Something small i drew to test my recording and editing software , just an experiment. Its literally very very small^^
You must be logged in to comment on this post.
Well with good photographic memory you'd remember everything you see, so drawing human physique for example should be much easier than for those without. You'd know how different body parts look in motion, at different angles, etc. I gotcha, I'm just trying to get the point across that not everyone works the same way or have the same conditions. Hard work might surpass basic talent but some people just posses unnatural abilities! Thanks for the responses!
Im not stating that everyone works the same way. I would be the last to claim that , considering that im selft taught and work with a pretty unconventional flow. My words are not quotes of teachers , they come from personal experience. All im saying is that reference as much as adjusting/erasing are needed by all practitioners of art to progress.
Likewise , thanks for the interesting conversation. See you around mate , take care :)
Interesting read on how you process the ideas while putting them on paper! No doubt there is this one common approach, but to all common approaches there are exceptions. What about people with a photographic memory, for one, their work order should differ a bit for someone without the same vast amount of imagery to remember while working on their art. It's like how Enid Blyton used to write books in a single stretch. Most authors go back and revise certain settings and events, but she never needed to, all stories were written pretty much on impulse, one event after the next, and still they managed to link together events to form a plot. As for me, I'd like to stop looking through my comments before posting, since I just end up spending time adjusting trivial forms of phrases when I could instead spend that time writing more; on more places.
True, some artists have a bit of a limited set of motives... and Shadling is probably one of those, at least with the main characters, but in a way it's good that certain people fill a niche of their own and become highly efficient at it. Woah... looong speedpaint videos! I didn't have the patience/tim to view them to their full extent, but it was inspiring work. Amazing how much effort goes into all of those tiny details and textures... and it is hard to notice if/when they're actually adjusting details when they just add a layer of paint instead of erasing something.
Photographic memory is useless if you dont have something to "photograph"-> reference. I dont know about this shadling u talk about and anyway , i dont want to target people nor accuse someone in his absence , i was not refering to sm1 in particular. Also , i dont know the author you mention but art as in drawing/painting and literature have very very little in common when it comes to execution. Both processes can be rougly translated as the same sequence of steps but the approach and required skills are different. Exceptions always exist but you will be surprised to see how few there are. Here you mentioned a single author , how many authors exist though? And how can you tell that if she infact went back to review her work , wouldnt she produce work of higher quality?
Its basic really , you can go ahead and ask any proffesional you like. You can even go on and send a message to the people who drew the vids i sent you. Ibrahem is a friend too, i can assure you he will reply back to you.
For your comment on details , yes , attention on detail makes the difference. You would be surprised to know how a slight change of lines can affect an artwork. It has to do with the way your mind reads the image. For a painter , fixing stuff at an early level is easy and smooth. They can paint over the mistake to change the shape. A linework artist like me needs to be more careful. If i draw a disproportionate hand i must do it all over again. However painting has its cons aswell , theres no ideal style.
Ah, well maybe they practice a bit before putting together their speedpaint videos, or I saw the few rule-bending exceptions. I haven't watched that many speedpaints, I just had the impression some people paint straight from mind to canvas and have had so much practice they know exactly how to draw each form; don't make mistakes. I have the utmost respect for your work too dude! Just saying...
I dont doubt you respect my work , otherwise why would you be here. Im just replying to your comments , stating my objection. Here's how it is.
I too paint from imagination and i try to use minimum reference durring the execution to train my mind the hard way. However , without references it is imposible for anyone to become a real artist that can actually draw anything. Also during the process its a given that you will want to change or fix things either by erasing , adjusting or otherwise. It happens in traditional as much as digital.
After a lot of practice your mind imprints shapes you draw often and gains a better understanding of them. This is why over time you need less and less refering material for basic stuff like anatomy etc. For someone who designs cars , it comes naturally after the hundredth car he drew. His mind has memorized and broke down the car's shape. Yet everyone uses a sketch underneath his actuall work to guide himself. Even the most talented of artists do it. Usually the sketch is done before the speedpaint and is in low opacity so u can miss it easily.
Some people mistakenly take up a single concept and only work with that. They reach a level that they can draw it perfectly , even without a sketch but they cant do anything else and in reality , even the thing they draw again and again is something they dont understand in 3d. You can take a walk in galleries of many manga or pinup artists in DevianArt. Their galleries consist of 30 slightly different versions of the same thing. It looks great but they are limited to it and cant really do anything else without a shit ton of trouble.
Refering is not the same as copying. Copying leads to nowhere. When you refer you dont try to re-do the image you see. You study the shape and its elements so you can understand its proportions and qualities. When you do you can recreate it in any way you like.
To prove my point and not just throw words , here are a couple of work process videos from artists i really admire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EQ0wURKrhghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A77EvvevA_g&feature=c4-overview&list=UUTXmm3D1PzJ7agpoJHwHXxw
As you can see their skill is top tier. And mark that they are both realistic painters not comic artists , making it easier for them to paint over mistakes or unwanted elements.
Here's another one from a very loved artist of mine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Q1abBavns
As you can see he sketches the whole thing , details and all , there is little conceptual work for the inking.
Well it was the eyes I was referencing too, also coupling together body parts and erasing left-over lines. Nothing wrong with the process though, just a bit different from a few 'pros' who seem to be able to draw anything without erasing anything, and without reference. It's pretty amazing seeing how artworks are put together though.
Unless you are refering to "pros" who draw the same thing over and over again , no artist draws anything without erasing anything or taking reference. Even those who have reached a level where they do not require any reference , have spent years and years practicing and studying reference and thus have a very rich visual library and can recall the needed material by memory alone.
Refering is not copying. Its understanding the shape you want to portray. If a person wants to become a real artist , he is obliged to use reference as much as erasing.
Looks good! A little more trial and error than when I'm watching Shadling but... the end result is great. :)
Thanks. Cant see the "trial and error" observation as i only changed the eyes. Its an experimental 15 minutes doodle , i think i will record something serious at some point later.
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.