Nothing fancy. Just trying stuff out.

Very nice, the shape of the lips of the second girl appears a bit unnatural unless it's just an effect of how her lipstick is applied. But yeah I doubt very much of either these two pieces is not deliberate. Nice work.

very nice!

Nice one dude. These have some killer color that I think was missing previously from your faces. Really expressive.

nice

ref?

Very nice [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The eyes are awesome. But, like the rest of us, you are a character texture artist and your stuff is flat! I'm looking at you Bobo and your flat monkey. Poop, your green head is flat. Ferg, you also are flat. Why must we be flat?

I wish I was bored too, I mean, I could paint like that. I dig the colors.

nice self-portraits. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
nice self-portraits. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahaha, it's funny because its true.

(nice work dirtbag)

[ QUOTE ]
Very nice [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The eyes are awesome. But, like the rest of us, you are a character texture artist and your stuff is flat! I'm looking at you Bobo and your flat monkey. Poop, your green head is flat. Ferg, you also are flat. Why must we be flat?

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought about that question a lot, you know. i think, essentially, it's 2 different processes in the brain: in one, things are looked at superfacially. for example, looking at pixel and line quality, how smooth or familiar does everything look? interesting shapes and pretty highlights make things look good, regardless of what they are. these are usualy the kind of things i used to care for a lot myself, and i noticed most people in general and even texture artists in particular pay a lot of attention to these kind of things as well. the abstract image, with 2 axises only, (maybe left brain acitivity??) seems to get our immediate visual (and compositional) attention.

on opposed to the flat, abstract image, the other process revolves around perspective, that grid of space that creates depth in the paper. the approach to the drawing is not about lines and shapes, it's about forms, volumetric and in 3 axises.

from my experience, for most people perspective isn't innate. they graps the logic, agree with the principle, but don't execute it. the results, in any case, can be extremely appealing.

i think ultimately form makes things pop and work better, but isn't essential to making a pretty image. these are both pretty (Self) portraits.

this can be discussed extensively (no right or wrong, in any case) but i don't think this thread is the place.

Doc does make a point. But I think it's because as a texture artist your're naturally allowing the model's gemotery take over the more basic dimension. While the smaller bits actually have very good dimension painted into them. Usually the bits that the geometery couldn't make up
Now for a quick dimension paintover!


Although what shotguns said, I think, is pretty much, not every peice of work needs to have Caravaggio-like dimension. Although leaving it looking fairly flat just gives it a very illustrated look.

But I have found that working with 3d apps gives one a good sense of dimension due to the fact that you are working with 3d objects on a 2d surface. So your eye can just recognize much easier.

oh yeah, Kick ass stuff SouL!

I much prefer the originals. I don't think flatness in a drawing is something to be afraid of, particularly not in ones like these which already have so much color and textural activity. 19th-century japanese prints feel entirely flat, but I doubt most people would think they would benefit from increased dimension or conventional perspective.

My only critique with the originals would be over the halo-like glows around the head. the contour of the glow follows the outline of the head form so closely, it just looks routine and predictable. with a different shape, or more nuance to the way the glow was brought in, it could do a lot more for your overall composition.

lol shotgun lay off the drugs haha

ahah no way, Shotgun only speak of drugs, he doesnt take any. hes just crazy

those are hot soul, the second one looks just like you!

OH NOES MY SECRET LOOKS REVEALED.
Hahahahaha

Maybe it's the line art on top that's flattening the images? I'll try one that a little more sketchy but with no lines.

I like the colors, too. I found that finding pictures of flowers, and shifting their hue values can give you really great color combinations.

I don't have much place to be critting an artist like Soul, but in my humble opinion I'd say what's 'flattening them out' is the lack of a more dynamic light source. If the image was a photograph, I would say it looks like it was taken with the flash on.

That said though, I think they both look fantastic regardless. I love the silky soft texture and subtlety in the skin and shading transitions, especially around the eyes.

One of the reasons that the first one looks so flat is that it doesn't have a cast shadow on the neck.

It looks flat cause there's not enough BLACK

2nd one is extremely nice.

i really like the fact they arent super 3 dimensional. there is a cool graphic quality to them. I really love the tear duct/eyeball and nose details though, those really rule.

almost like forum avatars for the new "I'm an Angsty Cute Girl who just wants to be loved" game.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'd hit both of 'em mate. In the first one, seems like there's a big difference between the eyes in how much white of the eye is visible below the iris. It kind of leapt out at me. Nice stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nice self-portraits. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahaha, it's funny because its true.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
those are hot soul, the second one looks just like you!

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I'd hit both of 'em

[/ QUOTE ]

JUST SAY IT ALREADY
YOU WANT TO FUCK ME

DaZ probably knows who this is.

wait....K?