Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/12/10 10:57 PM, Kinsei01 wrote: This is one of my favorite recent sketches. I think the muscle work came out nicely....

really nice back anatomy

At 12/12/10 10:57 PM, Kinsei01 wrote: This is one of my favorite recent sketches. I think the muscle work came out nicely.
I was thinking of using this pose for a second Vexon, but if I want to do a rogue, I figure I should go for the more slim muscle build.

Yeah - the only real problems I can see with this one is the front of the torso being a wee bit thick, throwing the already pretty short back into a state of midget-ness. Still, with a thinner build, it would work out well for a pose and be pretty cool at the same time.

At 12/13/10 02:21 AM, Lintire wrote:

At 12/12/10 10:57 PM, Kinsei01 wrote: This is one of my favorite recent sketches. I think the muscle work came out nicely.
I was thinking of using this pose for a second Vexon, but if I want to do a rogue, I figure I should go for the more slim muscle build.

Yeah - the only real problems I can see with this one is the front of the torso being a wee bit thick, throwing the already pretty short back into a state of midget-ness.

Remember, They liked to be called "Little Folk" or "Vertically Challenged"

Still, with a thinner build, it would work out well for a pose and be pretty cool at the same time.

With this pose I really feel that it is all about showing off the muscle. Really Showcasing the Strength of the back muscles. So I think that a smaller build would just take it away unless the arms were bent forward. a little, as if trying to show the biceps and pectorals to an unseen crowd.

At 12/13/10 02:29 AM, Kinsei01 wrote: Remember, They liked to be called "Little Folk" or "Vertically Challenged"

Nect we'll be callling blind people "ocularally challenged". They're such pygmies.

With this pose I really feel that it is all about showing off the muscle. Really Showcasing the Strength of the back muscles. So I think that a smaller build would just take it away unless the arms were bent forward. a little, as if trying to show the biceps and pectorals to an unseen crowd.

Not really. As long as you kept the muscles equally toned, say, Bruce Lee style, you'd still be able to show off the muscles. They just wouldn't have as much mass in them, so while flexing would definitely help, it isn't strictly necessary to show off the much.

With the pose that the picture is in now, he looks quite a bit like level 59, wouldn't you say?

At 12/13/10 02:44 AM, Lintire wrote:
Not really. As long as you kept the muscles equally toned, say, Bruce Lee style, you'd still be able to show off the muscles. They just wouldn't have as much mass in them, so while flexing would definitely help, it isn't strictly necessary to show off the much.

I could see it done as an Bruce Lee style. If I so do the next vexon in this pose then I'll use it.

With the pose that the picture is in now, he looks quite a bit like level 59, wouldn't you say?

Level 59 in deed! lol

Ok now for some shading practice.
I took one of the girl sketches From earlier and slapped some color on her.

Trust me the color slap job isn't pretty.... but the color itself wasn't the point of this practice.

and after smacking a hoe with a paint brush, I added some lights and shadows. I got one with the line art on the left, the one on the right with just the color.
..... and now I'm finally worn out from the day :P

So many boobies, so little time...

At 12/12/10 10:20 PM, Kinsei01 wrote: This is a sketch I been wanting to attempt for a long time. When I finally did, it came out very loose and pretty free, and in the end I like the way it came out. I think I want to try to use the pose a little more so I can refine it and then make a complete piece.

Im liking this... it looks really natural; unposed. you did a great job capturing this pose... did you use a reference?

At 12/13/10 07:21 AM, J-qb wrote: Im liking this... it looks really natural; unposed. you did a great job capturing this pose... did you use a reference?

Yeah I did use reference, Here I uploaded it to the dump. I really liked the original, it felt inspiring.

I was hoping that I could get a discussion started here in my thread over the use of reference. I was wanting to know that if my heavy use of reference for poses lately is a bad thing or me just utilizing another tool.
I used to hate using anything than actual photos for reference, but a couple of weeks ago (right after buying those dungeons and dragons art books,) I was finding myself looking at other art for poses rather than photographs of models. I have been using other art pieces to inspire me and point me in a better direction lately.

So I ask again, For using so much reference, am I hack, or am I just being resourceful?

At 12/13/10 01:03 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote: I don't see a difference between using posemaniacs vs a photo vs an actual piece of art in that sense of using a reference for a certain pose.

