OK I'll bite the bullet: First critique!

[LARF]

I'm normally used to handing out critique in my role as a Creative Director, and mainly in graphic design and advertising and not in illustration.

When I left uni I wanted to be a comic book artist, but sadly as is normally the case, I went for the money and started out as a graphic designer - as you get more and more bogged down with work, unhealthy hours and the progression of a career comic books became a hobby, illustration dropped by the wayside and graphic design became the forte.

Thanks to Jim Campbell, (and many beers are owed here Jim) the monthly art comp has enabled me to try and reinvigorate my old skills, although quite rusty I've gradually and hopefully been improving. I know I'll never be really good, and it's an enjoyable pastime and very relaxing illustrating when I can, but I thought it would be fun and interesting to get my latest illustration of Durham Red critiqued by the board - and when I mean critiqued, I mean go the whole hog guys! I'd really like to improve, and use your comments to help me move forward - and when you give it out day in, and day out, it's very humbling to be able to take it and also help me in my full-time job to appreciate what it's like on the other end :-)

So here goes...

I've put up both versions - full colour and sepia toned. The original illustration was done in pencil, scanned and then inked and coloured in Pshop. Inking wise I tend to use the Pen tool to create curves and then fill them on multiply layers to give a rich black, further detail is then hand-drawn on a Wacom Tablet. Now I know I can do better inking on paper and then scanning in, but I want to succeed with the Wacom - so any help on brush types and technique would be good, I often find I get too tight and cannot loosen up as I cannot get the line I need, which I can easily do using normal pen and ink.

Colours wise I laydown flat colour quickly for the composition to get the depth correct and then layer on grey tones over the top on multiply layers to build up depth and create form, finishing with overlay layers of lighter colours and white on normal layers with various depths of opacity. Finally I tend to touch in bright spot colours under the inks. On the sepia version I flattened the final illustration, and added some noise to soften the work up...

Here are the two versions:





Over to you...

[Richmond Clements]

Well, I'm not an artist, but I am an editor of sorts, so I'll have a go...

There may be technical things with the art that the artists on the board can point out.
I'd suggest that you're basic figure drawing needs work (although to be fair- I don't know any artist who doesn't think this of their work).
The face seems a bit off- as both eyes look to be at different heights.
The right arm looks like it's too long from elbow to shoulder at the angle it's sitting at.

[Bolt-01]

Hi Mike, you are a brave man.

Okay, the first thing I've done is go and look at the original image you homaged, simply to see if any of what I'm about to say is actually the same as in the original image:



However I'm also reminded strongly of this image http://www.beerbrains.com/elizabeth-hurley.jpgMay not be strictly SFW, but it is of Liz Hurley in her pants and the positioning of the legs reminds me of what you've done for Durham.

Okay, my initial impression is that you've done a solid piece of work here. There is a sense of solidity to the figurework. I think RAC is right about the right arm. The angle of the shoulder would have the elbow in a similar position to the left arm. Could this be from the use of multiple images? I may be completely off the track here so feel free to say so.

Something that I want to say from the get go is that this is a completely redrawn image- you've not traced it at all to my eyes- which is a great way to start on this sort of piece.

The sepia version is a touch lighter and so I'm able to see the detailing better- The face looks 'hard', and I think the nose is a little off with the rest of the features. Remember the old adage about lines adding to the age of a woman- well it applies here in spades. Maybe the lines are just too thick or you might have got a better result out of dropping some of the lines altogether and letting your lovely colour work suggest the lines?

Of course I'm adding the caveat that I am not a pro- nor am I likely to be; so my opinion is my own.

[TordelBack]

I am no kind of artist whatsoever, and I really liked the image.  The only real problem I'd see is that Durham's chin looks (to me) to be improbably resting on her chest.  More or different shading under the chin might lift the head and make the neck position seem more natural.

[Kev Levell]

I think the problem lies (no pun intended) with the reference material.

It's nigh on impossible to work out where her legs are and without a model in a similar pose it's going to be difficult to get the anatomy right - although that sexy Liz Hurley pose is gonna be a distraction great help.

I agree with Rich, anatomy is something every artist should work on and one of the things Tharg has told me to watch out for.

I don't really like revisiting work I've already finished, but it might be worth having a crack at reworking this based on the Hurley and the Madonna reference.

