I am the Ultimate Critic. I am objective, accurate, rational

File: merc_wip.jpg (228KB, 776x1119px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 776x1119px

>>2782284

File: 1468300150123.png (372KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1600x1200px

>>2782284
does this look 3d to you?

>>2782285
First let it be noted I am aware of this meme, however I will critisize it.

Skillwise it's acceptable for industry work, but looking at details in painting, it might have taken too long to be considered a character concept design. In terms of face design, he is very rigid, uninteresting and blend. His whole face is built on a straightforward square and turns out rather flat. Usage of scar across eyebrow only makes him that much more kitsch. Armor design seems unthought trough, in many ways impractical and in many ways hardly describes the reasoning. Design does not follow function, which is probably the worst mistake when making a strictly functional design such as military armor ( knife on a string?, six million gas-looking/flashbang grenades around belt, random device on thorax). Also the shape language seems to be floating, not having a strict sense of aesthetics which makes all the shapes kind of random. That could be easily argued with functionality, but since that is missing as well, it turns out to be just shit.

All in all, bellow average design, worth for B-tier entertainment industry.
4/10 character design.

File: 1481444883749.png (25KB, 235x210px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 235x210px

>>2782284
>>2782285
>>2782290
>I will give you extensive, throughout critique.
go ahead boi
we are waiting

>>2782291

>blend


You're full of shit, parroting words you picked up lurking here.

>>2782290
It looks like an attempt to make 3d excrement shapes.

Since illustrator (you?) has poor imagination and poor perspective instict it results in a very poor attempt at learning perspective.

My advice is try to grid actual shapes instead of doing random turds.

File: 20161216 opening mood 1 adv3.png (2MB, 1733x743px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1733x743px

still wip, but could use some critique

>>2782294
spotted the op of that chardesign

>>2782285
Like clockwork.

>>2782297

The white triangle shape will need descriptive reasoning. Is it a building? A part of the city? A ship thats docked? Why is it white and the rest of the city is not? Having more shape language that would actually tell us something besides 'this is sci-fi city' would be nice. You will definetly need to improve storytelling, if that is what you want. If you want to show design, then get rid of uneccesary story elements.

On technical terms, the contrast between white and black might not work so well for spatial reasoning (being able to tell where/how high are we). I would also advice against having a certain vignette effects in values, because right now it feels like a big room rather than a city from birdseye perspective. The light mood you're setting up is otherwise nice, the exchange of lit up-dark buildings works well.

>>2782299
Since this is porn, there is no need for extensive and thoughout critique.

I can safely assume that it will be boner inducing for those who appreciate preteen boys.

op is a faggot

/thread

>>2782312

Chunbum, you will always be appreciated as a free soul in a boiling pot of pathologically desperate pseudo-academics.

However, you should have never strayed away from accepting academics as a part of you. You had bright moments, when you actually analyzed, deconstructed and translated information onto canvas.

Being abstract and conceptual for the sake of it will work in the hugbox of elitists scenes of post-modern art, but it will not work for the casual man. If your work had the honesty to justify it's conceptualism, but it doesn't. It turns to be pretentious, needy and forcefull. It's like you're trying to become friends with kids that always hated you. Doesn't that amount to huge stress and depression? Your work cannot be critisized in a constructive way, because you don't allow your work to be constructive. You need to question yourself´.

>>2782302
quite useful, thanks.

yes the triangle is supposed to be a building and separation betweeen triangle and rest of the city makes sense storywise. project is inspired by orwells 1984.

will certainly try to look into spacial reasoning and storytelling, thanks.

File: Shi_lowres.jpg (734KB, 1263x957px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 1263x957px

do me

File: dons.jpg (119KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 960x540px

I'd appreciate some crit on that.

File: le post your work.jpg (375KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1800x1200px

>>2782285
>>2782290
best memes

File: 1111111.jpg (669KB, 2250x1346px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 2250x1346px

>>2782284
If this was a regular thread I'd have something which isn't a study for you in half a year or so but for now I'll post someone else's work

>>2782322

Is that finished? Doesn't look like it.

Your brushwork is still too unstable. The painting looks blurry, messy even as a thumb. You have little to no control over sharp edges which makes eyes bleed when trying to look around the painting. Focal point is in a wierd position and shapes in composition that could potentially direct the viewer there (the steps, the horizon) aren't working well due to value confusion.

