>>14167

I'd work on the BG, Staff and ground stuff, make them less blurry, give some more details, sharpen some elements up.

>>14168
I blurred them down so as to simulate accomodation. Did it work or not?

>>14169

I do love the horde of ratlings, indeed they look like they're in movement.

What I meant was, in your lower left corner, where the background comes into contact with the hill it looks like they blend together. It kind of messes the effect of the horde a bit.

>>14170
Nah, not movement, accomodation. Like, when you're looking at the background and can't see the foreground distinctively.

But yes, I see what you mean now. There should be a bit of grass that's not blurry at that place.

OVERLORD!!AwZwHkBGWx 2012/07/15(Sun)03:59 No. 14173 ID: 058ea5
File 134234995993.jpg - (94.39KB , 1015x1148 , 134234611005.jpg )

>>14167

It is nicely rendered. However, I'd recommend darkening the foreground a bit, or increasing the sharpness of details or something on the character. My eyes seem to instinctively ignore the character (he is dark, low contrast, a little fuzz) and go straight for the rats. Unless the rats are the main focus, that is.

>>14173
they precisely aren't, and I thought that leaving the rats sharp would divert the eye from him.
I'll try adding more contrast on him.

>accommodation
Coming from more of an optics than an art background, it sounds like you're thinking of Depth of Field. Accommodation would be (the delay in) the eye adapting to changes in the light level of an environment. e.g. If someone opens a curtain in a blacked out room, the pupil rapidly accommodates so that the still-shadowed areas are uniformly dark, but it takes some time for the retina (well, really the visual cortex sending inhibitory responses back to the retina) to desensitise and for the bright window to go from a Big Square of Bright to being able to see whatever is outside.

>>14177
Yes, that.

Technomancer 2012/07/16(Mon)12:56 No. 14210 ID: 557ce1
File 134246857493.jpg - (1.80MB , 2029x2295 , skwik fsfzgzfghjhblrrrd ouaid.jpg )

okay how about now?

>>14210

I'm drawn to the central thing on the rat guy (is it a hand?) more than the rats now, but the rest of him is still very unnoticable. If you added that level of sharpness/detail to him overall, it would be much better.

>>14223
I can't see how to make him more detailed and sharper without ruining the color gradients, the textures, and making him cartoonishly defined on top of that.

OVERLORD!!AwZwHkBGWx 2012/07/16(Mon)21:34 No. 14227 ID: 531520
File 134249966743.jpg - (1.85MB , 2029x2295 , 134246857493.jpg )

>>14224

Er, try increasing the contrast. Some of the features of the character (particularly on the head) lack definition as well.

I hope you don't mind - I have scrawled upon your artwork to demonstrate the areas I think that lack contrast. Particularly around the chest, I think it is most severe. I could see that you had made efforts, but I don't think that you had hit it hard enough, so to speak.

I took a hard round brush, and softly added in pure black where I think areas lacked contrast. I also manually sharpened up some of the tubes, eyepiece on the face.

Technomancer 2012/07/17(Tue)19:34 No. 14239 ID: 994dd9
File 134257883906.jpg - (1.82MB , 2029x2295 , skwik fsfzgzfghjhblrrrd ouaidgf.jpg )

Okay, I tried to find a compromise between not using pure black (tends to mess with the colors), showing the colors I used, and making it more defined.

Eh. Somehow I still think it looked better there >>14210 or even >>14167 here.

Now, the skaven guy looks a bit overdone, and the rats aren't contrasted enough. If I re-contrast them to make up for it, it will be the same problem all over again.

You have certinaly imporved a lot over just one year Techno.
I'm not a drawfag so I can't give constructive critisism, but I like this one
>>14239

>>14264
>I'm not a drawfag so I can't give constructive criticism
That makes no sense at all.

