Even Kim Jung Gi makes perspective mistakes /ic/. Don't

>>2971654
The concept fag that redid the work ruined the composition, nothing flows anymore.

>>2971654
>tfw though it was a photo from the thumbnail

>>2971654
yes, did he not do the drawing too? the drawing has a nice wide-angle lens look and taking so much of that out removes a surprising amount of life from the scene.

>>2971654
This is done in 3d if I remember well so it's normal if the perspective is different since there is lense deformations and things like that

Can anyone warp this to achieve the fish eye perspective Kim jung gi did in the original?

>>2971666
Jesus ya fucks... Neither the drawing or render are worth picking at.

Some of you need to learn that minor tweaks to an objects bend or rotation on whichever axis are not a big deal unless it creates visual reading problems/tangents or is distracting in an egregious manner.

Stop obsessing about details and overworking your pieces and make some art

I'm pretty sure Kim posted this on his insta and even complimented the artist who made it.

>>2972108
I imagine one could warp the 3d sceen if they had the 3d file and a program to do so

but to warp a jpg you can only do it with lasso tool and redraw some parts, but that would mean it's not a 3d render anymore, just a photobash of a 3d rendering

>>2972134
How about you stop cockriding everyone that's better than you, little slut

>>2972193
How about you make the pretense of knowledge less obviouse.

>>2972193
Dude I dont even know who did that render and I respect kjg but dont make my comment at all because of it.

This is simple shit /ic/ needs to get a grasp of. I genuinely assume there is a high level of autism at play on this board. It infects critiquing and a lot of people here miss the forest for the trees.

>>2972167
Yes. In most 3D rendering apps there are settings to control the lens of the camera pre-render.

>>2972193
Fuck off cuck.

>>2972205
>not missing the trees for the branches
>not missing the branches for the bark
>not missing the bark for the cells

>>2972205
>a lot of people here miss the forest for the trees
Okay true, but the "forest" in this analogy when applied to art and illustration is a piece's overall compositional effectiveness, so by that logic the render is obviously worth picking at, because it has tossed away a large chunk of the compositional cohesion (forest) of the piece in order to dickride "muh perfect perspective," which would be one of the "trees" of your analogy.

At what point can "Mistake" be replaced with unnecessary "nitpick"?
These "mistakes" are so little they dont matter

File: 1416610398767.jpg (43KB, 600x591px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x591px

>>2973030
A composition is only fundamentally changed if it reads differently. Both images look the same if you squint, therefore the composition is unchanged. A few details are changed, and composition elements are reinforced with value and color, but everything is basically the same, just adjusted, and imo for the better (well except for the tits. KJG's tits are much more uhhhhhh tasty)

I really wish /ic/ would understand the difference between minor and major flaws and understand critique on minor flaws alone is nitpicking.

>>2971992
>>2972058
motherfucking this.

>>2971654
that's probably the worst painting I've ever seen.

at least his technical skill are there.

basically he just painted some cooks in a kitchen then was like fucking mermaid cool.

>>2978577
You have to be 18 years or older to post here.

>>2978583
stfu bitch

>>2975504
They're only "minor flaws" to you because you don't know how composition works.
For example. one critique would be "hey, he kinda moved the bottle at the bottom right of the composition." That may seem insignificant if you don't know the function that the bottle played in the original version, but changing a small detail like that has a major effect on the read of the piece. The bottle was there as a framing element that redirects the path of the viewer's eye in an area where the contour of he mermaid's body would run it off the picture plane. The remake tries to replicate this same effect by aligning the bottle more with the character in the background. However, since the character doesn't have as much visual "oomph" as the bottle, which is a high-contrast foreground element, it isn't able to successfully redirect the visual flow it sets up. And then since the bottle now points completely off the composition it heavily fucks up the flow of the piece.
These may be "small" details in that they don't take up much of the picture plane, but they certainly don't have a small effect on the picture, especially in instances like these where the artist made quite a few similar adjustments to the piece, all of which derail the visual flow of the composition.

>>2975504

Duningu Krugeru-san spotted

>>2978583
you just spoke to a genius.

>>2972134
this.

>>2972134
There is a horrible tangent in the render with the top of the guy on the left's hat and the drawer behind him, another bad tangent with the old guy in the middle and the bottom of the drawers. More horrible tangents with the mermaid's arm and the jars in the foreground, the knife and the mermaid's forehead, and the top of the bottle on the right and a drawer for the sink.
Thanks for making me realize it was those horrible tangents that ruined the original composition instead of just a gut feeling.

And the guy on the left's head is blocking a light which kills the repeating patern that takes you seamlessly to the background.

>>2979343
it's still a showcase of great rendering ability.

>>2979348
I agree but the compostion got ruined.

>>2972193
Not him but anon is right, faggot.

>>2971654
You're not qualified to critique KJG

post your damn work and then leave

>>2979348

You mean modeling. The software handles the rendering part lol

File: 1436128055827.jpg (42KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 256x256px

>>2978706
>They're only "minor flaws" to you because you don't know how composition works.
>implying
I know a great deal about composition, and more than enough to know that it wasn't a strong enough vertical stop in the original piece. In fact I'd argue that such a large and bold element in the original composition only detracted from the main subjects, by being too heavy of an element too far to the edge.

This is not uncommon with KJG's work, having seen a lot of it it's well noted how easily the forest gets lost in the trees. That's what happens when you begin drawing with no thumbnailing, you make com positional mistakes.

I'm also wondering why you're using terms like "picture plane" instead of "frame". Do you think it makes you sound smart?

>>2978778
Nice memes, I guess

Old Masters makes perspective mistakes

>>2979742
Not op here but
>Has to be accomplished artist to critique art

That's like saying you have to be able to make a summer blockbuster to critique a movie.
It makes no fucking sense.

>>2979742
>This movie sucks!
>Oh yeah? How many movies have you directed?
>...
>Yeah, I knew that, fag.

Kill yourself.

>>2979742
>man, this steak tastes like shit.
>can you cook a 3* michelin star steak?
>no
>then you can't fucking say the steak tastes like shit