A Woman's Gaze, Pratik Naik (3D)

[ajay1589]

this shouldnt be in the 3d section!

and it looks like a paint-over of the main actress in that movie about becoming a princess...i cant remember a name at the moment

[DirtyC]

Anne Hathaway (sp?).

Nice work, but wrong forum.

[mp5]

Amazing, nice work.

[xbadkarmax]

My apologies, is it possible to get it moved

Please visit my work in progress thread to see the actual work I have put into it as it is not a paint over

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=2630339#post2630339

[MooseDog]

nice work, better than anne hathaway, rather catherine deneuve (ish)

[speedhorse]

nice job!:thumbsup:

[felixxx]

is this foto? or soooper drawing?

[SpaceTik]

cmon mate, stop posting these paint overs :) this is much better than the previous 3 efforts but i still don't buy it. Looks like you worked over a photo and posted frame by frame backwards.

Even tho its hard to tell with this 1, the 3 previous jobs were definitly paint overs and im inclined to believe this is too. Keep practicing and you will get there even your paint over has improved over time and it suggests that you can actually draw.

post the original photo reference of this piece and prove me wrong?

:thumbsup:

[hansworks]

nice stuff!!, but it should be in the 2d section:thumbsup:

[dnk]

nice over paint :thumbsup:

[binurajk]

excellent job.:thumbsup:

[ThirdEye]

why the hell this is in the 3D section?

[xbadkarmax]

I have posted all of my work in the work in progress section so I am NOT accused of something like a paint over, I am saddened to see that some people actually are out to get me to the point of making up theories about me even working backwards? As an artist, I have learned my mistakes and this was the way I had to prove myself so I did, and as people still blame me for drawing in fallacy even to the amount of effort I have put down and shown, It saddens me to the point of tears especially after the amount of hours placed in the detail. I appeal more torward portrait painting rather than paintings of sci-fi and such, therefore it all of a sudden is an accusable aspect :(

[Hoppergrass]

SpaceTik please be very careful and check your facts before you make such accusations and be sure you can back up your argument. If you are wrong then have the dignity to apologize, if if you are right then good pick up.

All in all, paint over or not this is still a great painting.

The only thing that I can crit is the shape of the nostril. It is too oval, the end closest to the face needs to taper in more.

Good Work

JH

[schaal]

Pratik,
It´'s nice, but for me looks like a median or a paint daubs filter of Photshop over a photo.

There is no sense of your brush strokes and your style of interpretation.

I 'm not against the use of photo references, most of great illustrators like Norman Rockwell, Drew Struzan, Boris Vallejo, Dave McKean,Adan Hugues among others, uses a lot of photo references in their works but you can recognize the style of each one without seeing the signature.

For me, the photography should be a start point to help you set the shapes, perspective, lighting, etc but it can't speak louder than your artwork.

Sorry for some mistakes in my english.

Keep posting,

Cheers

[xbadkarmax]

Schaal,

Thank you for your criticism. I respect your opinion. I do not know how to assure you other than taking a look at my WIP page linked in the first post. You can try using filters and obviously it won't have anywhere close to an effect of that.

I understand what you say about having a reference picture as just the start, but my job in reality is to paint images directly from the reference paint ensuring that not much changes but painting it. As you know, art is subjective, and this is my way of expression.

I am not familiar who the painters you said are as I do this as a means of hobby and business.

As for "There is no sense of your brush strokes and your style of interpretation." I mentioned that the work plays out in my WIP page, that is my sense of direction, others may not do it this way, but I have taken a route in the direction others do not, as I am self taught. Art to me is how I want it to be, its a form of expression patent to every individual as I ensured my painting is almost seemless (the benefits of digital painting) rather than real painting.

[nkdksk]

looks like natalie portman, great job

[jody]

excellent work!!

[SpaceTik]

Hey Justin I understand and I dont want to be a bastard either but I do notice a lot of these paint overs here though but never bothered to point them out cause I figure they will grow out of it... but I am tired of seeing them.

Easiest way to tell a paint over is to drag the white hi-lite slider down to around 50 or till u start seeing the tell tale signs.

Attached is a paint over xbadkarmax did a while back.

see the attachment and judge for your selves.

