Process

>>2679081
How do you even know when you keep a progress shot?

Well, I work in photoshop, so I just keep around major changes to the image in case I fuck up and need to go back. So for instance, keep your sketch, keep the base colors, keep another layer a couple more steps into rendering and then keep the final. That's what I do.

>>2679081
Is this yours? If so, colors in #4 look substantially better than in #2, but this image doesn't tell me at all how you got them.

Yeah it's mine, and no, it doesn't necessarily tell you how I got there. The basic explanation is that I just painted it, leaning on a fundamental understanding of how light falls and what colors look nice together. I'm not really trying to teach anybody anything, I just like seeing where people start and where they end up.

I'm happy to break it down if you would really like me to though.

>>2679114
Hm, come to think of it you're right, a lot of process pics don't explain what they do. Some of it is self-evident, but moreso when you already know the techniques being used.

I'd really love to hear how you separated your colors and went from almost pure monochrome to a palette that had more elaborate light-dark relationships. I'm guessing it involves some curves fuckery but I really can't figure out which.

Sure. Like you said, I basically painted up that the first image to the second one in monochrome.

There's a little bit of seperation, but that's not the point at that stage. All you want at the beginning is to establish the values of the character.

Moving on to the third one, I'm using fog and dust to further separate the rear limbs to suggest more space than I've actually drawn, and it keeps me from rendering them, because frankly, nobody gives a fuck what that side looks like. They can tell from the near side.

Then I introduce some color graphics with a color or a hue layer. Whichever works better with the image. Honestly, you can kind just play around with the layers when you're trying to introduce graphical elements like those blue stripes. There's no real set method that I use.

I also use multiply or overlay layers on the yellow parts of the suit to introduce some variety in the yellows: paint in some red and orange tones to match the environment, and give some richness to the paint. Add grease running down, dust, other kinds of imperfections so it looks lived in.

And finally, just unify things, copy all the layers and flatten them so you're affecting the entire image. Then I use a combination of gradients and selective color layers to bring the red tones into the shadows as a sort of fake bounce light, but it reads at a glance. You can also color grade the entire painting that way, without manually repainting anything.

Then you go in on top, and just paint any remaining details. At this point, all of the colors and values are available to color pick from, so you don't have to fuck with any more adjustment layers. And that's it.

Hope that helps.

This thread would have made more sense to me if there were only 1 IP.

File: mecha process.jpg (4MB, 5265x1920px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5265x1920px

Still in process. One day I'll finish. Sigh.

>>2679135
Thanks for the detailed explanation! Funnily enough these are all techniques I know of, but seeing them unified in a single workflow really helps visualize the whole thing.

Helps a ton.

File: process.jpg (261KB, 659x2000px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 659x2000px

I'm starting to make process stuff for longer paintings.

It's actually kind of showing me how bad my process is and slowly working to tighten up and correct it

File: taylor-rose-untitled-1.jpg (284KB, 797x2325px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 797x2325px

#2

>>2679081
ideathatshouldhavebeenbetterleftassketch.jpg

You're probably right Anon. It's not really a great design, but you gotta do sometimes you gotta push this shit to a finish, or you spend all day sketching badly, and not really working on your other skills.

>>2679206
The first lighting scheme is the most interesting.

File: PicsArt_09-14-09.08.33.jpg (520KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2048x2048px

Drawing I'm trying to do on my phone

File: process.jpg (1MB, 2479x756px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2479x756px

Did a quick character while I was waiting for the thread to get some replies.

>>2679227
this

File: orcfagprocess.jpg (1MB, 3598x1314px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3598x1314px

My latest piece

File: watdo.jpg (343KB, 1620x960px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1620x960px

I feel like these kinds of images are rather redundant as most people will basically work the same way.

Sketch > Refine > Color/value blockin > Refine > Sometimes postprocess.

Most of my images are solved after 30mins - 1hour then its a matter of legwork to render it as far as need be. Then depending on how smart the person has layered you might see some deviation from the sketch or it just stays similar throughout.

>>2679114
I want you to break it down.

>>2679229
Nice fish study
The sclaes look a little weird though

>>2679249

I did. It's the big block of text five posts down.