Shapes and perspective don't cooperate. There seems to be two horizons on two different planes in picture, on being foreground the other background.

Generally values and colors are mesy, unrestricted, not thought through. You probably had fun painting this, but in order to make a quality work you will need to have less fun and put more thought into what and why are you doing this. Ask yourself, why did you make some weird color gradients on the background hills? Why is half of the picture on the bottom filled with crappy stairs, something that symbolizes rocks?

I could go on and shit on your storytelling, but I'll just let you ask yourself what is the story and how is the viewer suppose to understand it?

You have potential, but you're like a child in puberty, with talent and energy, but not enough discipline to know where to put it. Solidify your work. Put more thought into what and why. Understand every piece of the painting, every piece of design you include.

>>2782327

What is the purspose of this picture? To have a couple of memesters laugh about it? Is it really worth that much effort? If it is, then is there really a standart you need to uphold? What do you want from your work and where do you want to get with it?

The amount of technical mistakes is too extensive to even be accepted and worked on in next months by you. You will need a year or two before your work becomes acceptable to even get actual critique. For now you can keep on going having fun with memes. When you decide you want to get serious with your technical abilities there will be point in critiquing. For comedy purposes you can just focus on stylization and caricatures, because that seems to be your goal in this illustration.

>>2782330
It's a charcoal figure drawing. Not in need of extensive critique, but rather a short one.

Too much copying shapes, not enough reconstruction and translation. Thats why the light looks so much better than any other technical aspect of the figure. The face is absolutely fucking retarded. The pose seems weird and hard, certainly something the original illustrator isn't properly capable of. Extensive training in shapes and 3D thinking is mandatory.

>>2782331

I know this one fairly well.

Excellent post-modern digital illustration. Since the amount of effort is easily visible, it's hard to really critisize techniques and tools applied, such as the obvious tracing. Immitating set-up classical works presumably from around the renessaince, this piece comically illustrates a tragic event in a pseudo-satirical way in which we cannot even be sure to which side does the author leans. There are plenty of implications thrown around the illustration which may or may not be political critique, but as we get familiar with post-modern memstery, we can deduce that it was just slapped there without much thought, mainly for the sake of confusing the viewer.

>>2782340
what's your problem? I'm trying to have fun while learning. Does everybody need to draw the same bland concept-arty things and cute girls?
you even manage to give a critique to one of the board's finest autist who doesn't care one bit about useful comments.
so really, why do you get your high horse with me?

>>2782340
They can draw what ever they want to draw don't be a jerk about it

>>2782348
>>2782352

No, you can draw whatever you want but expect that dependant on what subject you choose to illustrate, you will get judged on. Your personality, taste, creativity, quality of humor is shown in your work, no matter what level of skill you are. You chose to post this kind of work, instead you could have posted a real life study, which would be much more useful to critique, considering you are a blatant amateur.

So you see, my critique is not solely believe on your subject choice, it is based on your skill level as well. And since your skill level seems to be low enough for me to be able to write six a4 papers about what is wrong technically in picture, which in result would only serve to undermine your motivation to keep working and you wouldn't even be able to take most out of it, I'm actually still recommending you keep working and making fun stuff. Have fun with memes or abstract work, as long as you can take a look back at your work and see some improvement.

Altough I find the story you portray unentretaining and even less so funny, I'm not trying to tell you to stop doing this. On the other hand, my personal taste does not have to be a manual for yours. You can do whatever you want. At this point you can only aspire to get better. Find idols, try to find out whats good about their picture and why yours isn't as good. Revise, analyze, reconstruct and finally, improve.

>>2782360
> is not solely believe on your subject choice
solely based*

File: 20161129_161024.jpg (363KB, 1306x980px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1306x980px

>>2782284

>>2782368

Is the average user here this shit now?

Seriously, there is so much technical deficiency I can hardly put up any constructive critique that would help you other then keep working. Do more construction, focus on actualy imagining 3d shapes. Keep doing long, confident strokes. Focus on proportions. All the basic stuff, not much to add. Just keep working.

File: 20161206_000655.jpg (417KB, 1306x980px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1306x980px

>>2782377

>>2782385
Technically much cleaner, not necessarily better however, proportion still remain slightly fucked, even as stylized. Armor design is weird looking. Is that from fantasy?

File: 20161213_214524.jpg (385KB, 1306x980px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1306x980px

>>2782386
batman dude

>>2782394
I'm aware it's batman, but you could have made up that pose and the stylization of armor.