[xbadkarmax]

Hey Justin I understand and I dont want to be a bastard either but I do notice a lot of these paint overs here though but never bothered to point them out cause I figure they will grow out of it... but I am tired of seeing them.

Easiest way to tell a paint over is to drag the white hi-lite slider down to around 50 or till u start seeing the tell tale signs.

Attached is a paint over xbadkarmax did a while back.

see the attachment and judge for your selves.

Did you even read what I said, I admit to the rest being paint overs, that is why i included all my WIP progress on the WIP page which I put the link to.

I also wrote on page one

"As an artist, I have learned my mistakes and this was the way I had to prove myself so I did,"

As I said, yes, those are paint overs, this one is not and I have valid proof of all 13 steps as the rest I did not have.

You may gladly run this test over this work as well and be assured there is nothing that I have done wrong

[SpaceTik]

Pls post the original reference. That's all I ask its a simple request to show your painting is an original. Oh and where do u say you admit the rest is paintovers??? I cant seem to find it anywhere.

thanks

[xbadkarmax]

Pls post the original reference. That's all I ask its a simple request to show your painting is an original. Oh and where do u say you admit the rest is paintovers??? I cant seem to find it anywhere.

thanks

You obviously know what paint overs are by running your 'tests' then do so for this one, paint overs are obvious as you shown and pointed out. But obviously, this one isnt and it should be distinct enough that it is different. Even after that and even by my WIP you still aren't convinced, then I am not interested in provinding you with anything since your sole purpose is to degrade me.

I said I admit above your post as the previous ones being paint overs, obviously, as posted. Not before, but implied through the posts in this thread refering to the purpose of the WIP, as you should know.

I beg of you to just leave me alone. You can run this one through photoshop and increase the levels and contrast and brightness or whatever you would like to do, since obviously I am not good at paint overs to have done them so badly in the past. There would not be a drastic improvement if it was truly another paint over. It will be obvious it is done by hand.

As said above in the rules

"Show respect to the opinions and feelings of others.'

You have disrespected me greatly. Please leave me alone, I have learned from my past. If you still would like to pester me and reply with requests and such, I will simply just report you.

[gizmoaseth]

great job!!

[frilansspion]

so wouldnt it be in your best interest to prove him wrong by posting the reference then?

[tjabba]

Another CGTalk rule, this time from the submission page:
If your artwork is a derivative of a commercial work such as a professionally photographed person, please do not post this on CGTalk.
Derivatives are works that reference existing commercial works directly. Your work needs to be original, and not bear resemblance to any commercial work in existence. In order to protect artists, CGNetworks reserves the right to remove any work that is found to resemble a commercial work.


If you own the copyright to this reference image, you should probably prove it, by posting it. If not, well, then sorry... I can only say: these things are great for practise, but you made a mistake posting it in public...

You say you want crits, but how can we crit when you just reply "Art to me is how I want it to be"?
And how can we crit, when we know you've followed an existing reference image yet you don't post the reference? Someone mentioned the nostril, okay... but how do we know this is not what the real photo looks like? It's entirely possible, which kind of voids the crit. See what I mean? (And please don't start crying again, in my own way I'm really only trying to help.) :)

[Hoppergrass]

Hey Justin I understand and I dont want to be a bastard either but I do notice a lot of these paint overs here though but never bothered to point them out cause I figure they will grow out of it... but I am tired of seeing them.

Easiest way to tell a paint over is to drag the white hi-lite slider down to around 50 or till u start seeing the tell tale signs.

Attached is a paint over xbadkarmax did a while back.

see the attachment and judge for your selves.

You have picked up the paint overs in the past, great. Have you done this test to this image? Have you gone through the Wip images? I think it would be more benificial for you to proove that this is a paint over rather than for xbadkarmax to prove that it's not.
The example you have provided is very obviously a very bad paint over , even without the test. As I said before , back up your statements with evidence.

I did you test and the image passed. It has been mentioned that there is a lack of brush strokes, I see some very definite strokes there, this looks like it was done with a very soft edged airbrush, rather than clumpy oil.

What is obviouse that the photo referance was used as a base to start with. The skin tones and lighting have been followed very closley to the original.

However I do not regard this as a paint over but rather an exercise in observation. There are better ways of learning how to see and paint the face, doing a direct copy is not one of them though.

