Generic portrait

>>2924379
i actually like this, i think the colours are nice.
Maybe there are some vibrant colours that are misplaced (like the purple in the eyebows), but aside from that, good job anon.

With all that said, don't fucking make your own thread, post in one of the draw-threads.

>>2924379
it is shit

>>2924391
Thanks.

But no one ever replies in draw threads, or it gets buried by other posts El quickola. Or someone posts a repaint, and then everyone pays attention to the repaint, etc, etc. Plus I saw a lot of other people posting threads for one drawing, so I thought it was socially acceptable. Sorry 'bout that!

>>2924393

Tell me what you really think~

File: Portrait study Oct2015.jpg (32KB, 454x640px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 454x640px

Boring, straight-on view. 3/4 view would be more interesting.
Subject is emotionless, looks static and dead. Lacks value depth. The hair is all one hue. In general the subject needs more color variation. I see you getting there in the cheeks and eyes, but less so in the hair.

Just to name a few issues.

Is this from imagination?

>>2924404
it is shit

>>2924408
Yes it's from imagination.

Is straight-on view bad on principle? Or is it just too advanced for me to get right?

I have a setting on my brush to vary hue with every step a little bit. You can probably tell. It's also set to pick a color between foreground and background based on pressure. But I'll try to manually shift hues next time!

As for the expression, I have a habit of trying to make the eyes and brows express a more reserved, subtle expression.

Thanks for the critique!

File: c700ba54-b032-49ab-8e2c-4c2711af4f66.png (2MB, 835x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 835x1080px

How about this one?

File: 166e47dd-a252-4155-90a0-c5f1bb8b4e71.png (2MB, 1280x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x1836px

And this one.

It is beauty

>>2924435
What is?

>>2924436
>>2924424
~This one~
I don't know, it just looks very nice. It feels easy on the eyes, and my ocd isn't kicking in so it's looks pretty good imo

>>2924440
They look nice, you're talented, now stop being an attention whore.

File: a4340.jpg (46KB, 500x586px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x586px

>>2924379

>>2924467
Who doesn't like attention?

But I wasn't looking for asspats. Unless you're implying that my art is so good, it must stand to reason that I'd be confident in being praised for it.

>>2924468
I know about the color zones of the face, but looking back at like, Sargent, for example, I don't see all of the color zones adhered to so strictly. It's mostly just red in the cheeks and nose. Can you post an example of a master portrait painting that clearly demonstrates these color zones?

>>2924489
That's exactly what i'm saying.

>>2924379
That's really noice, anon. It has an uniqueness about it. Most portraits feel very generic and dull, at least for me.

File: d6b62e9ad67e46d316aedd724907b8d2.jpg (140KB, 783x1000px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 783x1000px

>>2924498
doesnt follow the zones to a tee i guess, but this repin is worth noting for variations in face color

>>2924379
It's pretty good for a quick imagination thing. I think you would benefit now from finding some good references and then taking information from them and applying it to this. Just subtle stuff--small specifics in the facial features, small proportion things, how the head sits on the neck, how hair reflects light, how the muscles of the neck come down into the shoulder and collar bones, subtle shifts in colour or value, where the edges need to be harder or softer, where you want texture/noise and where you want it quieter etc.

I think you can spend another 30 or 45 minutes just tweaking things. And I don't mean "rendering" or tightening it or licking it. You can have it the same level of finish, but just control things a bit more, correcting where you want information emphasized, where it is important to have precision, correcting the drawing etc. Not licking the painting. Just make some key few important changes. Imagine if a master painter came along think of the few small strokes he would do that would improve it 10x.

I think you have the general things down, now you need to slow and think a bit more and get the subtler stuff, and use reference to help.

>>2924379
Hey are you a girl? you wanna date?

>>2924379
I realy dont like the way you handle edges the way the brush spill every single edge realy annoys me when you enlarge the picture the thumbnail looks good though but if it was me i would focus more on your edges right now it looks like the picture is made with a single version of an edge.

>>2924844
Do you think doing a bunch of Sargent studies would tighten up my portraiture?

I don't really have access to life studies atm, so good photos are my best option. I try to cram as many values as I can in the mid tones, and inject really dark values in specific places throughout the piece to add a dynamic depth. I do also try to have some edge variety.

Also, I totally know what you mean about better defining an area without rendering it. I mostly painted this zoomed out, and only really zoomed in for the eyes. I basically only zoom in when I want to render a specific section of importance.

I know I should use reference more, I'll work on that. Thanks!

>>2924424
Who is this cutie?

>>2924867
Totally. Here's my number: >>5034629553

Call me, big boy

>>2925451
That's not anyone. Just a portrait from imagination. You can tell I just kinda winged it.

>>2925449
>Do you think doing a bunch of Sargent studies would tighten up my portraiture?
Yes. Zorn is good to look at too, he kept the forms surprisingly simple.

>I try to cram as many values as I can in the mid tones, and inject really dark values in specific places throughout the piece to add a dynamic depth
Careful to not overstate the midtones though.

>I do also try to have some edge variety
To be honest your edges are quite sloppy. It's good to have variety but make it more controlled. You have a lot of jagged shapes and unnecessary soft or hard edges in your images.

>>2925476
Yeah, I kinda don't know what I'm doing with edge variety. That seems to not be a thing with most digital art. I currently look to ruan jia for edge variety and control.

Who's a better example?

>>2924400
It is acceptable or at least it should be.
The whole board is for artwork and critique and generals don't work well if someone would like actual, detailed feedback, from multiple people.

Generals are good if you are like hey I drew this what y'all think, and are satisfied with a single line response like "nose too nose".

>>2925490
I got a lot more feedback here than I did in the beginner thread. It's been worth it.

>>2924408

Not OP but I've been wanting to try a painty style for a while now. One of my biggest questions is whether opacity should be 100%?

>>2925485
Ruanjia's edges are good but he uses them in odd ways sometimes, and he has approached it differently over the years as well. Honestly it's best to not really look at digital for edges. Look at old masters more. If you do want to look at digital guys then maybe Jaime Jones or Peleng would be better, though the latter has gone pretty hard edged and graphic in some images. Some of the Asian guys like Lin Ran are good too, or maybe Yhizeng Ke. All the best digital guys for edges look at a lot of oil painting though, and it's better to go to the source for it.

Ultimately it depends what you are aiming for though stylistically.

>>2925493
100% opacity and like 50 or less flow. Depends on the brush, but that's usually how I work.

>>2925511
I prefer to learn from the old masters. Or anyone just as good.

>>2925519

Thank you kind sir.