Critique - More new pics

Squeaky · Post by **Squeaky** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:49 am

Hem. Did a pic trying to improve my coloring abilities... trying out new things, that sort of thing. Any critique?

Warofwinds · Post by **Warofwinds** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:19 am

How about a link? The one on your www button doesn't work. Do you have a keenspace account?

Squeaky · Post by **Squeaky** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:38 am

Ya the message got posted before i had a chance to get the attachment the right size.

Very sorry, hope it works now.

Warofwinds · Post by **Warofwinds** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:46 am

Well, you've got the human anatomy down pretty well, though I think perhaps you should practice a little more on feline/animal anatomy. The puma's (or lioness perhaps?) legs look stiff, and I think it needs a little more shadow to show some value. I'm lovin' that conveniently placed tail though

, and her hair.

I'm not quite the greatest at advice as you can see, so I'm gonna go now *scuttles*

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:39 pm

I did a quick one for anatomy

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:06 pm

Colouring is pretty good...not perfect. Some areas on the girl's skin look a little harsh...a blotch of dark, or a really noticeable bit of light...you could do with a bit more blending is what I'm saying.

All in all though, it's quite good.

Sketch286 · Post by **Sketch286** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:51 pm

if she's supposed to "be a survivor" or and asskicker or whatever then I'm sorry, but I'm just gonna laugh.....but just because I could break her.

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:11 pm

More on anatomy: the length of the two legs do not match in your picture. Her left knee (the right knee from the front) is higher than the corresponding knee on the other leg.

Her thigh muscles also appear to be missing. Put more meat on the poor girl.

Also if you really want to be anatomically accurate, with a loincloth that low, the area of the groin she's showing off usually has something called 'pubic hair' growing on it, which is generally visible unless she erm... waxes it off. Hmm... Somehow I don't see jungle-women being the types to do that.

It's physically impossible to 'stand' off-balance on tip- toe like she is doing right now, unless she's sitting using the cat as a bench, which doesn't looks like she is.

Not a bad try with colour, but a lot of blotching. Blotching can be made to work in an artistic sense, but I don't htink that was what you were aiming for here.

I think you were aiming for a tantalizing looking jungle outfit, but that physics-defying clothing (how does it stay on at all?) is rather impractical to the point of all this being funny instead of being risque.

All in all, not a bad attempt, but there's lots to improve on.

Squeaky · Post by **Squeaky** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:36 am

Hey! Wow! Yes I appreciate this sooo much cuz I know I can't be seeing ALL of my mistakes, you guys really opened my eyes.
(The botchiness I saw- laziness, I did this all in like 2 hours)

I'm taking note on everything you said- particularly about the shape of the boobs and muscles and ribcage- I think i need to practice drawing real people more, maybe i should drag out the sketchbook. It was supposed to be slightly slylized though.

About the absence of a pushup bra- Phalanx, are you a man? *snickers* I CAN be done.... well, with rubber and sticky pads, granted, not something she would have in the woods so it's still impossible.

The pubic hair comment CRACKED me up... lol. "Hmm lemme see... i just add some pubic hairs hanging out.... PERFECT!"

thanks everybody for replying
Sami

Sput · Post by **Sput** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:39 am

Squeaky wrote: About the absence of a pushup bra- Phalanx, are you a man? *snickers* I CAN be done.... well, with rubber and sticky pads, granted, not something she would have in the woods so it's still impossible.

*giggles* noo, phalanx is a chick. X3 *runs back off*

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:01 am

RA wrote:
Squeaky wrote: About the absence of a pushup bra- Phalanx, are you a man?
*giggles* noo, phalanx is a chick. X3 *runs back off*

*counts* Almost two weeks since the last time I got mistaken for a male. Not too bad at all, considering the avatar...

But yes, as RA noted, I'm female, that's why I'm particular about female anatomy.

The pubic hair comment CRACKED me up... lol. "Hmm lemme see... i just add some pubic hairs hanging out.... PERFECT!"

I'm glad you found that amusing. I just wanted to make the point that if you're going to reveal that much, you'd better know what's in that place you're revealing.