Study the subject and express it as closely as possible, but if you don't put in your own personality and feeling into the piece, it will never be the true work of art it deserves. Take a look through Rebeccak's forums http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=257446 to see what I am trying (very pooly) to say.

JH

[xbadkarmax]

You have picked up the paint overs in the past, great. Have you done this test to this image? Have you gone through the Wip images? I think it would be more benificial for you to proove that this is a paint over rather than for xbadkarmax to prove that it's not.
The example you have provided is very obviously a very bad paint over , even without the test. As I said before , back up your statements with evidence.

I did you test and the image passed. It has been mentioned that there is a lack of brush strokes, I see some very definite strokes there, this looks like it was done with a very soft edged airbrush, rather than clumpy oil.

What is obviouse that the photo referance was used as a base to start with. The skin tones and lighting have been followed very closley to the original.

However I do not regard this as a paint over but rather an exercise in observation. There are better ways of learning how to see and paint the face, doing a direct copy is not one of them though.

Study the subject and express it as closely as possible, but if you don't put in your own personality and feeling into the piece, it will never be the true work of art it deserves. Take a look through Rebeccak's forums http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=257446 to see what I am trying (very pooly) to say.

JH

Yes, you are correct, I have seen that thread and that is what I have done, it was my reference point such as
Dareveen has done this:

Reference:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v448/dareevan/Enayla-01Photo.jpg

Painting:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v448/dareevan/Enayla-Finish-Big.jpg




my reference:
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/1648/womansgazereference2ts.jpg

Painting:
http://features.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/181157/181157_1126480001_medium.jpg

You are also correct, my brushes of choice are soft brushes and hard brushes to put in the hair detail, also sharpening those blotchy areas to bring them out, but it appears that some portions are uneven. I did not even paint the earings in as well, and when photoshoped to match the image from reference to real.. it does not even align up properly.

I used grids to lightly match up proportions as best I could since the original image was small from a thumbnail it seems.

I also made it my own by putting in my personality through the use of auburn/fall colors to emphasize the soothing appeal of the woman.

As that is also said, I also included the WIP so you may see what I have done just as Dareevan did this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v448/dareevan/Enayla-02Progress1.jpg



I originally did not want to show reference since the criticism was degrading and was not necessary to feed the fire of hatred, though since I realized if this is what I need to do to prove myself, I did.


I do exactly as the people in the link you showed me do :
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=257446


It also brings me hope as well that others also follow the art in which I do by painting other reference points but making it their own by bringing out the image through use of colors etc.

[Hoppergrass]

Thanks for that, SpaceTik what are your thoughts?

JH

[Kaspaas]

Hi xbadkarmax, when I started reading the replies on this thread I could not understand why so many people were so harsh towards you by saying it's a paintover etc., so I decided to have a real good look at the pic myself. To me there's no such thing as "impossible" when it comes to achieving a certain effect, but I must unfortunately say that after scrutinizing the pic, it also appears to me to be a paintover. When you enlarge the image you can see a lot of uneven pixilization taking place in certain areas, where other areas stay smooth. Then there's also the type of pixilization in the eyes causing the iris to have a very jaggedy curve instead of a smooth curve. The different textures in different parts of the image also does not seem to make sense. I've also looked at your wip, and found lots of puzzling areas which I'll not go into now. It is very possible to work backwards from a photo like SpaceTik mentioned though and create a wip like yours.

I'll end off by saying this, if this is truly an original work it deserves 5 stars and my hat goes off to you; if it's not however, I think you should re-evaluate what you post on a public forum such as this, and maybe have a look at your ethical values. I'm sure we all would like to get 4 or 5 star ratings, but to me a five star rating is worth nothing if it's simply an edit and not something I created from scratch (whether with or without a reference pic). Cheers

[xbadkarmax]

Kaspaas, I believe I already mentioned through the brush selection in which I have listed

You are also correct, my brushes of choice are soft brushes and hard brushes to put in the hair detail, also sharpening those blotchy areas to bring them out, but it appears that some portions are uneven. I did not even paint the earings in as well, and when photoshoped to match the image from reference to real.. it does not even align up properly.


It is due to the sharpening of the paint because I do not like blotchy surfaces, I was trying to bring out the definition in which I have put into my work.

