Tutorials done by Stanislav Prokopenko who is an instructor at Watts Atelier.
Right click + New Tab to see the images in their original size. There are 10 images, sorry I had to chop them up because Tumblr has a image size limit and starts resizing.
Ok, attempting to demonstrate something…
So this is Ned Stark. And I’m going to render a section of his hair. This is good practice.
I start by laying basic colors, marking off shadows and highlights. If you’re still getting the hang of measuring things, try drawing at a different size from the original. The point is not the size or shape so much as the lighting.
His hair is naturally light brown (look on the other side of the photo where there is no sunlight), but when the sun hits it, it looks almost white. So I lay in colors accordingly. I start big and get increasingly more detailed.
It might sound unexpected, but if you’ve watched Bob Ross paint, keep him in mind when you’re doing realism. You don’t have to draw every little thing. You only have to give the impression. In photorealism, you only have to draw what you see. In the original photo of Ned, you don’t see every hair. Instead, you see blobs of white and ovals of black and orange squiggles. Draw what you see, and draw only enough to believe it.
A few more points:
- Human hairs are individual, but you will never see all of them individually. Instead, you’ll see triangles of white and black, blobby shapes, and dots. Draw that stuff, not the hair. Look for places where the shape, color, and tone changes. That’s what drawing is: conveying a visual change.
- Also, be deliberate. Lay on solid colors as fast as you can. Do a base coat of color. Don’t leave any white space. Don’t hesitate. It’s scary, but practice it. It’s much easier to deal with a digital painting if you already have something on the page than if you have nothing.
- Paint first, then draw.
I’ll have more in the eye drawing coming up later. But this is a good start, maybe?
I think the biggest roadblock people run into is patience. It’s going to take you a long time to be able to draw like this. There’s no way around that. It will take you a long time just to see this stuff—even just to figure out what you’re looking at in one little section of hair. You’ll be WTF AM I DRAWING THIS IS A SENSELESS MESS a lot of the time. That’s okay. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what you’re looking at. Sometimes it’s hard to stop thinking “hair is supposed to do this” and start letting your eyes see what’s really there. Give yourself time. It takes practice. That’s why practicing on little sections (especially eyes, which are nice because they give you pretty little drawings in the end) is helpful.
Right then. :)
So here’s the other demonstration, wherein I draw the eye of Ned Stark.
The thing about eyes is:
- The whites are almost never white. Here, the whites of Ned’s eyes look sort of gray/pink.
- The iris isn’t necessarily round. The pupil isn’t necessarily visible. You might not see any eyelashes. Draw what you see.
- Eyeballs have shadows on them just like everything else.
The thing about skin and realism (and photorealism) in general is:
- 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.
- 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.
More on how the digital drawing program Alchemy can be used to generate ideas and inspire
By Chris Walker:
By Nicolas Francoeur
By Mr. Mo
Illustration Reference Types & Requirements
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.
Free Critique
Believetomakeadream asked for critique on this piece. And I’m always open to giving advice, answering questions, and giving critique; so if any of that interests you dear Tumblr, feel free to contact me.
I think you’re getting there. It’s good to see you working with lots of different color variations in your skin tone (not just tints and tones, but honest colors). And that’s very good. The skin has many blues, greens, yellows, and greys in with it’s warmer peachy pigments. I can right off tell that you spent the most time on the eyes, hair, and lips. Am I correct in that assumption? These are the most complete parts of your digital painting. What I would really like to see here is that you push that same level of finished look in all of it. The body and face proportions need some loving too! So get in there you rascal and put in those eyebrows, render those muscles, and smoothe out your variation of tone on the collarbones. Also I’d look into your facial structure a bit. This angle seems very hard, so I can’t be completely sure, but I think the angle of the jaw is off on both sides. Your eyes and lips are more frontal, but the face is angled more. I also think the chin may be a bit small. Are the ears not visible at all in the original portrait? And the hair is nice, but doesn’t cnnect well to the head. It’s very floaty. But I think that will be absolved with a little more attention to detail and rendering in the figure. Good luck!
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?
