Griffin Art- 3/8/12 Microraptor

[sid]

The Amarga is truly wonderful... Love the colors


Even the others are really good, especially the Hypsilofodonts, the Brachio and the almost grinning Deinosuchus ;D

[crazycrowman]

Sept 14, 2009 6:53:40 GMT dex said:

isn't the truth constructive?

Not particularly, especially when its just a "truth" about your opinion. Explaining to him why you think they look cartoony, and what you would change about them if you drew them would be constructive, though.

As for constructive criticism from me ? - I like your work quite a bit griffin, and to me it appears you have a great ability to conceptualize an animals form, and give them a proper perspective, "thickness" and dimension, something that appears difficult for many artists, to do. If I were going to be extremely critical about your work and what I would like to see you change, it would be your shading, and use of color and detailing, as I feel that many of your drawings look a bit rushed and even a little on the sloppy side.

[Griffin]

Hey dex: I'm sorry that's the way you feel you don't like them and that you feel they are too "cartoonish". Most people would disagree with you strongly, since these are being used for educational purposes by someone with a degree in paleaontology. Personally I don't think they look like barney or land before time or anything.

CCM: Thanks, I try my absolute hardest to make these as anatomically correct as possible with regards to muscle and proportion and all that. As for sloppiness, I actually am aware of this. These are done very quickly actually. I can have one completely done in about 15 minutes to a half hour depending on how in depth it is start to finish. Also keep in mind the limited resources I have at my disposal here. These are being created in my apartment at college with pencils and colored pencils at my desk, not an art studio like I have back at home. I am also a water color painter and in that field I feel my stuff is a lot nicer looking. The point of these illustrations is to get ideas and concepts across and they are done in a specific style like you said, they are not supposed to look like photographs. The main focus is the animal in the pic, not the background so I almost never put too much detail into the background. In my watercolors I do. Oh yeah another thing, I do not use computer art programs to alter any of these. I know lots of people who do, and their art is very nice but personally I am strongly against using it for my stuff.

Thanks for those of you who jumped to my defense. I really appreciate it. Dex, you are entitled to your opinion but I'm sorry to say at this point I probably will not be taking anything you say seriously into consideration because of the lack of professionalism you showed when you just blurted out what you did. I'll put up a few more soon.

[Horridus]

I disagree that the images are too cartoonish. They are of a very decent standard and have a definite style. Plus the animals are anatomically accurate, except for that Brachiosaurus with the nostrils on its forehead of course. Tsk!

[Griffin]

Sept 14, 2009 19:17:36 GMT Horridus said:

I disagree that the images are too cartoonish. They are of a very decent standard and have a definite style. Plus the animals are anatomically accurate, except for that Brachiosaurus with the nostrils on its forehead of course. Tsk!

Thanks a lot it means a lot that you like them. I thought my nostril placement was correct though. Its in the region where the naris in the skull would be isn't it? Do you have a picture of what you are referring to? I may be able to go back and change it if what you say is true.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/courses/v1001/images/brachiosaurus.gif

[Horridus]

I've read somewhere that it's now been established that, although the naris opening in many sauropods was high, the actual nostril openings would have been closer to the end of the snout (with some sort of chamber in-between). Recent depictions of Diplodocus in particular have shown this. But I should probably be able to back up what I say though!
Never mind the nostrils though - is it true that Brachiosaurus brancai has now been transferred to Giraffatitan for good? Will require a serious re-writing of popular literature...
EDIT: OK, a quick Googling traces it back to a guy named Lawrence M. Witmer. Might be worth checking out people's thoughts as regards his anatomical studies.

[Griffin]

Well if you look at the skull, I don't see how much farther forward you could possibly put them. There is no opening on Brachio's skull on the actual snout itself.

[Horridus]

Sept 14, 2009 21:14:09 GMT Griffin said:

Well if you look at the skull, I don't see how much farther forward you could possibly put them. There is no opening on Brachio's skull on the actual snout itself.

Yes, this is true. I might just have been an ass. I've seen images with the nostrils at the very base of the crest (rather than halfway up it), but that's about it. Besides, I'm not sure how much the 'fleshy nasal cavity' thing has been proven...
But what about that Giraffatitan thing, eh? Eh? Should probably start a thread about that one.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

15 minutes per drawing? Wow, I only spend like two minutes on all of mine, colored or not...


As for cartoonishness, yes, they do a little, but most look nice. Maybe add more wrinkles or something or just random lines showing muscleature (darnit, can't spell that word )

[Tyrannax]

Sept 14, 2009 21:37:05 GMT [][][]cordylus[][][] said:

15 minutes per drawing? Wow, I only spend like two minutes on all of mine, colored or not...


As for cartoonishness, yes, they do a little, but most look nice. Maybe add more wrinkles or something or just random lines showing muscleature (darnit, can't spell that word )

Musculature.