Most people would consider the appearance of a nipple or pubic hair in a drawing as obscene. Fair enough, but if you're showing off scantily-clad breasts without nipples where the nipples should be (ie pretending it's not there) it doesn't get you off either. If you find the concept of drawing those things icky, then don't reveal that much.

Squeaky wrote:I CAN be done.... well, with rubber and sticky pads, granted, not something she would have in the woods so it's still impossible.

A fair warning to anyone reading this, I'm going to be talking about bras for the next few paragraphs, so if this stuff creeps you out, stop reading now.

As far as I know, strapless bras generally lack that push-up effect without lower support (ie the U-shaped wire frame you find in some bras). Even with lower support, I find they are unable to maintain the wonderbra effect without the straps pulling them up.

Secondly, for strapless bras to stay on, they either need A) a 3/4 cup or more b) Tight clothes OVER the bra so it stays in place. Unfortunately in this case neither are present, so breasts are more likely be pulled down by gravity instead:

This might stay on. Still not practical, but at least it doesn't defy the laws of physics:

Sopheia · Post by **Sopheia** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:02 am

I was wondering... if you colour in photoshop... do you use the burn tool for shading? If this is the case... it is probably the reason for the hashness. Try using a separate layer set on multiply for shading... that way you can play around without risking any of your basic tones. Also, if you use the smudge tool/blur tool you can make the shading softer. And of course a soft brush helps too.

If you are using some other program though... either see what applies or forget what I said.

Squeaky · Post by **Squeaky** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:09 am

Ya! I've been trying to figure that out, with the multiply layer, I'd set it on multiply and then try to figure out how to make it look right but it just didnt.... so ive been stuck with the burn tool, it's not a good look. (note- this is why I'm trying to IMPROVE my coloring

)

Phalanx- Sorry about the mistake!

If I'm getting the wrong vibe I apologize, but somehow I'm getting this vibe off you have the impression I'm completely ignorant and maybe airheaded. I do appreciate the comments and I usually drew boobs different and have fixed the mistake, it was just how it turned out this time, it was supposed to be a little exaggerated. Looking at it now I see it looks ridiculous, but thats what experimentation is about.

-guys close ur eyes more boob talk ahead-

What I meant by tis possible is that when one puts Ccup boobs into a Bcup strapless push up bra, it gets pretty damn close... (the gelly pads and pink bows do it.

)

I want to put another pic up here to be critiqed, but at the moment I have nothing I consider good enough. So another day.

-Squeaky

Squeaky · Post by **Squeaky** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:09 am

Oh right, forgot to ask- anyone mind explaining the multiply layer to me? I'd really appreciate it.

Phact0rri · Post by **Phact0rri** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:22 am

always be loving the female anatomy specific theads. Not just the bra stuff but despite growing up in an all female house hold there was a lot of little things I never know, and so I be learning.

Though I don't have to much to mention besides which already has been said, I have to point out the line thickness. In cell shading line thickness can be great to allow the figure to show itself from the background. but with gradient style shading it turns to really make a blatant contrast and takes away from the lighting work that is being done. Usually a thicker line on the side apposing the central light works nice to allow consitancy and allow the viewer to tell where the light is coming from better. but a unform thick line all around it makes the entire figure look like its surrounded by a shadow. I'd assume this is not the case.

Over all a good job on the image, better than anything I could do. ^_^

RemusShepherd · Post by **RemusShepherd** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:14 am

Squeaky wrote:Oh right, forgot to ask- anyone mind explaining the multiply layer to me? I'd really appreciate it.

Every color has values in RGB. Bright yellow, for example, is 100% Red, 100% Green, 0% Blue. (Photoshop uses both percentages and 0-255 scales for colors. Percentages are easier to teach with.)

So let's say you have a background of yellow and you put over it a multiply layer of pale purple -- 70% R, 50% G, 70% B. The combined colors will be 1.00*0.7 = 70% Red, 1.00*0.5 = 50% Green, and 0.00*0.7 = 0% Blue, which makes orange. That's how multiply layers work.