I'm beginning to feel the same way. I guess it's probably just me that is over questioning it.

Ok guys.
As we all know, my digital inking is a rather large pile of excrement. But I have seen other users use vector to not only ink, but to color and make it all look pretty bad ass all at the same time. So, I want to get to the point that my digital inking doesn't make who ever looks at it vomit uncontrollably. To help my self, I started Googleing, watched a few vids, and read a few tuts and realized that I may be going at this the wrong way.
The way I was doing it was to take the line tool and trace my sketch to get an ink. After that I would just slap a style on the line and call it done.

Well here is where you all get to call me a complete idiot, cause I didn't seem to realize that the previous way was lazy and stupid.

So these vids and tuts all pretty much had a similar concept of using the pen tool to make the line art from shapes, not the stroke.

yep.... I'm a moron...

So anyway I thought this would be completely time consuming..... well I attempted, and to be honest there wasn't any more time spent on the new way than on the old way I was going about it. I had to take a little more time to adjust, but I personally feel that it was due to inexperience.

I took my Garfield sketch

yeah you remember it from like 4 months ago? well it was simple for the test.

and I messed with it a few ways and I came out with the posted result.

So what I want to know is if this new way looks better than the way I was doing it. And Should I continue to practice this style of inking.

Sketch on the left, ink on the right...

Sketch on the left, ink on the right...

Ok that low res was shit,
see it better here

So what was so bad about your old technique that you wanted to trade it in with a newer one? the bold out lining you've mentioned about inking out the shapes and not the lines for the supposed line weight looks really clear.

At 12/23/10 02:23 AM, argile wrote: So what was so bad about your old technique that you wanted to trade it in with a newer one?

no one liked it, THe only reason I even liked it was because it was so crisp and clean, but the inking always had a really stiff feel, and the line weight never seemed right

the bold out lining you've mentioned about inking out the shapes and not the lines for the supposed line weight looks really clear.

Forgive me, but this didn't make much sense :P Is the new style have more clear line weight?

At 12/23/10 02:28 AM, Kinsei01 wrote:

At 12/23/10 02:23 AM, argile wrote: So what was so bad about your old technique that you wanted to trade it in with a newer one?

no one liked it, THe only reason I even liked it was because it was so crisp and clean, but the inking always had a really stiff feel, and the line weight never seemed right

the bold out lining you've mentioned about inking out the shapes and not the lines for the supposed line weight looks really clear.

Forgive me, but this didn't make much sense :P Is the new style have more clear line weight?

I'm think that that line is suppose to show emphasis on the weight of a character to make it pop up more... if it has anything to do with a style I don't know.

At 12/23/10 02:41 AM, argile wrote: I'm think that that line is suppose to show emphasis on the weight of a character to make it pop up more... if it has anything to do with a style I don't know.

I know what line weight is suppose to do, but I was having trouble getting it to show properly in the method I used to ink with. I'm trying to get a way to ink and keep my nice and clean line art while at the same time looks and feels right.

At 12/23/10 02:38 AM, big-jonny-13 wrote: The varying line weight adds to the character of the piece.

I feel that this phrase is bullshit... or that character is not the best word to use here. The character to me of the piece looks exactly the same in both the skecth and the inked version. Character comes from the human interpretation of overall appearance, varying line weight shows depth and perspective. To me in this drawing the varying line thickness just makes it look messy.

What you don't want to do is for your lines to be so small that they appear grey and not as full a black as the rest of your lineart, so if your going to vary your line weight majorly try and have a minimum line size that you'll use.

In the image below, both drawings are ovals/elipses just that one has a varying line weight and is not consistent the whole way around. The figure on the right just seems like a flat oval, while the one on the right seems less flat and that is 3-dimensional with the bottom edge being closer than the top edge of the elipse...

I feel that this phrase is bullshit ... bottom edge being closer than the top edge of the elipse...

true dat Cloudy.

but line weight does add something extra to the piece. When used correctly it adds style. But, style can often lead to a piece being illegible, but line weight can balance that.
It can show where a line goes behind another, granted that this is not the correct way to draw if your trying to draw realistically, it works really well for a cartoon.

here are some examples of where line weight is used to show where lines are going behind others.

