General Art

[CybrGfx]

The first one looks nothing like the reference photo. At all.
Try drawing it with the head at the same angle, and get your facial rendering more accurate before trying to change perspective that drastically. There is no resemblance, from the facial shape, to the hairline to the feature placement, even to the shape of the eyelids...

The second one has too dark a value on the top, dominating the entire scene for no good purpose.

The room render and the desktop are really, REALLY well done, with good overall value, perspecive, balance, and flow. Best of the bunch.

The blue thing is just too crude and sloppy looking to say much more than you have too much focus in the center of your canvas. Work on the composition to make the eye flow around and back again.

The wind dude looks really interesting. I like his costuming, and the anatomy looks pretty good, except for his lower legs and feet, which look lumpy, at strange angles, and deformed, with his left foot being little more than a stumpy extension of his shins... ;) It would look good placed into a scene.

Not bad work overall. You just need to really work on your anatomy, particularly faces, if you plan on drawing people.

[blackfx]

Thanks! I did the facial in the mirror, didn' thave a reference photo, so i had to work with that one.

[blackfx]

It's kinda funny you critiqued the facial feature pic so badly.. My instructor was very pleased with it. Perhaps a better angle of my actual face would be in order.

[CybrGfx]

It's kinda funny you critiqued the facial feature pic so badly.. My instructor was very pleased with it. Perhaps a better angle of my actual face would be in order.No disrespect to your instructor, but here's what literally jumps out when I compare it to the photo:

The eyebrows are thin near the center, and wide near the outer edges of the eyes, in contrast to the photo.
Although you do have bushy eyebrows, they are not the heavy and dense shrubbery you have rendered. Only really old guys have eyebrows that thick...
The upper eyelids are not shaped anything like the photo. You have very pronounced upper eyelids, but you have drawn very thin little things, with the fatty part of the upper eye below the socket hooding far too much of the outer corners.
The lower eyelids, like the uppers, are far larger and fleshier than you have rendered them. (Helpful tip for the future, if you have any vanity at all ~ When you hit middle age , the fatty tissue of your upper and lower eyelids will make your eyes look really, really droopy. Start saving up now to get an eye tuck. It will open your eyes, making your face look much more alert and younger...)
The entire eye shape is different, with your eyes being somewhat large and rounded, with the fleshy lids giving a slighly almond shaped, downward, opening. The rendered face shows flatter eyes with thin lids that give a much rounder, and [i]upwards angled opening.
The shape of the skill is entirely different, as your head is basically even proportioned from temple to jawline. The rendered head is very wide at the browbone/temple area, and then tapers down, in a more triangular shape.
The drawn nose is too thin, with the tip pointed and angular, whereas your nose is wider at the base, with a gently rounded tip.
The drawn ear is too thin on the outer edges, and too small at the bottom, which shows a very tiny ear lobe, while yours tapers straight to your head.
The drawn mouth is too small, and the lips are not shaped like yours. You have a much wider and thicker lower lip, and your upper lip is a bit more raised on your left side.
The chin is too narrow and pointed, while you have a wider chin, with more of a squareish shape.
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5420/cgtselfportrait1ea9.gif

Now, keep in mind, that the ref. photo you provided is at a different angle entirely, so perhaps in real life you resemble this particular photo less, and the sketch more. I doubt it, but stranger things have occured in the Universe...If you look at the alignment of the animation, I used the left eye, and the bottom of the chin. Even allowing for difference of head angle and tilt (3/4 vs. full, tilted to the right, rather than slightly tilting down to the left), you can see how the right eye on the drawn face is still in very close proximity (the drawn right eye is actually too high in relation to the nose and mouth).

Also keep in mind, that not all instructors want you too worried about technical accuracy. They just want you to be able to get a reasonable resemblance. You have somewhat achieved this, just not very well.

But the head shape, chin shape, eyes, nose, and mouth should have been caught by your instructor. And you can tell them I said so, and show them this thread if you are not intimidated that it may negatively affect your grade. Good observational skills are just as important for an instructor as they as for a learning artist. More so, in that it is hard to teach a skill to someone, unless you can demonstrate that you know it yourself...

~Cyber.

[zng-Y]

The first one looks nothing like the reference photo. At all.

That's such nonsense. You did a good job. Of course there are points to work on, but saying something like this is really demotivating and harsh. It's good that CyberGfx critisize tho, but i've seen some more negative posts of CybrGfx before.
I hope CyberGfx will keep others hard works in mind and still give C&C in the future.

Cause of this different angle than the ref image its hard to give C&C, so maybe you can upload a better ref image? They eyes are well drawn btw.

I really like the still-life drawings, but the digital paintings need more work. Try to shade these too like you did on the still-lifes. Maybe it will be a good training for you to paint in greyscale at the beginning and colorize at the end (layer > blending mode: color - for example).

[viximo]

I like the sketch of the blackberry and your effort to put the reflection in the screen.

Overall nice work.

[CybrGfx]

That's such nonsense. You did a good job. Of course there are points to work on, but saying something like this is really demotivating and harsh. It's good that CyberGfx critisize tho, but i've seen some more negative posts of CybrGfx before.I never said it was bad. What part of "Critiques welcome" in the Original Post did you not understand?
I hope CyberGfx will keep others hard works in mind and still give C&C in the future.Simply pointing out visual discrepancies in NO way disrespects anyone's "hard works." That also in NO way excuses your "critique of the critique."

Feel free to disagree and praise the work however you choose, but please do not accuse me of "nonsense." This was uploaded in the Critiques section, and a critique was requested. There is no obligation to accept anything I observe, just as there is no need nor justification for you to attack me for providing the same.

~Cyber

[geckomilo]

I didn't see it need to follow exactly on the photo reference, it look fine for me on the first sketch, i do agree with zng-Y, u did a good job. Nobody want to offence each other, artist need encouragement when they did a good job.

[blackfx]

Thanks everyone.. I am at a downward angle.. i'd have to pose to show you but i'll just retry at it with another angle and photo that.


I appreciate all commentaries so nobody has to worry either way.

[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.