Shit, wrong post. I meant this one.

>>2679250

So many just get worse.

step it up piefam

File: PicsArt_08-26-05.03.22.jpg (28KB, 400x479px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x479px

>>2679257
Delete this

>>2679202
>>2679206

It just kind of feels like you always remove hard edges for your light sources and you dull them out severely.

Like your first one the last one is easily the most boring, kind o removed all the interesting point and made it a mellow minifall.

File: fagaxe.jpg (907KB, 3000x675px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 3000x675px

>>2679081

Been working on this. I wanna refine some bg things.

>>2679244
Start using reference. You have a lot of potential, you could be doing work 10 times better if you use reference from now on.

Reference
>armor
>hands
>feet
>rocks
>water
>etc

>>2679257
Can you red line the lips for me pls?

>>2679206
hey man, you do beautiful work but I can see from your process that you don't quite know where you're going with your paintings. your rougher block-outs have the best atmosphere and the perspective feels more warped (in a good way). but you seem to have this habit of equally tightening and cleaning all areas the more you work, and thus losing track of your focal point. maybe after the initial block-out you should try working from your focal point->outwards; technically you're supposed to work all over a painting at once and not hone in on one spot, but in your case it might actually help you see how leaving something less rendered will HELP the more important parts of the picture. once you figure that out I think you'll also get better at distributing detail everywhere at once, because you'll know how to prioritize better. just a thought, I love your work.

>>2679365
>>2679465

yeah i tend to overwork everything and paint without a purpose, hoping to fix that! I just tend to finish a painting and think everything looks really ugly, so i want to go back and keep fixing/changing ideas

>>2679474
oop, also thanks a bunch for the feedback!!! c:

>>2679475
no problem! :)

>>2679475

No problem bro. Your stuff is great, you easily can go places and advance in no time.

File: hopper nighthawks.jpg (1MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1920px

I put together some of the studies/sketches Hopper did for his piece "Nighthawks".
I thought it might interest some of you.

>>2682387
Wow that's really cool to see actually

>>2679081
I think the legs needs to be thicker. This gives me sort of the gundam/resistance robot suit feel and the legs are usually plated and thick on those.

File: TWLWb.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>2679426

>>2682387
ty for this anon now i wanna research into other things like this

>>2679244
STOP DOING THIS PICTURE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>2687621
He has already finished you dumbfuck.

>>2679206
I fucking love the lighting and composition in #2

File: kill process.jpg (387KB, 1422x1055px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1422x1055px

just some ultra color practice

>>2685454
>tfw that gif triggers the hell out of me

>>2688534
Why?

>>2679437
"Reference" is just a fundamental tool. Not using it, is far more creative, productive and essential to expanding as a real artist.

>>2688667
Imagine how good you think it is to not use reference...And then completely negate that, so we're talking about something really bad. Not using reference at all is just that. People can spot bullshit in non-referenced, finished pieces, easily. Depending on what you need to happen in a piece, you'll need more or less reference, but generally some...

>>2688680
Fundamental being the key word. As in a beginners foundation tool. It won't take you to the next level. Only reference what you have retained from your memory, when you're ready to move forward.

>>2688667
Not using reference can seriously cripple your imagination.

Experience painters always have at least 2 or 3 references for their image. This way they can combine their imagination with what is real.

You're full of bull shit kid.

>>2688667
The amount of ignorance in this comment is barbaric.

>>2688703
/ic/ wouldn't know good advice if it slapped them in the face with their own dicks. Don't even try anon.

Reference is the equivalent to copying and pasting.

>>2688732
and money is the equivalent to money

File: summoning-storms_process_smaller.gif (2MB, 600x417px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x417px

I like sometimes making process gifs of stuff I do.. It's kinda fun

File: photostudy.gif (853KB, 600x664px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 600x664px

>>2688769

>>2688769
Is this the ABC method?

File: ritual.gif (1MB, 464x600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 464x600px

>>2688770

>>2688772
its the turd polishing method

>>2688775
would it be better to not render anything if you can only draw turds?

>>2688770
very flat.

the pink is absolutely killing this painting.

>>2688769
>Random tentacle hands.