If I genuinly wanted to not show such sharp areas, I would have gone through that extra effort to simply paint over it, wouldn't you think especially after all that effort? It would make no sense.

Thus, I hope it makes more sense to you now that it was purposeful, and explaining the uneven portions to bring out certain areas such as the eyes and lips as the title of my work is called "A Woman's Gaze"

I hope that clears it up as I believe you have overlooked my response on that portion

[Kaspaas]

Sorry, I did not actualy read that reply before posting my reply, as I went into the reply page, and only posted it about three hours later due to visiting with a friend. I did not refresh before posting my reply. :)

Ps. Remember that I said that I don't believe in impossible http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

[xbadkarmax]

Sorry, I did not actualy read that reply before posting my reply, as I went into the reply page, and only posted it about three hours later due to visiting with a friend. I did not refresh before posting my reply. :)

Ps. Remember that I said that I don't believe in impossible http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Lol, it is quite alright, I am still in the process of learning when it is appropriate to use hard brushes as opposed to soft, and when to sharpen my detail without going overboard in pixelating my work. I still have much to fix, now that I see and am far from finished. I aim to rework the lips as they are cracked in appearence with the detail and simple use my brushes instead to finish it :)

[Kaspaas]

I actualy think the lips look great as is. I would love to know how you created the texture on the skin in your final image though. It almost looks like a canvassy texture, but not quite. How bout a few tips http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon11.gif?

[xbadkarmax]

I actualy think the lips look great as is. I would love to know how you created the texture on the skin in your final image though. It almost looks like a canvassy texture, but not quite. How bout a few tips http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon11.gif?

That was what inspired me most to continue working, throughout the piece , softbrushes started to get aggravating in terms of having to erase alot of the edges especially on tone control and fine detail, upon completion of the base alot of the areas would simply need more depth so i decided to gently 'scrape', if you will, the skin area with a preset brush which is somewhat like 'grunge' and set it to very low % and started painting. It was hard in detail yet somewhat soft on top of the skin with a different shade. It was done moreso near the bottom of the neck (I forgot to correct that), the sideburn part of the hair, nostril area, and some other imperfect parts of the face. Thus you see an inconsistency in the production of soft v sharp as well. There was also some other areas as well, you can take a look. The hardest part was the hair up top. After the streaks on the right side, I tried to use this brush as well for the layover hoping to detail it even more. It came out messy.

But all in all, I tried to be diverse and experiment but I suppose it's reprocussions were the fact that the appeal was not consistent and took away from the final theme :(

[TheTon]

Whatever dude.

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/8295/rumbled4ed.gif

[xbadkarmax]

Whatever dude.

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/8295/rumbled4ed.gif

thank you for proving my point :), details are completely different while ensuring consistency in proportions through grids.

I am glad now :)

[SpaceTik]

lets just forget it

[Kaspaas]

hi xbadkarmax, how bout doing a tutorial in the wip section on a similar project if you realy want to prove it's authentic?

[Hoppergrass]

SpaceTik, sorry to go on with this, but I was going through your past posts, in particular the one of Kosta http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=186511. To me it seems as though you have used the same methode that xbadkarmax has for his painting. Using the photo as a backround, tracing over it and following the photos shading exactly.

Whats the story here?

By the way your caricatures are great, I rather like the one with Latham and Howard

JH

[jschieck]

i saw this and printed it out since we are doing a 3/4 view in art class...my teacher actually used this instead of the one she had...it's very nice

[SpaceTik]

Justin... look harder mate I also have a WIP of that illo ;)

[Hoppergrass]

as does xbadkarmax,

JH

[SpaceTik]

Well.. the fact that you can't tell the difference tells me a lot but feel free to prove me wrong :)

[Hoppergrass]

I can tell the difference, I know that yours isn't a paint over. However if I overlay the ref photo over your painting they are too similar not to be a tracing, as xbadkarmax has done. I was trying to say that "tracing" is a legitament technique as a starting point. One that you yourself have used, and have taken exception against xbadkarmax from using.

What I am asking is, has xbadkarmax done enough to satisfy you that he has not done a paint over or not?

At the end of the day I don't really care if xbadkarmax has done a paint over or not, what gets my goat is when people call something fake, swear blind that its fake, but cannot or are not willing to proove their statment, or if given an expination of method are not willing to conceed and say sorry.

