Looks great, as is suspected from the great Mech / Josiah duo! Keep up the good work, you make me want to achieve more in this life... haha.
IMHO the drawing and colouring are good, but it has some flaws. For example, the fact that it is penciled. Computer coloured pencil work doesn't look right. The lines are not defined and they look too pale. This kind of drawing (pencil work) should be coloured in a different way, maybe mimicking watercolours, for example. To use full saturated colours and plain (non textured) gradients you better work on top of a correctly outlined (i.e. inked) picture.
In short: nice drawing, nice colouring, but they don't mix well together, IMHO.
Also, if you are gonna work on top of a penciled image, this image has to be "clean" and well defined. In this case it is somewhat sketchy in some points. There are lots of extra lines which are not needed which may look nice in a sketch but look really awkward in a finished piece like this.
Again, it's a very good work. May this post serve as some tips to make the next one look more "pro".
Nice work, anyways.
Quote:IMHO the drawing and colouring are good, but it has some flaws. For example, the fact that it is penciled. Computer coloured pencil work doesn't look right.
Hmm... I always thought it looked kinda cool, interesting style.
Quote:The lines are not defined and they look too pale. This kind of drawing (pencil work) should be coloured in a different way, maybe mimicking watercolours, for example
Well actually, that's usually what I do... Very non-saturated colors (opacity usually 50 or 60) over sketches.
Quote:To use full saturated colours and plain (non textured) gradients you better work on top of a correctly outlined (i.e. inked) picture.
Full saturated colors? Actually, the opacity for both the sketch and the coloring layer are both set at 60%... Though I suppose it doesn't get the same effect as it's basically on a black background.
The gradient is there for the lighting effect only; it's just at 17% less opacity than the sketch and coloring layer, and I know not to rely on just gradients for shading
-- Call me a noob, but a subtle blueish gradient seemed to be the best way to do the lighting.
Quote:Also, if you are gonna work on top of a penciled image, this image has to be "clean" and well defined. In this case it is somewhat sketchy in some points. There are lots of extra lines which are not needed which may look nice in a sketch but look really awkward in a finished piece like this.
'Has to be'? :wink: I usually just do what I think looks good, and like I said earlier, the sort of sketchy/faux watercolor style tends to appeal to me.
Quote:Again, it's a very good work. May this post serve as some tips to make the next one look more "pro".
Well, I usually don't strive to make something look too 'pro' (except in some instances... :p ), just make it look good in my eyes-- But I do see where you're coming from with your points, and I'll remember them regardless. :wink:
EDIT: Heh, I know I probably sounded a bit too defensive there, but honestly I do tend to prefer the sketchy/watercolor style. And I realize you're much more 'pro' than me when it comes to this (CGing/photoshop coloring), but as it stands I consider this peice finished... While criticism is welcome, I guess a lot of it's opinion too-- And just try to keep in mind I'm not, erm, 'pro' yet :lol:
Wow, looks as good as the art in Disney movies to me - I don't see anything lacking about it myself.
i absolutely love the way this was colored. the bluish gradient made a very nice effect in my opinion.
and as for you nathan
:
i know you may not enjoy this particular style of art (yes, teh furry), but i appreciate you comming in and giving a critique for us, thanks. and i'm afraid i'll have to go with josiah on this one, finished peices don't need to be refined nor perfect. i prefer this style of coloring and finalization because it's one of the most unique i've seen in a long time.
thank you for your comments yall me (and josiah, i'm sure) appreciate them =)
:???: It looks alsome... took me awhile to get it to go up, but all worth it.. If I never saw the penciled version, I'd never even know it was.. great work..
:wink:
I'm with Nath on this one. This, although is excellent work by itself, could have been enhanced by actually outlining the pencil drawings with vector lines, as is the standard way for it to be done. I just get the impression that it is a bit...washy, with no clear, defined lines.
Also, in the larger version, the cave walls are of quite poor quality.
While we're on the subject of the cave, why exactly does it just stop all of a sudden? There's no real blending of it with the background or anything. You might have been better off with generating a stone cave wall texture through Photoshop filters (very easy to achieve).
Above the fox's head, there is a bunch of black and those random brush streaks, which is the only thing I can really say spoils the picture. The streaks look like they were put there to fill space, unfortunate, as that black space and those streaks kind of detracts from the fox. Worse comes to worse, you could have made the fox a bit bigger to fit the gap there.
Lastly, although this is probably the most minor detail right now: the creature looks a little...plastic. The colours don't have texture. It will take a lot of time and experience to be able to texture a drawing like that effectively, in fact in the beginning you will simply make the image look worse. I've been Photoshop'ing for over 3 years and it's still a very difficult thing to do with some items. Practice is the key. I barely need to do that kind of thing, so I haven't progressed much. By the looks of things, you will be, so practice lots, and you'll notice the definite progress.
I understand you are not 'pro' at this, hence this is just constructive criticism. Everyone can learn and take advice, no matter how good they are.
Quote:This, although is excellent work by itself, could have been enhanced by actually outlining the pencil drawings with vector lines, as is the standard way for it to be done. I just get the impression that it is a bit...washy, with no clear, defined lines.
Well, working with vector isn't something I enjoy too much, but I guess I've gotta master it at some point.
Quote:Also, in the larger version, the cave walls are of quite poor quality.
Really? Hmm, well they are just taken from a random image from Google, so that might be it there. :wink:
Quote:While we're on the subject of the cave, why exactly does it just stop all of a sudden? There's no real blending of it with the background or anything.
It's sort of meant to be a few bits of ceiling/floor that jut closer to the 'camera', while the rest of the cave is still in the background and is dark. The bits of cave that are visible could be illuminated by the brush, as well. I don't know what you mean by just 'stopping' suddenly; as far as I can see it just fades into the black background.
Quote:Above the fox's head, there is a bunch of black and those random brush streaks, which is the only thing I can really say spoils the picture.
Well, I know exactly what you mean here-- When getting rid of the paper around the original sketch, and since the background was black, I found I was accidentally using a black brush to do the job instead of an eraser. I switched to the eraser midway through, but since the background is the
exact same color as the brush streaks, I'm curious to know how you noticed it... (that and that the comment that the walls were of 'quite poor quality'-- while certainly not extremely high quality, I don't see anything extremely lacking about them, myself... Oh, and I'm not really certain on what creature that is in the picture (according to Mech it could be anything :p ), but I always thought it looked a bit wolf-ish... Of course I suppose it could be some sort of... grey fox as well :p )
Quote:Lastly, although this is probably the most minor detail right now: the creature looks a little...plastic. The colours don't have texture.
Yes, this is the main point I was concerned about. However, like you mentioned, all I can really do is practice, so...