File: output.webm (890KB, 1070x759px) Image search: [Google]

890KB, 1070x759px

>>2679081
Pls no bully

>>2679181
Those lines. Are you a computer?

>>2688773
Hmm... Why do I feel like the lighting on her looks wrong?

>>2685454
tfw it actually works.

>>2689050
got better as it went along

>>2689050
this is very well done.

File: buymebape.jpg (722KB, 1636x666px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1636x666px

>>2679244
Not quite finished yet but i thought id share it aswell

File: astrid.gif (3MB, 600x885px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x885px

isn't the whole point of progress pics to show something that goes from meh to acceptable, instead of from bad to incomplete/still bad?

>>2690361

>chromatic aberration out of nowhere

My fucking eyes

>>2690367
I feel like that was a joke.... I hope

>>2690361
stop using that chromatic shit Instagram shit.

>>2690361
>Started out nice, pleasant pallette, then BING BADA BOOM CONTRAST, LIQUIFY, CHANNEL MIXER, SIGNATURE

>>2689050
Feels like you're ripping off Dave Rapoza, but the end result is nice, so idgaf

>>2690779
I get that a lot and I've been actively trying to get rid of that "Dave Rapoza knock off" aesthetic but its apparently not really been working.

>>2682387
This is really awesome.

>>2689050
great but the colors ruin the charm

>>2690779
Ah don't sweat it man. If it means you're drawing, you're drawing. I doubt Dave minds. I'm pretty sure he actively encourages it.

>>2691459
What's bad about them? I'm still quite new to doing color pieces.

>>2679244
I have noticed a lot of digital painters start off with greyscale. Can you tell me why that is? I just started digital painting (got my first wacom tablet) and I notice a lot of artists use this method.

I like the background. I have such a hard time conjuring a background for people.

>>2692737
They look muddy, nothing really stands out, and you shaded with a darker color rather than a more saturated color (this isn't necessarily bad, but changing the saturation and hue for shading usually makes things look a lot better)
Can you post the full finished work?

File: Skeleton dude done2.jpg (221KB, 1287x1000px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1287x1000px

>>2693134

>>2692991
I just use it in the first 30 minutes of the painting, but why you use it is because if you're only doing it in grayscale you don't have to worry about color and can solely work on building up some nice looking values.
Me though I just use it to get the general shapes down and as fast as possible slap some color on top of it

>>2690240
Nice Goku picture.

>>2690361
edited into oblivion

>>2679202
>>2679206
Hey man the first one of the both of these are superior.

>>2694696
Yeah I've been trying to learn how to consolidate/wrap up paintings, I second guess my decisions too much

>>2694713
You're also a transgender. Right?

>>2694728
Yes, I'm trans, how is this related?

>>2694765
Good looks are always a relation with art.

>>2690361
Where is the lens flare?

>>2690240
Is it finished now since you put it in the progress thread?

>>2679229
>all that chicken scratch

don't draw on your phone, a 5in screen or lower is too small and you're only hindering your progress

>>2700505
Dang, I really like the atmosphere. Do you have a blog?

>>2688770
I know you, from permanoobs

>>2691268
nah shake what you got, love the aesthetic.

>>2700505
2nd to last step is much better than the poorly executed gradation of the final image.

>>2700505
I like the last step the most but it fucks up the comp of the pic a bit.

>>2700505

your linework is nice, but your colors and rendering are pretty poor. work on that

>>2682387
Have any more similar to this?

>>2682387
>artists really actually do multiple iterations
I think I can make it.

>>2679081
Went from great to shit to medicore looking.
What happened there?
Let me try to fix it.

>>2679081
>OP's process
>start with already finished lines and basic value
>next I fully color it and finish the value
>details
>details

wat

>>2703420
That's how it's always done, anon. Haven't you finished a piece before? First part is the hard part, the rest is just render render render.

File: robot.jpg (65KB, 304x448px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 304x448px

>>2679081
Here's my 5 minute take on that robot. I think it looked the most dynamic in the sketch.
I would've just rolled with that and polished it until it's done.