JH

[EhsanD]

wow very realistic .:eek: :bounce: :thumbsup:
4*
i hope i can do like you
i want to know wats you idea about my works .
thanks.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=278811

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=278744

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=277611

[SpaceTik]

I sent him a private message to put a stop to this.. that's why there is no response from him for a while, If you want(Justin) to prove something u may do so. Just saying it does not mean it's true :)

post something as proof like I said to back up your silly argument.

By the way YOU are now officially pestering me with nonsense. which makes you a hipocrit and a fool.

[betito]

When I first saw this pic I immediately thought of a paint over, but among other things the tear conducts which are pointing up instead of down made me doubt a little, and well you must not be concerned about people doubting your work, art is about self enrichment, and someday you'll get the respect you deserve for your talent, wich I find enormous.

[Hoppergrass]

Now, now SpaceTik, there is no need to start name calling. Lets call a truce ok, this isn't getting us anyware is it.

JH

[SpaceTik]

Sorry to do this xbadkarmax, I wanted to drop this but am forced to prove my point.

SpaceTik please be very careful and check your facts before you make such accusations and be sure you can back up your argument. If you are wrong then have the dignity to apologize, if if you are right then good pick up.

All in all, paint over or not this is still a great painting.

The only thing that I can crit is the shape of the nostril. It is too oval, the end closest to the face needs to taper in more.

Good Work

JH

"All in all, paint over or not this is still a great painting" <-- that's priceless! :)

Justin: see attachment and see if you can understand it. Its a "RED" channel and I have singled it out and attached different stages from his work in progress so u can see "hair" detail and the "earring" details better (hair contains lots of red Justin) I have used the "Curve" tool this time.. not the "Level" and what you are seeing is the details that Xbadkarmax has failed to erase with other colours (ie. hair details and the earring which shows through in the very first WIP).

This is otherwise know as a "PAINTOVER"

Most people would have realised this by now but It seems some people(like you) are in need of further explaining. You have been asking me for proof and challenging me to give evidence. I even showed you a technique to check for your self and still you pester me??

Then after all this defending the innocent routine, out of the blue you accuse ME of tracing!!!.. wot? with a pencil you mean?? LOL! pls show me your evidence I would love to see how you came to that brilliant conclusion!

..All in all It was a lot of fun reading your posts so.. cheers I guess!

:)

[Hoppergrass]

Thank you Spacetik. this is all I was asking for. I am glad that you have been able to proove me wrong, my bad for not picking it up.

As for how I came to the conclusion with your piece, when I overlayed the photo over the painting they were too exact to be a side by side copy. even the skin tones and highlights were too similar.

I have attached your painting, the ref photo and a difference composit of the two.

xbadkarmax, Time now for you to put this straight.

Once again spacetik, thank you for proving me wrong, please know that this wasn't meant to be an attack on you personally.
JH

[highpeak]

so realistic and so artistic. gongratulations...

[SpaceTik]

hey justin, it's ok man I just didnt want to carry on with this, it doesnt matter anyway. You'd be surprised at how many people do this. Theres some in the cgchoice gallery :)

Now it's a bit hard to see(Boxer) at this size but I can see the difference even at this scale. Try this test. Lay the photo and the illo exactly on top, then just hide/reveal the top layer. You will see a ton of difference.

This was for me just an excercise in accuracy, so it would have been quite pointless to do a paintover or to trace. I use a simple technique which is to rapidly move my eye back and forth the reference image then back to my illustration and so forth when i sketch with a pencil.

You should be able to get almost an exact proportion using this technique and as u render it in photoshop the difference will becomes even more obvious so u make further adjustment...

well hope that was convincing enuff!

ciao

[Hoppergrass]

Yea I did that, as I said I am not accusing you of Paintover, just being too accurate:rolleyes: . I did see the other differences, it was just the face that stood out to me.


Thanks for the lively discussion, I too enjoyed the process. This is a great forum and I have alot of respect for the people here. However sometimes I feel there is'nt enough discussion and debate where it is needed, hence this once.

JH

[helicopterr]

Lesson of the day : Never paint something too realistic.

corollary : just throw a bucket of paint at the canvas and call it a day

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.