I do agree with Cloudeater that having line weight does not suggest the actual character/mood or thoughts of a character.

At 12/23/10 03:58 AM, Spac3case916 wrote: It can show where a line goes behind another, granted that this is not the correct way to draw if your trying to draw realistically, it works really well for a cartoon.

I don't understand at all what you mean by this. To me it's the fact that one line continues and that the other doesn't that shows where a line goes behind another. I can't think of what else you could mean, the places in the example are inconsistent as to which line is infront or behind.

Looking at this larger version it seems there are a few places where the lines look really cool but at some places the lines just get way too thin and the eye and mouth don't even have a complete line.

To me it's the fact that one line continues and that the other doesn't that shows where a line goes behind another.

the lines are thicker where they meet other lines. This helps give the illusion that the thicker line is behind the thinner one...almost a shadow that is being cast by the thinner line.

Looking at this larger version it seems there are a few places where the lines look really cool but at some places the lines just get way too thin and the eye and mouth don't even have a complete line.

but that's part of the style that Garfield was drawn in. It seems like you just dont like this style.

At 12/23/10 05:12 AM, Spac3case916 wrote:

To me it's the fact that one line continues and that the other doesn't that shows where a line goes behind another.

the lines are thicker where they meet other lines. This helps give the illusion that the thicker line is behind the thinner one...almost a shadow that is being cast by the thinner line.

I thought you meant something like that but in the connections you have circled the thicker line isn't always behind the thinner one and in most cases the thinner line is behind the thicker one.

It seems like you just dont like this style.

lol good one!

I thought you meant something like that but in the connections you have circled the thicker line isn't always :behind the thinner one and in most cases the thinner line is behind the thicker one.

Oh yeah. I should have made myself clearer. The examples of thick lines behind thin are made around the ears.

lol good one!

I try to make you laugh Mr. Cloud. I try so very hard. ^^

I catch a few hours of sleep, and my thread gets some action.... well at least one of us is....

Perhaps Garfield was the wrong choice to bring this up with.
Here is a start of a second one I was working on last night. Although perhaps just as stylized as Garfield, its style is different all together.

As for the sudden thickness in some areas, I saw it in one of the tutoorials, and it made a bit of sense to me. Not so much in the terms of depth, but in the terms of the start or sudden end of a line. Link to the tut
Although now that I have a more fresh set of eyes, I am seeing a couple new things in that tut that I wasn't last night. Looking at some of his areas, the artist doesn't taper to a point. This was probably a point I missed on my first couple of reads.

since I have better things to do... I'll procrastinate more with some wi of this new ink style....
Fade between the line art and the sketch.

I figure if I make enough post some one has to get fed up with me and say something.....

damnit.... wrong one....

and here I was trying to look cool :'(

At 12/23/10 01:16 PM, Kinsei01 wrote: damnit.... wrong one....

and here I was trying to look cool :'(

Your still cool to me
but these lines that are more on the inside, specifically the one on the thumb, make it look almost square. This is just line art, but sometimes, the less the better.

At 12/23/10 04:21 PM, DemocracyFTW wrote:

At 12/23/10 01:16 PM, Kinsei01 wrote: damnit.... wrong one....

and here I was trying to look cool :'(

Your still cool to me

yes.... yes I am.... :P

but these lines that are more on the inside, specifically the one on the thumb, make it look almost square. This is just line art, but sometimes, the less the better.

Yeah I guess I got a little carried away....

Any other yay's or nays?

Personally, I hated that tutorial.
Just saying.
However, I'm not going to say the same about your art. :P
The new forearm looks nice. The angle is a little weird, like the fingers have been twisted. Maybe its because of those little lines seperating the light from the shadows. Get rid of that nonsense.
After a second look-over, it looks like you are trying too hard. You are adding too much detail, when you can look at it and appreciate it as a hand, nice and simple, not some intricate piece. Idk. Maybe you want it to look that way. But I think you are overthinking it.

Maybe I am overthinking it.

Personally, I haven't been using Vector that much lately (ever since Ash told me to use the pen tool in SAI one time... Its so much easier!!)
BUT
I'm pretty sure Pixelcake does. Maybe ask her for some pointers?
On the other hand, if you got SAI, I could teach you a few things ;D
I don't even know why I'm saying anything considering I thought your old lineart was fine >.>