|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 24, 2012 22:12:55 GMT
Might as well make one thread to hold my drawings.  Haven't drawn in what feels like ages, but I knew I had to start with T.rex. I was actually retesting my ability to use graphite powder, but ended up finishing it anyway. I also intended to add a Mosasaur carcass just in front of him.  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 25, 2012 17:18:34 GMT
It's nice, although you do appear to have missed the first toe (or hallux) on both feet...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 25, 2012 18:01:14 GMT
I know I've been away too long when I forget the dewclaw. Thanks for pointing that out Horridus. I'll make the changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0onarcissisto0 on Feb 26, 2012 17:02:28 GMT
Well, actually, it's normal not to see the dewclaw on the left foot, Horridus.
*Runs to the hills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 26, 2012 19:28:05 GMT
Well, actually, it's normal not to see the dewclaw on the left foot, Horridus. *Runs to the hills. Not from that angle, it isn't. Keep running! |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 26, 2012 19:44:54 GMT
Well, actually, it's normal not to see the dewclaw on the left foot, Horridus. *Runs to the hills. Not from that angle, it isn't. Keep running! Hmm, I'm not so sure. I think it highly likely that it would be obscured from that angle. The foot isn't seen near-frontal enough. You can take a good figure and check... |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 26, 2012 20:03:35 GMT
Well I'll defer to you as the artist...but I do believe it would still be just visible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 26, 2012 20:44:54 GMT
Well I'll defer to you as the artist...but I do believe it would still be just visible. Oh, no, don't do that. I've just looked at a figure myself and I think there's something to be said for either case. The difference is extremely fine. I think it's just a matter of making it look convincing if it is to be obscured, which is perhaps a little harder in this case when the hallux is missing from both feet. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 26, 2012 20:50:49 GMT
Well I'll defer to you as the artist...but I do believe it would still be just visible. Sorry but faith is not an argument! |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 26, 2012 20:54:07 GMT
Figure of speech, Mr. John. Rhetoric. I know you know but you couldn't resist a joke, nay?  |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 26, 2012 22:29:08 GMT
Regardless of whether or not it was clearly visible, I admit that I forgot to add it during my rough sketch as I "shaped" in all of the animal's features and consequently forgot about it altogether. Because I forgot, I'd rather not use the claw's absence as an excuse to say, "Well, it probably wasn't visible!" I'd rather make it a point to at least present the claw on the right foot as I just don't see how it could possibly be hidden. After researching the foot a bit though, I noticed that the dewclaw is positioned much further back behind the foot than I had originally thought, to the extent that it would probably be hidden on the left foot entirely.
For the most part, I just wanted to know what you all thought about the styling!
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 26, 2012 23:10:01 GMT
...Because I forgot, I'd rather not use the claw's absence as an excuse to say, "Well, it probably wasn't visible!" I'd rather make it a point to at least present the claw on the right foot as I just don't see how it could possibly be hidden. .. Oh, of course. The observations were more on if they had been correctly included. But I was very remiss in not commenting on anything else too before making them, I do apologise! I think it's a lovely drawing with some good use of tone. Perhaps it may be worth noting your direction of light so that it's consistent throughout the whole figure and gives an even more convincing impression of three-dimensionality. Could the arms be a little shorter too? |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Feb 26, 2012 23:24:54 GMT
Its overall fine, but maybe the left arm angle a bit forced?
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 27, 2012 0:33:08 GMT
Regardless of whether or not it was clearly visible, I admit that I forgot to add it during my rough sketch as I "shaped" in all of the animal's features and consequently forgot about it altogether. Because I forgot, I'd rather not use the claw's absence as an excuse to say, "Well, it probably wasn't visible!" I'd rather make it a point to at least present the claw on the right foot as I just don't see how it could possibly be hidden. After researching the foot a bit though, I noticed that the dewclaw is positioned much further back behind the foot than I had originally thought, to the extent that it would probably be hidden on the left foot entirely. For the most part, I just wanted to know what you all thought about the styling! It's very good, but Horridus wants the feet and hands (no bunny hands) to be right. As far as styling he would like to see a dewlap and feathers! ;D Also if you've seen any of Niroots work, he is a professional illustrator, you should listen to his advice, he knows what he is talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by 0onarcissisto0 on Feb 27, 2012 1:54:00 GMT
Hahahaha. Okay, everybody. Let's all calm down. I was merely teasing (with no ill intent whatsoever) Horridus since he's usually quick to point out little mistakes. For the record though, I still don't think the left dewclaw would be showing Anyway Tyrannax, don't feel the need to defend your "omission" whatsoever, it's a great drawing. And I don't think anyone was actually implying that you were using angle as an excuse for the absence of the dewclaw. Good job, buddy. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 27, 2012 5:31:09 GMT
I completely understand and there is no need to apologize, Himmapaan. I appreciate your pointing that out. I'd rather not have a drawing with an inaccuracy that is so simple to correct uncorrected! Initially I intended the light source to be from above, but as I continued to add light sources I found that I preferred if it were from just in front and to the left simply because it allowed for more highlights on the body. You're right though. It's much less common (sunset I suppose?) and doesn't reflect realism nearly as well as light situated above might.
As for your comment, arioch, you may be right. It does appear to be buckled to an extreme extent. I'd love to know (If there is any current evidence on the arms' actual posture), as I want to stray away from this on future drawings if need be.
I always enjoy your positive, often instigating posts, stonage! Thanks for the compliment. ;D
Thank you 0onarcissisto0. I appreciate it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 27, 2012 13:00:45 GMT
...Initially I intended the light source to be from above, but as I continued to add light sources I found that I preferred if it were from just in front and to the left simply because it allowed for more highlights on the body. You're right though. It's much less common (sunset I suppose?) and doesn't reflect realism nearly as well as light situated above might. Don't worry about whether or not the light direction feels 'unusual' at all. If anything, that can add much drama and atmosphere -- as you say, it could be from a different time of day or the animal might be situated in an unusual location. By all means have the light coming from the left! The only thing is to be consistent with it, whichever you choose. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 27, 2012 19:55:34 GMT
...Initially I intended the light source to be from above, but as I continued to add light sources I found that I preferred if it were from just in front and to the left simply because it allowed for more highlights on the body. You're right though. It's much less common (sunset I suppose?) and doesn't reflect realism nearly as well as light situated above might. Don't worry about whether or not the light direction feels 'unusual' at all. If anything, that can add much drama and atmosphere -- as you say, it could be from a different time of day or the animal might be situated in an unusual location. By all means have the light coming from the left! The only thing is to be consistent with it, whichever you choose. That is certainly true and I'm glad you feel the same, Himmapaan. I'll put this to use when and on what I draw next. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 27, 2012 20:43:54 GMT
It's very good, but Horridus wants the feet and hands (no bunny hands) to be right. As far as styling he would like to see a dewlap and feathers! ;D I see nothing bad about any of this! Of course, the dewlap and feathers would be hypothetical...but plausible...I don't mind them not being there... |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 28, 2012 1:08:18 GMT
 A Tylosaurus head My scanner enjoys completely ignoring darker areas, so it appears far flatter than it is in person, but what can you do? |
|
