PDA

View Full Version : Craig Mullins' exercises::sphere.


paperclip
04-16-2005, 12:10 PM
In the art tutorials sticky, there's an exercise by craig mullins in painting primitives. I had a shot.
Any crits are more than welcome. Anyone else who wants to try it out is more than welcome. I followed the rule highlight>tint>halftone>reflection>shadow.
:) Now that I look again, the shadow isn't dark enough, i must fix that up when I get home.
http://picserver.org/view_image.php/52ENOB403CV5/picserver.jpeg

jmBoekestein
04-16-2005, 05:34 PM
Hi Theresa,

it looks like you painted the shadows over the bouncing light. Bounces are a escondary effect and it looks like now it might be some incandescence. The only very saturated ibit is the rim/fall off area. It draws attention but you have made the edges very hard, that sort of jumps out, but the choice of colour seems very good. Really tough to give any good comments on this because it's just a ball. But I tried anyway, hope it helps:).

Stahlberg
04-16-2005, 06:27 PM
Very close, just a couple things.
The shadow of a sphere should always be a perfect ellipse, it's a bit lopsided now.
I think the bounce light should be blurrier, it almost looks like a specular reflection now. I think that's what Jim means too. Blurrier, and almost reaching to the edge of the ball. I see what you're trying to do, with the streakiness, keeping some of the brushstrokes to give it a nice sketchy feel, but in this case it's working against you because it's very hard to do that and still make the sphere read smooth and matte. Maybe a compromise, some touches of airbrush over the strokes?
And the flat white part of the ball makes it look over-exposed, maybe try a very subtle gradation there.

paperclip
04-16-2005, 09:35 PM
any better?

http://img22.echo.cx/img22/9241/sphere8nx.jpg
That bottom part still isn't right and the shadow has a blur in it! :sad: . I'll fix it....

jmBoekestein
04-16-2005, 11:24 PM
That's a huge improvement! Fix the shadows! I'm curious how it will look then, if I squint my eyes it looks quite realistic! Still looks like you need to widen the bounce light area a bit more, and like Mr. Stahlberg said closer to the ground also.

But i didn't know how to make sense of it so I made my computer do the work for me. It was fun actually, it would be a good exercise to actually photograph spheres and cones and light them in 3d to match. But anyway, here's a reference. But it's not painterly so it's just a guide to how the colours might gradiate and so on. See for yourself.

http://img38.echo.cx/img38/2134/paintingaspherehightech15qw.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Kansai
04-17-2005, 03:18 AM
I know I will get slapped but be nice guys where is this tutorial I checked the stickys but all i see is and eye painting tutorial :)

jmBoekestein
04-17-2005, 04:56 AM
*holds breath*

Ithink...it's...in the "art theory links". Well there's a similar one in there anyway. I imagineit has something to do with shading and rendering of light and dark on primitives. You'll just have to start clicking I guess.

Stahlberg
04-17-2005, 10:07 AM
Yes, it's in "Art Theory links". The cube exercise, led by Craig Mullins. (There's only 1 sphere in there, but lots of cubes and some cylinders etc)

paperclip
04-17-2005, 11:00 AM
Great stuff, Jan-Mark! Thanks for going to the trouble of making me a 3d model, very kind of you.

I feel kind of silly trying to do something like this without ref :D but I wanted to see how far I could push my little brain.
Things I still need to improve:

* That darn bounce light. It needs to be wider and extend further down.

* Make the shadow immediately below the sphere darker (I guess it makes sense, but when you put in that black, it looks SO out of place....

* From your 3d model, I can see that the gradation stops much further up.

* Also that the shadow needs to be darker and more perfectly elliptical.

* Another thing I realised- when you are painting curves ABOVE the horizon, the curves curve downwards and when it's below the horizon, the curves....curve upwards. I'll keep that in mind when I fix this up.

Thanks guys for helping! Hopefully soon I'll be moving along to cubes, but I like doing 'medium' hard things first, as I have a steeper learning curve that way.

Kansai: The sticky has the tutorial, but not the tutorial in itself, it has a forum with people posting pics of their results and discussing each others' problems. ('So, you have a phobia of enclosed spaces?')

I love learning this stuff. It's fascinating and I feel like there's so much I didn't know when I was younger, that I wasn't taught, these tutorials and tips are really helping me. In a few years I want to be an illustrator/concept designer. Hopefully I'm on the right track. I'll just keep plugging away like mad and who knows!!

paperclip
04-17-2005, 03:59 PM
Well, I changed it as re: my mistakes above. Crits?http://img32.echo.cx/img32/7411/spherepsd0bl.jpg

paperclip
04-17-2005, 05:44 PM
AHH, now the shadow is too dark!

jmBoekestein
04-17-2005, 07:03 PM
You're welcome paperclip, since you try so hard it is just fun to help you! :thumbsup:

Actually the shadow isn't too dark at all imo. The scene lighting in the 3d version is basic. There is a spot light for the hard lighting(bright stuff). And there is a sort of ambient light source that's all. For sport I'll try and make a painterly version. WIth brighter light interaction.

btw, keep plugging like crazy. You're really improving fast.

jmBoekestein
04-17-2005, 08:24 PM
Well I finished these ones, also went for the complementary colour exaguration I saw in your M & S. What Linda pointed out to you.

basic:

http://img82.echo.cx/img82/3404/balls7wq.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

With depth of field effect, this could come in handy to not waste time on backgrounds but still have a good one.

http://img82.echo.cx/img82/783/ballsdof4pd.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img82.echo.cx/img82/1470/ballsdof26by.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

paperclip
04-17-2005, 08:55 PM
That's another thing I was wondering about- complementary color exaggeration. On one side, it sure makes it look nicer, on the other side, it's not realistic...I think realism can only take you so far, then you have to start playing around a little...

I like the pics you posted, interesting idea, one thing I noticed was about the shadow- notice how it bleeds out further than you'd think in the front? Hmm. Our brains really do trick us. Now, all I have to do is go find a matte white ball and a photographer's studio....:D Should be easy!
They used to start off doing this in ateliers in the 18th and 19th centuries, just balls and spheres, then they would move onto doing separate (small) busts different parts of the body, about a week or two on each part, then they would move onto life drawing. It's a solid method for learning....and one that I'm about to try. Keep an eye on this space: Theresa Ryan tries the Original Atelier Method, ONLINE! Watch her try! Watch her fail! Laugh at her efforts!
Donations happily removed (oops, i mean recieved..):D hehe.

jmBoekestein
04-17-2005, 09:14 PM
Actually it's not irrealistic at all. In pphysics there are still no conclusive explanations I believe as to how it happens but it does happen. The easiest way to prove this is to take a blue tv screen and take a photograph with minimal digital processing and preferably a cheap CCD, like a phone camera. You'll find that blue(on a TV screen purplish) makes orange appear on photographs. It's a physical side effect of waveforms. Light is NOT particles but a wave of energy whiuch can easily change it's wavelength and amplitude. Particles wouldn't be able to do that, but you'll have to study Quantum physics or superstring theory to properly explain this.
Maybe I should become a scientist, I seem to like babbling theory:rolleyes:.

And the donations are staying. And I think I'll try similar exercises, but in a more fun way.

CGTalk Moderation
04-17-2005, 09:14 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.