Some recent things that I have drawn. All opinions and tips

>>2555701
Is that Iudex Gundyr?

>>2555709
Ya

>>2555711
Pretty good, but of course, there's still symbol drawing and perspective fuck ups.

>>2555701
Nice details, broken anatomy and perspective.
Read a figure drawing book, a perspective and distance book and THEN I may forgive you.

Also, try using a scan app next time.

>>2555714
Ya, i noticed iudex's legs were too small, but was too lazy to go fix it lol. What do you mean by symbol drawing?

>>2555719
>what is a sticky?

It means you're drawing a simplified version of what you're seeing rather than what you're actually seeing.
I.E drawing an eye as a circle with a dot in it rather than what an eye would actually look like.

Have you ever done the upside down Stravinsky?

>>2555729
I have not.

>>2555731
you should

go to beginner thread

>>2555701
Be wary of my advice, as it might be off as I am about where you are in skill

The first thing that threw stuff off for me other than the proportions and lack of perspective is the consistently grey tone though out. You have a lot of dark hard lines which is better than a ghostly, faint and timid drawing but i don't see a light source. It looks like you tried to render every thing in isolation rather than with respect to the whole form. High lights and shadows should on the individual pieces of armor should not be the same every where. The darkest shade in the light areas should be lighter than the lightest areas of the shadows.

File: silhouette.jpg (12KB, 236x333px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x333px

>>2555701
I'm going to add to what other people in the thread have already said, all of which I think can be boiled down to this - your image is too flat.

The causes for this are manifold:

There is no line weight and no variance in shadows - this makes it hard for the viewer to distinguish between shapes on the page, and determine which parts of his figure are closer/further to the viewer.

Poor composition. There whole figure looks like one single mass, there is no sense of his right leg being behind him and his left like standing out - in fact it looks like he's hunched over in such a way that he's about to fall over.

Too much detail everywhere. Whilst drawing what you see is a very important skill, an equally important skill is choosing what details to omit and where - this is to draw the attention of the eye to certain parts, and adds depth to an illustration. It is an effective method of "telling a story" in a drawing, by showing an interesting detail that reveals information, or highlights the action going on at a certain part. In the end, the whole figure looks pretty bland and homogeneous. Here's a tip: the silhouette (outline) of a form tells the eye right away a lot of "implied" detail of an a form, which you can omit. See the attached picture - look how the curving lines of the woman's body imply a softness to her skin? Now, compare this to your picture - the rigid, hard armour, smooth, sharp blade, and ragged cloth all have the same sort of outline, which makes them look flat and symbolic. The armour has curved engravings all over it - perhaps, rather than drawing every single curve on the armour, draw curved, patterned ridges on the outline of the armour, which implies the engravings.

And yeah, work on the legs.

File: ballerina-silhouette-2.jpg (24KB, 592x869px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 592x869px

>>2557482
Here's another example of implying texture and detail through silhouette - look how the lines of the skirt, in contrast to the smooth outline of the legs, imply the presence of ruffles - in an illustration of a ballerina in a tutu, this ruffled outline combined with a few carefully placed ruffles along the skirt would be enough to clearly display the existence of ruffles in her tutu. The same sort of thing can be done from everything to grass, rubble, markings, fur, scaled, leaves - anything that covers the form and gives it texture.

Hope this helps.