after crash - spacecraft

[CybrGfx]

Hi Teodor!

General Composition: 6/10 ~ You have a good flow for this piece, with the eye travelling down the wide face of the background building, down to the ship, across the body to the tailk, and back up the RH side, up the well placed diagonal of the background building, and the journey begins again. Good job!

Your perspective is pretty good, your lighting shows promise.

The ship is problematic.

If the ship has crashed (the broken window and the tail section) it would not be repairable by a bunch of people from another world. A wreckage that size would be a challenge for ANY technology...
If the ship is still under construction (which it looks to be from the wing), same issue. The visitors would not be able to work on it with Earth technology...
Your people all look to be in defensive postures (Yes, I know it is the same image, duplicated), and there are no other signs of life or civilzation beyond the ship, and the giant buildings. No debris, no ornamentation on any building, as well as no signs of decay or damage, beyond the windshield and tail section of the ship...

At present, the focal point of this work appears to be the ship and its location ~ the setting of this scene is its focal point, rather than the ship, or the people. This is due to the dominance of the architecture, and the perspective of the viewer, which is from above, overlooking the scenario.

From your description of the scene, the ship should be your subject, which should change the viewer's perspective to one where the ship dominates the visual plane of the canvas. By having the ship become your focal point, and filling up the canvas with it, you can then make the people, your secondary focal point, more dominant in the image. At present, they are merely proportional markers.

Personally, I'd crop everything off but the bottom LH corner, just at the unfinished wing, plant the nose of the ship into the ground, similar to the tail section (which also looks VERY out of place with that pile of dirt the only dirt in the scene...), and place the point of view at about KNEE height to the ground, to make the people a bit larger than life, as well...
Just a suggestion to get you to think about this a bit more.

~C

[q12]

thanks CybrGfx (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?find=lastposter&t=672879) . You are helping me very much with your incontestable keen eye for details.
though i wish to know one litle thing if i may.
i was? have a very loose stile of painting until now when i meet you , from this type of sites. i did not put very much atention to "the clean" side of a image make by me. But now i see the progress and i ask from this point of view. How clean is this piece of work ? is up to standards or i must reevaluate my style again? until now i neglected the part of composition and the rest to point my effort into understanding and making the "cleanning" of my images.
i succeed or i must work harder ?
:)
"peace and a good life"

[CybrGfx]

How "clean" your rendering style is PURELY up to you, as the artist and creator.

That said, "You must first know the rules, in order to break them..."

There are some extremely talented artists who, when personally expressing themselves, as opposed to the art they produce in a job-oriented capacity, are so loose as to be somewhat "sloppy" to my eye. Do I like it? No. Do THEY like it? Evidently. And, they have their followers, so more power to them all. We create (or should) first and foremost for OUR enjoyment...

BUT, when these same individuals need to render a clean, sharp, well composed and designed piece for a comic, or a game, or a CG film, they CAN. Edges are sharp, perspective and proportions correct, lighting accurate and dynamic. That they choose to have a looser personal style has NO bearing on their skill level.

Quite honestly, Teodor, while you show a strong propensity to be good at art, your technical skills at the present are not good enough to gain you employment in the graphics industry in any but a limited capacity. Your artworks are good for the enjoyment you get creating them, and they are good for the practice they give you in rendering, and they are good for the lessons you learn by correcting mistakes and recognizing where mistakes were made, so as to not repeat them. But none of the works I have seen from you so far, are completed enough, nor technically good enough, to put into a porfolio for employment.

But, you ARE improving with every work, which is the purpose behind practicing in the first place. If you want this badly enough, you will keep practicing, which will keep you improving. Once you are more skilled in composition and rendering, you will find it much easier to find art employment, because your skill will show through, regardless how loose your rendering style.

I suggest you focus on composition much more than cleanliness. A good composition can be somewhat "sloppy" looking, but NO amount of smooth lines and flowing shapes will compensate for a poor design.
If your loose style is from sites like this one, you are spending far too much time in the SpeedPainting area, and not enough in the Education area...Many (but not all) speedpaints are little more than doodles, with no thought given to composition.

I hope this is of some help to you.
~C

[q12]

thanks... I understand and I apreciate your help.
I will continue on perfecting my self in the composition and rendering area as you sugested.
not that i did not know already but now is more clear to me in which way i must accelerate my effort , and hearing from you also the same idea it is most helpfull for me.
Keep writing and answer. Maybe you can make someday a map to follow in CG domain much more simpler than the way we are learning today. :)

[q12]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h208/q1212/cintiq-wacom/navacopy-1.jpg
i know it look super-exposed but if you can point some directions to follow il be more than happy. I want this render to look more close to a real (selling) image. thanks. ;)

[CybrGfx]

Teodor, this image will never be realisitically close to a "selling image." The composition and concept are too disjointed and unbelievable, I'm sorry.

This ship is unrepairable to anything remotely resembling a flyable, or even moveable structure. The guy waving the directional lights is funny...The ship is sitting on supports. Why is he waving directional lights? Who is he directing? Not THAT ship, and there are no others...

This is just one example of the lack of thought behind this piece, and just one of many reasons why this will never be a "finished," presentation quality, artwork.

Selling quality illustrations is MUCH more difficult than just drawing something big. The best illustrations always, always, ALWAYS have thought behind them, beyond just the story ~ The details behind the story (like a ship that has wheels, or wings, or that looks flyable) are the things that help reinforce the story as visually believable.

This image is not visually believable. It does not match the story behind it, and no changes you will make to this will work. You either need to adjust your story to better fit your image, or adjust your image to better fit your story. If it is the former, get rid of the "fixing" aspect. You can have the people exploring it, or burning it, just not pretending they are going to fire it back up and fly it...

~C

[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.