Anyway this looks actually interesting. You went lazy on the beard, and you should have had, the beard could have been the fun and interesting part. But yeah, this looks much better than the first two you posted. I take it it's a study, is it a photo or real life stud?

File: 20160910_045912.jpg (314KB, 1029x1372px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1029x1372px

>>2782397
10 min real life study

>>2782360
> instead you could have posted a real life study
because >>2782322 >>2782297 clearly are right.

once again, why do you get on with pseudo psychological bullshit instead of any kind of remotely useful advice/crit?
you seem really delusional about your intellectual capacities given the shitty insight you provide.

you'll never PYW because you'd lose instantly all potential credibility.
keep on with the delusion!

File: 14659063728472.jpg (471KB, 1778x2548px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1778x2548px

>>2782284

>>2782327
I'm not an ultimate critic, but I've seen you post this twice, so I'll try giving my two cents.

Composition
>I'd spend more time composing your picture in the thumbnail stage. Rules can be broken, but there's enough edge tension to make it uncomfortable. You have a bunch of important elements just barely touching the edges on the canvas- the horse's hoof and tail, the windmill propeller, the sword tip. These could either be given more space or be cut off at unimportant points (i.e. try not to cut the horse off at the joints if you extend it). Personally, I'd extend the canvas up to give the sword more room and shrink or lower the windmill so that the sword point is the top of a compositional triangle, but there may be better ways. Some things could overlap, like the two riders, so you don't have 3 elements evenly spaced out.

Scale
>You could play with a grand sense of scale in this kind of image. I don't really feel the size of the windmill or the protagonists, as both are quite similar right now. You could use size or atmospheric perspective to exaggerate one or the other.

Figures
>It's not clear what the bear creature is. I thought it was a dwarf with a large beard at first. The figures are a bit stiff, and I'm not sure what to suggest other than more gesture drawing and trying to achieve flowing lines.

Color
>You might try color-dropping your palette to see what you get, then take another cool-toned picture and color-drop that to compare. I can't place it, but it seems not quite all in harmony (maybe the warm browns are throwing it off?) and a bit literal (bear is a straight from the paint tube brown).

Values
>Pretty good but could be more exciting if grouped or if it was a different time of day. The figures have shadows but aren't casting shadows. Unless the ground shadows are from the figures, but I'm not sure, since those appear to be going two different directions.

I like an illustrative/cartoony style! I also like the face on the windmill.

>>2782422
THICC

>>2782422
>>2782474
Sry for that but that looks really good. What hardness are you using?

>>2782291
>kitsch

Stopped right there. Kys Dunning-Kruger-kun.

>>2782299
Absolute degeneracy.

File: 14691872358121.jpg (679KB, 1734x2532px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1734x2532px

>>2782480
It's not my of course, but they use HB and 2B/4B as I remember. It's slav anon from 2ch

>>2782489
oh cool, thanks for the info

>>2782470
thanks a lot for this crit!

in fact, most of the time drawing is pretty exhausting as everything has to be planned out, etc.
so I started these bear illustrations to do something "quick" where I don't care that much about everything, just get loose for a change.
> there's enough edge tension
very good point, it's also the case with the calvin&hobbes thingy. I think it's because I started drafting directly on tablet instead of on paper.

quick edit to alleviate some of the worst issues.

>>2782494
vk dot com slash public36114129

File: don2s.jpg (108KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 960x540px

>>2782531
fck

>>2782532
Looks better!

>>2782422
oh god my dick

File: IMG_0733.jpg (3MB, 2268x3070px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2268x3070px

Rip me apart

File: sdf_.jpg (79KB, 595x397px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 595x397px

>>2782342
>Too much copying shapes, not enough reconstruction and translation.
I'm not the guy you replied to and this is a nitpic, but there are many fantastic painters who are trained to copy the 2D shapes. Applying constructive anatomy is absolutely not indicative of skill.

>>2782663
Where's the finished version of that?

>>2782666
It's Richard Schmid, Satan.

>>2782666
Not everything has to be a Chinese overrender, anon

File: IMG475.jpg.jpg (177KB, 582x753px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 582x753px

>>2782284
Not finished

>>2782729
nice

>>2782729
is that the love child of Pence and Trump?

>>2782322

nile get the fuck off of this website

>>2782663
then you'll never create, only copy.

>>2782292
Teal sucks, and Kyle is a hack