>>2703661
..why those colors

>>2703425
I think it's cooler when the first picture of process is the bare bones sketch/construction. Gives a better sense of turning a blank page into something excellent. I don't like when the first photo is totally polished, and the 2nd to 4th are just rendering color and value.

>>2703674
For modelling with contrast.
You can always change that shit with the color sliders.

>>2688732
you are only a true artist if you are blind

>>2703710
You say this, but plenty of people are blind to the world and we all know who those people are.

>>2703661
Maybe the sketch idea was better but those colors make my eyes puke.

>>2703793
The OP pic has too many greys mixed in.
Might be not an issue for people with Dichromacy but it makes the colors look bland and muddy.

>>2703661
What the fuck happened? I see the changes in value, but somehow it still looks completely flat. Why does is all lime green ass except for the nonsensical blue shadows? Also, you somehow fucked the torso into looking like it's facing almost 90 degrees from the way the legs are situated. A problem, that definitely wasn't in the original sketch.

Also, what's the point of doing a 5 minute rendering, if that's what this even is, of a what was probably a 5 minute sketch, that looked better anyway?

It doesn't matter anyway, but fuck man that thing is gross.


Also, I'd like to point out that the posture and design of the character only change a very minute amount between number 1 and number 4. There's the helmet and it's taller, but I frankly can't see a huge change.

Someone please prove me wrong with an overlay or something.

>>2679111
He clearly used #2 for values, then went over it with color mode or whatever to define the base colors on #3, plus there are some stronger highlights. Then he merged everything and textured it for the final.

OP here. The technical term you're looking for is 'noodling' for steps 2-4.

File: 130220-color-patterns-330p.jpg (88KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 660x495px

>>2704021
Are you sure your eyes are fine? Tell me what numbers you see.

>>2704424
I'm >>2690240 and I can only see 12.. ;_;

>>2704424
Think I can see them all but are the bottom right and left circles meant to just be squiggly paths?

>>2704436
Yeah. They are probably there to deceive you.

>>2704424
>ishihara test

That shit isn't enough to test for colour vision defects.

>>2704436
Bottom row are differentiating plates, they're non verbal and you just have to connect the lines, the bottom middle one is a dummy one thrown in to catch out cunts trying to fake their results or one thats only visible by those with a red-green colour deficiency.

t. optom student

>>2704445
>or one thats only visible by those with a red-green colour deficiency.
I can see all of them so I presume its a dummy to throw off people.

How is this test btw?
http://www.colormunki.com/game/huetest_kiosk

>>2704454
>http://www.colormunki.com/game/huetest_kiosk

Its based off a test thats meant to be conducted in person under the right lighting, so computer monitors will change the results a bit. These sorts of 100 hue sorting tests are good for measuring the severity of a defect, if there is one. The plates posted early are kind of a blunt tool, you either have it or you dont, but they'll miss more subtle problems.

The gold standard is from a machine which does a test similar to this.

http://www.color-blindness.com/rgb-anomaloscope-color-blindness-test/

Generally with colour vision testing you'd want to run multiple tests to get an overall idea.

>>2704445
But I see a faint 45 in the bottom middle if I unfocus my eyes, does that mean I might have a red-green colour deficiency?

>>2704480
Almost everyone has problems seeing it, I think its a problem with computer screens.

>>2704480

Oh my bad then, looking back at my notes that is called a hidden plate. Its meant to be easily picked up by people with defects, but is possible to be seen by people with normal colour vision.

As long as you are seeing the rest of the plates its fine. The criteria for failing the test isn't getting that single plate right. That being said, its not uncommon for people to have a very slight defect they have not noticed, but that sort of thing is only ever picked up by an anomaloscope, and is of little consequence to a person's daily life or drawing ability.

>>2704485
Cheers, that's interesting.

File: palette.jpg (56KB, 958x472px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 958x472px

OP, work on your palette.
Not only is it ugly, but also dull.

File: Priesterino.webm (715KB, 557x758px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 557x758px

>>2689050
I tried to make an another progress webbum.

>>2679202
>>2679206
you get worse as you go

>>2679202
>>2679206
How can you fuck up this much?
Are you lazy or dumb?
Great sketches to medicore smudged shit to complete blurry and bland garbage