However, for shading you mostly want to use shades of gray. Black is 0%/0%/0%, so anything multiplied by black turns into black, while anything multiplied by white (100%/100%/100%) retains its original color. If you use gray shades in a multiply layer, you will be adjusting the brightness of your underlying color without affecting its hue.

(Professionals often use purplish shades, because the sun is yellow so shadows are slightly purple. But start with shades of grey.)

When you get better at shading, you may work with the darker color value at varying opacity in a normal layer -- painting in the new color instead of using photoshop tricks to arrive at it. But the multiply trick works very well and it's a good place to start. Only use color burn and dodge for special effects. Shiny, textured surfaces (including shiny hair) are good places for dodging, while I only use the burn tool for smoke and explosions.

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:40 am

Nah. I think you're just getting another vibe entirely (see my locationm nothing personal). It sometimes comes off as me sounding impatient over something.

Squeaky wrote:What I meant by tis possible is that when one puts Ccup boobs into a Bcup strapless push up bra, it gets pretty damn close... (the gelly pads and pink bows do it. )

Generally I find strapless bras can't push up, because they simply have trouble staying on in the first place. Of course, they might have invented some kind of new sticky bra that does the job, so it's possible your idea could work.

Damn it sounds uncomfortable though.

Squeaky wrote:Oh right, forgot to ask- anyone mind explaining the multiply layer to me? I'd really appreciate it.

http://www.thejaded.co.uk/studio/photos ... tiply.html

Sincerely · Post by **Sincerely** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:11 pm

I'm going to throw caution to the wind and disagree with Phalanx here. OooOOoo. Anyway, this is about the shoulders/arms comment. Ha ha!

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that my arms look like the original picture. Just 'cause she's a jungle woman doesn't mean she's all muscley. I've seen a lot of women who are a lot more physically active than I am that do in fact, have smooth arms like that. To whit, Phalanx's bra picture, showing the pronounced biceps/deltoids actually makes her look kind of bony.

Just throwin' that out there.

Squeaky · Post by **Squeaky** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:22 pm

I thought the muscley arms/shoulders in Phalanx's picture made her look like a man... Oh well she was trying to make a point. My arms look like the picture too. I had a time when I was somewhat anorexic at 100 lbs and my arms actualy dipped in, but thats not normal.

I added more muscle to my womens arms since then, but its not very obvious but I think it does add something.

Thanks for clearing that up Phalanx.

About the strapless bras, maybe my boobs are just special. Or maybe, Girls, we have stumbled upon what Victoria's secret actually is... 8)

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:14 pm

sincerely wrote:Anyway, I just wanted to point out that my arms look like the original picture. Just 'cause she's a jungle woman doesn't mean she's all muscley.

Well, I guess it depends on what kind of jungle woman. I was thinking of of "Amazon" when I saw the picture and the cat, so I thought muscles would have made more sense.

I didn't think it was THAT muscly, though. Was it? I did a quick check in the mirror, it seemed about right to me, albeit a little exaggerated. Granted, I did use to do a lot of sports and outdoor stuff, so maybe I'm not a very good reference.

But it's a very good point. If she were a catwalk model, she'd get a different kind of physique entirely

Squeaky wrote:I thought the muscley arms/shoulders in Phalanx's picture made her look like a man... Oh well she was trying to make a point. My arms look like the picture too. I had a time when I was somewhat anorexic at 100 lbs and my arms actualy dipped in, but thats not normal.

I added more muscle to my womens arms since then, but its not very obvious but I think it does add something.

I did exaggerate a bit, but I just wanted to make a point that arms are not flat. You'll probably want to tone the muscles down unless you're doing muscly women, I guess, but even the slight curve makes a difference.

Hmm, checking Loomis, I just realised that I need to draw more elongated deltoids:
http://d538518.u320.bigcrawler.com/Figu ... ng/150.htm
(Link NSFW)

Awesome! I just learnt something I haven't been doing right. (Note to self: Deltoid ends at point 2 not 1 1/2). Squeaky, thanks for the thread. I wouldn't have realised this error otherwise.

About the strapless bras, maybe my boobs are just special. Or maybe, Girls, we have stumbled upon what Victoria's secret actually is... 8)

*snicker*