euclase:

So here’s the other demonstration, wherein I draw the eye of Ned Stark.

The thing about eyes is:

1. The whites are almost never white. Here, the whites of Ned’s eyes look sort of gray/pink.
2. The iris isn’t necessarily round. The pupil isn’t necessarily visible. You might not see any eyelashes. Draw what you see.
3. Eyeballs have shadows on them just like everything else.

The thing about skin and realism (and photorealism) in general is:

1. Thinner skin looks redder and more saturated because it’s closer to the blood underneath. Thicker skin looks yellow, more opaque, and less saturated. That’s an anatomy rule to keep in mind, but it’s not necessarily a visible thing that you can draw. Sometimes, anatomy goes out the window, especially if you’re drawing only what you see.
2. Relatedly, in photorealism there can sometimes be odd colors in weird places regardless of skin quality. This is called an optical effect, which has little to do with anatomy and more to do with the photo medium, whether it’s a film or a photograph. A good example can be see in screencaps. Check out this page of SPN screencaps. Notice how things look greenish? That’s because of the camera. Remember: when you draw from a photo, a camera saw it first. Different cameras capture different things. Not only that, but editors, directors, and photographers armed with their own equipment might have had a go at the image before you came along (one of the many reasons why, no matter how much you might think it does, no screencap, no graphic, and in some cases no fanart can ever be your property). This is not the case with life drawing, where the only optical effects are what exist in the room with you, but it’s something to keep in mind.

Like with the hair demo, I started big and gradually got smaller with details. The very last detail I did in this drawing was the white highlights on the eyes. 

It’s not the way everyone paints, but it’s how I do photorealism. Hope it helps you. :)

Without looking at the numbers on the apples, can you guess the programs used?

I often hear the claim that digital art is easier because the computer or the program does the work. Added to that I hear complaints form people who say “I don’t have Photoshop” as if the lack of Photoshop is a fine excuse for a lack of skill in digital rendering.

But it is not the program or the computer that makes digital paintings good, it is the skill, experience, and education of the artist. A god artist can take any medium, and after learning it can produce great works. Why? Because a good artist already has mastered the fundamentals of art such as form, shape, color theory, value, light, and they’ve already trained their brain to draw what they see. Just as it is not the pencil that enables drawing, it is not the tool that makes the beauty of the artwork, it is the hand and eye of the artist.

To prove that it is not the program, but the artist that makes all the difference in the quality of digital art a friend of mine Arshes Nei, made a series of apple paintings all done in different digital art programs. I will post the answers in my next blog.

“Repetition” by the skilled Ryohei Hase.

Concept art by Cory Loftis.

“Overheating” a digital painting by Aditya Ikranegara.

By Chris Walker:

By Nicolas Francoeur

By Mr. Mo

A clearer look at the art program Alchemy. This is more of a thorough tutorial-like video that better explains how to use it.

You can download Alchemy for free here: http://al.chemy.org

Written by Kevin Hulsey.

This page will cover the various types of reference materials that are commonly provided to the technical illustrator in order to accurately and efficiently execute an illustration that contains highly detailed subject matter. The following five examples show the dramatic effect that reference material type and quality will have on the final cost and turnaround time of a given illustration.

“On-Angle” Photographic Reference

When a client provides photographic or CAD reference material that is in the exact same angle of view as the final illustration, it is generally referred to as “On Angle” reference.

The following five images show the various stages of a sequential photo shoot. While the camera remains stationary, the vehicle is disassembled and internal parts are placed in their correct positions and orientations. (Fig.1) Body exterior. (Fig.2) Body with hood, doors, and wheels removed. (Fig.3) Chassis buck. (Fig.4) Chassis buck with wheels, hoses, and engine covers removed. (Fig.5) Interior seat buck and steering column.