B&Hammer40Kun!o/uaSYM4lU 2012/07/19(Thu)07:40 No. 14267 ID: 4f491d
File 134270883509.png - (8.19MB , 4058x2295 , paintover.png )

>>14266
Agreed, a solid graphic culture is enough to judge and criticize. You have eyes, you're able to tell what works and what doesn't.

Anyway, a quick paintover, maybe it wil help you some.

>>14267
Ben, c'est plus consistant et réaliste, mais ça implique de pouvoir compromettre entre l'aspect visuel pur (abstrait, pour ainsi dire), l'effet dramatique (pour lequel il faut faire des choix au niveau de l'éclairage) et la compréhensibilité de la scène (donc le réalisme, la consistance plastique/graphique...). Et vu que ma priorité c'est quand même le premier point (d'où ma réticence à altérer les couleurs) mais que pour rendre le truc plus lisible et dramatique, faut aussi prêter attention au réalisme, ça pose problème.

Mais ça aide, hein. Sur d'autres compositions similaires je compte bien prendre exemple là-dessus, c'est juste que je suis trop attaché à mes ch'tits effets de nuances à la con pour les sacrifier à la consistance plastique.

Ah ça m'emmerde. Si j'avais fait des expérimentations plus tôt au niveau de l'éclairage, je serais bien parti, et j'aurais eu un résultat consistant, efficace visuellement et relativement réaliste.

>>14268
J'avais bien le sentiment que tu essayais d'aller verus une vision troublante et troublée d'une créature indistincte, le problème étant, in finé, que le spectateur ne voit rien.

Ça ne me dérange pas en soi, beaucoup d'illustrations des anciens temps de warhammer sont comme ça, mais perso je suis plus fan des compo façon Mignola, avec des contrastes noir/couleur bien francs. Question de goût.

J'allais laisser tel quel, mais étant donné que tu donnais des signes de galère, je me suis permis une bidouille. XD

>>14269
Ah ben à vrai dire, à force de bosser si longtemps sur le même truc, j'aurais probablement pas été capable de le rendre plus réaliste même si j'avais voulu. Donc c'est toujours intéressant de voir comment ça aurait pu être.

Technomancer 2012/08/24(Fri)05:54 No. 14872 ID: 0fcedb
File 134581288146.jpg - (1.75MB , 2060x3900 , taucepts.jpg )

Blrpfgsft
Because I can do the tau better than GW designers.

IT'S ALIVE!
>>14872
While your humility level is < 9000, I am inclined to agree with you.

>>14872
Anyone can, really. See Sebastian Stuart (Tael) and Patrick Stannard (LordDirk).

Hey Technomancer, do you have a portfolio up somewhere? What I've seen from you is fantastic, and I was wondering if you had a collection up.

OVERLORD!!AwZwHkBGWx 2012/08/24(Fri)15:58 No. 14880 ID: eeaddb
File 134584912985.jpg - (490.87KB , 1126x1600 , 1336278289212.jpg )

Reminds me of the John Blanche Tau concept, which I think they should have focused on more.

>>14875
Anyone can, yes, it's just about putting more of what they did right and less of what they did wrong, but
>Sebastian Stuart (Tael) and Patrick Stannard (LordDirk)
Nah, apart from a handful of concepts about the Farsight enclaves, those two just follow the regular GW design without criticizing it significantly.

>>14876
my DA gallery is the closest thing I have to a portfolio, since it's what I link to people in order to advertise my commissioning activities.

>>14881

pls share

>>14898
OP

Technomancer 2012/10/12(Fri)20:57 No. 15677 ID: fae246
File 135010062192.jpg - (155.11KB , 500x900 , daphnebot.jpg )

okay, I had way too much trouble fleshing out the volumes on that one, it's frustrating and I want to know if I should stick to practice to fix that or directly use a bit of perspective construction or something. I'm gonna have to do more similar stuff soon anyway.

>>15677
You're alive!? =0

>>15677

When you say 'fleshing out the volumes,' are you referring to the 3-dimensional quality of the image or something else? I agree that it does not have a very strong 3D effect.