Well, I for one think they look like wonderful, realistic sketches that could easily be cleaned up. But, I'd prefer you didn't due to the fact that sketches make drawing much more flexible and less time consuming!

[Horridus]

Sept 14, 2009 22:02:57 GMT Tyrannax said:

[
Well, I for one think they look like wonderful, realistic sketches that could easily be cleaned up. But, I'd prefer you didn't due to the fact that sketches make drawing much more flexible and less time consuming!

Yes, exactly. There's no way we'd be treated to the volume of great sketches that we do receive if Griffin included a preposterous, Sibbick-esque level of detail in all of them.

[Griffin]

Cordy, I didn't think 15 minutes was considered a long time at all. This isn't just the drawing I'm taking about, its the whole thing, colors and all. I can bang out a doodle (like the ones you saw on the JPtoys thread that were in my notebook) in like 30 seconds maybe less if its simple enough.

Thanks everybody for understanding how I do things. Horridus is right, I like showing you guys my work. If I only did big complex paintings, you would hear from me a lot less often. But to just prove that I am capable of that here are some paintings I did several years ago. These were taken with a digital camera so bare with me. Sorry they aren't dinosaurs.





Again these are still not supposed to look like they are photographs, they are paintings.

[dex]

ok. now, I have begun a controversy here just because I'm a lazy cow and that was not my intention , I didn't wanna explain myself...
so, first I haven´t said I dislike your drawings ...they have a lot of movement...something really difficult to reach, and a great deal of naturalness in the positions and arrangement of the animals...but they lack dimension...you know, not only Barney is the definition of cartoonish ...why didn't you understand what I meant, when I said they were cartoonish, if you draw things like your griffins that definetely aren't so? I mean you need textures in your drawings, like dino obscessed gave to her ancestral man, or her iguana, your lines are plain, your skins needs some flesh textures or whatever you want...like scales...that's the life your drawings need IMO.
So they are sketches...then show us later your final drawings please, I knew you were capable of more depth, no one was testing your capabilities... but I wonder, if your sketches are great what would happen if they had more care and details! they would look marvelous!

[Griffin]

Those are my final drawings. I know what you are suggesting and I have seen it done before. I've taken formal art class my whole life I know the methods. Paintings take a long time to do and require a lot of materials, none of which I have at the time. I'm showing on this thread what I am making, sorry its not painting. Dinoobcessed I believe copied her pet iguana and did a close up portrait of a homanid. The homanid at least was fine with all the little detail because it was close up. If it was a body shot I would highly recommend not going overboard with the detail. What she did worked.

When not viewed up close, individual scales and textures will kill a picture. When you look at an animal from a relative distance, you dont see every little scale and hair. Some people do this even when the thing is viewed from a far in their drawings and it DESTROYS the picture (in a bad way). I don't know I thought my Brachio had plenty good texture in his skin and hes viewed close up same goes for my Deinosuchus. Keep in mind these aren't copied from anything as well when people copy stuff sometimes they go overboard with tiny details that really shouldn't be included. These pictures come out exactly how I want them to with regards to artistic method, if they didn't I wouldn't post them. A drawing doesn't need to be superdetailed in order to be good. Again I'm sorry you feel they don't have enough detail but what you are proposing is that I change my style for this project, which is a no go. I said it once and Ill say it again. These were meant to illustrate specific anatomical features and behavior ideas. They are not meant to look like photographs of living dinosaurs. They are meant to look like drawings. You saw what I'm capable of with my paintings, but those are a different project from my dinos. Don't worry I know what I'm doing and I know what works.

I appreciate you explaining yourself though. When I think of cartoonish I think of improper proportioned animals with human expressions, which is the opposite of my intent with these.

[Horridus]

Sept 15, 2009 19:44:36 GMT Griffin said:

Some people do this even when the thing is viewed from a far in their drawings and it DESTROYS the picture (in a bad way).

I'll have to agree with this. I've tried drawing a T. rex head with every little scale included, and it looks less convincing in many ways than some of my other drawings of theropod heads in which I haven't done so.

[Griffin]

Thanks horridus.

Here are some more. This Cryolophosaurus is probably my favorite along with the brach and amarga.


Plateosaurus and Saltopus. The colored pencil didn't scan too well sorry.

[Radman]

I've really enjoyed your wonderful sketches. You obviously have a talent for this and a great imagination for putting many of our old friends in novel situations. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for sharing them with us.

[Griffin]

Thanks Radman. Means a lot to me. Theres still a few more left that I'll put up either tomorrow or the next day so stay tuned.

[Horridus]

Love that Cryolophosaurus, especially the colour scheme on the head ornamentation. Did you base its prey item on any particular genus? Looks like a prosauropod.

[sid]

Really. Amazing. Cryo. Period.


Your paintings are totally kickass too... Griffons are some of the best mythical animals IMHO, plus the Griffon is the symbol of my favorite football team