When a client provides this type and quality of photographic reference, it will result in the least amount of illustration time and the lowest illustration cost when compared to the use of other types of reference material. On the other hand, providing this type of reference material can be quite expensive for the client so a cost/benefit assessment must be made to determine which scenario will result in the lowest overall cost.

“On-Angle” CAD Reference

The following two images show an illustration that was created from CAD reference that was output at the angle used in the final illustration.

This type of reference is equivalent to “on angle” photo reference in that it will result in the lowest illustration cost and the fastest turnaround time. The CAD line-art output would typically be redrawn in vector based software such as Adobe Illustrator before being exported to Photoshop. Additional backup photo reference will still be required to to complete the color work.

Blueprint Reference

This example shows an illustration created from paper or electronic blueprint reference, engineering drawings, or PADs (production assembly drawings) in plan and elevation view (Fig.1). Fig.2 and Fig.3 show the prespective construction phase that will need to take place in order to create a 3/4 perspective view of the subject from this type of reference material.

When a client provides this type of reference, it will result in a much longer turnaround time and a much higher illustration cost (as much as 200% higher than the base price shown in the first two examples).

“Off Angle” Photographic Reference

The following images show an illustration that was created from reference that was not shot at the same angle as the final illustration angle. The process of creating an illustration from this type of reference is prone to errors since many assumptions must be made regarding scaling. The photographic reference would need to be very sharp, down to the smallest detail.

Creating an illustration from this type of reference will result in the highest illustration cost, as much as 250% of the base price, and longest turnaround time because it is the most labor intensive process.

Good vs. Poor Photographic Reference

The following images show the difference between good quality “high resolution” photo reference and poor “low resolution” photo reference. When zooming in on Fig.1 we see that the smallest detailes are readable (see Fig.2). In Fig.3, the detail starts to fall apart as we zoom in, reducing it’s usefulness. Working from poor quality photo reference (as shown in Fig.3) could add as much as 100% to the cost of an illustration and will increase the likelihood that mistakes will be made due to guesswork.

For more information on the terminology used within this page, refer to this Glossary of Technical Illustration Terms.

thedevildraws:

thedevildraws:

I often hear the claim that digital art is easier because the computer or the program does the work. Added to that I hear complaints form people who say “I don’t have Photoshop” as if the lack of Photoshop is a fine excuse for a lack of skill in digital rendering.

But it is not the program or the computer that makes digital paintings good, it is the skill, experience, and education of the artist. A god artist can take any medium, and after learning it can produce great works. Why? Because a good artist already has mastered the fundamentals of art such as form, shape, color theory, value, light, and they’ve already trained their brain to draw what they see. Just as it is not the pencil that enables drawing, it is not the tool that makes the beauty of the artwork, it is the hand and eye of the artist.

To prove that it is not the program, but the artist that makes all the difference in the quality of digital art a friend of mine Arshes Nei, made a series of apple paintings all done in different digital art programs. I will post the answers in my next blog.

Can you guess the programs used?

Now with the answers:

Unumbered top: MS Paint

1. Gimp
2. Artweaver
3. Sai Paint
4. Painter
5. Photoshop
6. ArtRage

I often hear the claim that digital art is easier because the computer or the program does the work. Added to that I hear complaints form people who say “I don’t have Photoshop” as if the lack of Photoshop is a fine excuse for a lack of skill in digital rendering.

But it is not the program or the computer that makes digital paintings good, it is the skill, experience, and education of the artist. A god artist can take any medium, and after learning it can produce great works. Why? Because a good artist already has mastered the fundamentals of art such as form, shape, color theory, value, light, and they’ve already trained their brain to draw what they see. Just as it is not the pencil that enables drawing, it is not the tool that makes the beauty of the artwork, it is the hand and eye of the artist.

To prove that it is not the program, but the artist that makes all the difference in the quality of digital art a friend of mine Arshes Nei, made a series of apple paintings all done in different digital art programs. I will post the answers in my next blog.

Can you guess the programs used?