My opinion is that it's quite low on any kind of shadows, therefore making it appear more like outlines by themselves, rather than any sort of rendered image.

>>15681
That's what I mean, yes.

>>15681
>My opinion is that it's quite low on any kind of shadows, therefore making it appear more like outlines by themselves, rather than any sort of rendered image.
I'd contest that. The use of surface details (vents, cables) gives it a little volume.

yeah! Technomacer is back!

Technomancer 2013/03/17(Sun)13:54 No. 18260 ID: 1d4740
File 136355365173.jpg - (1.09MB , 1600x2720 , cyndy_by_technorakel-d5ycv7o.jpg )

alright, since you can't expect criticism from deviantart...

>>18260

You can't hold DA to any decent expectation.

I think the background (sky?) is too saturated & contrasty, making it very distracting.
The thigh of the raised leg also looks strange in that it appears too 'fat' at the knee, if that makes sense.

>>18262
Ehhh, looking at it again, maybe not so much the knee, but definitely the background.

>>18263
True; I'll see if something less flashy works better.

>>18260
looks kinda like a punk version of a spriggan from Skyrim

>>18265

IIRC it's some kind of 'cyber-dryad.'

Technomancer 2013/03/18(Mon)03:50 No. 18268 ID: 7f2048
File 136360379942.jpg - (3.62MB , 2200x1870 , frp.jpg )

>>18264
>>18263
I don't think it's very conclusive

In other news I've finally managed to get my hands on a copy of Delirius 2. So, you can ignore the other post referring to it up in the thread.

>>18268

I like it a little better with reduced saturation, but overall it does not make those 'black masses' much less distracting. Perhaps they could be lightened, if you care enough.

>>18314
Not really, and I don't think it would solve anything regarding lighting consistency or color balance. Would it?

Technomancer 2013/05/16(Thu)10:30 No. 19042 ID: ebaa9e
File 136872541254.jpg - (634.07KB , 1609x711 , swamp.jpg )

Come on you fuckers criticize this shit

also I need stuff to work on values; apparently just copying pictures doesn't work so I need typical exercises;

next up is something with draping. Not right now but don't hesitate to remind it to me in case I feel too lazy.

Also the latest combichrist album is fucking cool goddan can't type I'm half-Drunk Beelzebuth is one hell of a beer.

>>19042

Hm, it's a tough one. Especially since I can't really rationalise what I'm seeing in the image. You said 'swamp' on dA, so I therefore assume the convolution is intentional. It's not a bad thing, though. It just makes it more difficult to describe elements, I suppose.

The part that sticks out to me as being 'the worst,' is that little hill-type thing at the bottom. The issue is that it seemingly has the greatest range in values, whereas the much more carefully detailed background seems to, in most areas, stick to darker values, and therefore I seem subconsciously less interested by it.

The problem with this is that it really draws my eye, and I feel like, once there, my eye doesn't have a lot to look at -- especially when it's juxtaposed upon such a finely detailed background. The biggest 'branch' towards the left of the hill, is especially noticeable. It just juts out rather crudely, and the fact that it almost has this 'black outline' of shadow just highlights it further. The entire hill does not appear to be as carefully rendered as the rest of the image, and that's a shame, because the background is really nice.

Those black things on the hill: are the creatures, or just more details? They also draw my eye, but I do not know what to make of them. They do not make much sense as anything other than characters placed into the landscape, but they are difficult to make out. Therefore, I can't say they look as though they belong in the image, either.

That's about all I really notice right away. Otherwise, it's quite impressive.

>>19048
Thanks for the crit, I quite see what you mean.

Technomancer 2013/05/24(Fri)02:56 No. 19165 ID: 672939
File 136938938287.jpg - (709.46KB , 1609x711 , swamp f corr.jpg )

how about now?

>>19165

Yeah, that's way better.