's characters have a different direction from yours, Sandoval.
I find it interesting how criticism tilts towards realism even when the drawings point in other way.
Is that a truism that applies in every character design?
I understand there are basic laws, but when does style take precedence?

I am not criticizing, just curious. I can't draw worth a damn.

[ink.inc]

The number one pitfall of art: "OH, it's just my style!  I'm just doing game art/comics/cartoons, I don't need to know form/human anatomy/whatever!"

You would be incorrect in this assumption, good sir/lady.

You learn things the proper way and when you understand the rules you can effectively break every single one of them!  So that's what we're going to do here, we're going to try and learn, and we're going to help each other get better!  Le'z do eet!

even caricatures show a basic understanding of human form/structure, and exaggerate them to achieve a certain appeal (ie, large disney eyes to portray innocence, large torso to portray strength)

what i was trying to show him wasn't 'style'; i wasn't trying to get him to draw 'realistically', i was just trying to show him that planning out the entire subject before drawing it can benefit the artist greatly. it really does help to combat 'warping', because the artist can see if something would look "wrong" and make changes easily

the original piece was just unbalanced


the skeleton in red shows the structure of the original drawing; the next one is my fix, and the one after that is a fix of that fix

here's something i drew just a few months ago, without use of the skeletal structure:



this piece was drawn one part at a time; first the whole head, then the body and arms and legs as an afterthought (which is what a LOT of newer artists do). what this leads to is your drawing looking distorted and/or flat. notice that the legs are at the wrong angle, the thighs are fucking weird, and that the arms are too short.

if i had planned out the whole drawing before starting, it would have led to something more cohesive, instead of disjointed

[eyeliner]

Thanks for clearing that out and school the odd barbarian.
That quotation, followed by your input made it all clear.
Thanks.

So, to see if I understood correctly, it is better to draw a skeleton first, fix it, fix it again until it is right and then draw the end drawing over it.

[ink.inc]

It certainly helps.

For reference, here is how the artists from League of Legends do it:







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJQtlZ9lIvU&feature=relmfu

[xfry]

Wow, Sandoval. Thanks for your critical, thinks when you talk about of human design structure have many reason. Even i'm to remake the character preserving the style.

[xfry]

This is a correction that i make to scenery, remembering to ANTY said about depth

[xrabohrok]

There are two things going on with your updated picture there:

When you blurred the background and the foreground, you sort of stumbled into the tilt shift effect.  Long story short, its a lens setup photographers use to make a really big scene look like it is composed of miniatures.



This effect works because your eyes only focus like that for really, really tiny things.  In fact, unless you are near-sighted (like me), or it is foggy or something, backgrounds don't get blurry either.  What does change is the relative size of the subject, and the relative level of detail.  A bunch of leaves becomes a bush becomes a rough patch of green becomes a dark green smear as you back up on a bush, for example.

Also, you blurred out your pretty flowers! 

The other thing is that you could consider some additional lighting effects, like more shadows.  You already have a specular effect going on that tree there, it is a little jarring that this is the only thing going on with that big 'ol sun. 

I modified the picture in 30 seconds, with GIMP, with a black feather brush at 20% opacity, and the picture "pops" ever so slightly more.  Think about what some TLC could do . 

[xfry]

@xrabohrok Wow, i'm feeling happy with your critical, are very important. and I think that goal of depht is ready. like said...

all objects and the scene itself lack any depth IMO

[xfry]

Hi, Guys. I got question to you.
What is the minimum amount of drawing that you use for a cycle of animation?
in this case, use only three to simulate a run cycle

[andrewjb]

What is the minimum amount of drawing that you use for a cycle of animation?

I would say at least 9 frames if you want a decent run cycle. This image shows some of the important frames you need:



Basically:
1. Foot contact
2. Recoil from weight
3. Propel forward
4. Pass
5. Repeat steps 1 - 4 for other leg

Also, I'm going to assume that you animated the finished product first, before doing tests. I can't recommend enough that you do simple pencil tests of your animations before putting in the full effort of a finished render, it will save you a lot of time and will also result in a much better finished product.

Good luck!

[ink.inc]

6 is okay imo but really the minimum you can do is 2

[xfry]

Thank guys, is really nice your response.
I want to see, that think another folks about it.