I really love my wacom, and I know people do produce brilliant line work (Bolland is, I think, now totally paper-less and has a tutorial on his website about digital inking) but I still prefer hand inking as I find it quicker and in the computer I get hung up on the neatness of my line.

[uncle fester]

Indeed you are brave, but I dare say a few of us will follow your lead... Eventually!

I'd  like to start by saying I loved this as soon as I saw it, as I thought you had echoed Mark Harrison's work (who I personally think is a genius). So it was hard to view it objectively afterwards.

My main point now would be that her left hand seems to disappear underneath the blaster. Was that deliberate? Linework is discussed above but were you going for a more stylised piece as opposed to a standard inked idea? If you were, then it works and you have a strong style there to be used as a template for future pieces. But if the lines are meant to represent normal ink then perhaps experiment with thinner lines and different shaped brushes, not just the pen tool. Using various brush tools together with the shift key in Photoshop (to create straight lines) will help you blur the dividing line between Photoshop brushes and Illustrator vector lines.

Fair play to you for starting the ball rolling!

PS Do you have a bigger version of the original posted anywhere?

[Kev Levell]

Sorry, I did mean to include in my original posting that I thought the piece had great impact, more so on the original colour scheme though IMO...
I had to edit the original post after previewing and the compliment section of my post appears to have dropped off - but it only included what uncle fester has just added anyway! Mark Harrison, loved it, etc.

[Colin YNWA]

I'm certainly no artist so any comments are make are purely as a reader but I'd like to talk about the colouring as its really interesting on the two examples you're put up. The first one I find very striking but the profusion of all that red is too much for me. The second one I prefer BUT it lacks the impact of the first. I'm wondering if a combination of the two might work? Maintaining those deep reds from the window (the main light source?) and the beam of light that comes from it. This bright red would draw the eye to Durham Red in the 'middle' of it making it more the centre of the piece. It'd have the quality of a shaft of light highlighting something in an otherwise darkened room.

[Peter Wolf]

I suppose i am an artist of sorts but a non professional one but i will offer a few compliments and criticisms of the piece if i may be so bold which i am so here goes :

[They are only small niggles by the way]

Its mainly the position of her head that looks wrong.I realise that you drew this from scratch and didnt copy or trace but it would have been better to initially copy Madges head and face and get the position exactly right and then once you had got the position and look right you could have altered her features and hair so that she became Durham Red.She also doesnt seem to be looking at us or the camera as Madge is doing which was a shame because its the fact that she is looking directly at you or the camera which gives the original picture a certain amount of attitude or intent which makes it a good picture.

This was lost in your piece unfortunately but nonetheless if you had more time you could have got it exactly right as the concept of it was very good and it is a good piece overall.

Your piece just wanted fine tuning .I find when i draw stuff i have to stand back from it and look for little things that dont look quite right because they are not always immediately apparent as you can get a bit lost in what you are doing .

Having said that i cant draw faces and whenever i do it ends in disaster.

The sepia image is far better because its closer to the concept of the original.

[Emperor]

Yes it is just fine-tuning and it is mainly the chin/neck positioning that strikes me, nothing that couldn't be fixed with a bit of the old jiggery and pokery.

She also doesnt seem to be looking at us or the camera as Madge is doing which was a shame because its the fact that she is looking directly at you or the camera which gives the original picture a certain amount of attitude or intent which makes it a good picture.

This is a good point. Looking closely at Madge you see her pupil is hard over on the left handside (her left) and the whites aren't visible on that side. Not doing that gives the eye an odd... Picasso-like feel (in that it seems like the eye is face-on to us when the face is clearly pointing away). As it is digital it should be a quick fix but it would make the world of difference for such a minr adjustment.

The point about her right arm is also spot on. With the shoulder position, the back of the arm and elbow would be against the back of the chair and you'd not see much wrist or any forearm from this angle, but you would see the back of the hand. Tricky to explain but just try sitting in that position (although possibly not in public ).

Other than that a damn fine picture and some tasty colouring too.

[Mike Gloady]

The only piece of advice I'd give is to work on your figure drawing (as discussed by other, more qualified people above) - the human figure is the basis of everything - you'll draw it more than anything else so it pays to put time in.

I'd suggest getting a good book on anatomy for artists as a fall back, but more importantly draw your friends, family etc in their everyday lives.  Maybe enroll on a short course at your local college - life drawing the (gulp) NAKED human form will give you a better grounding than anything a book can teach. 

Also, while your work is beautiful once rendered, I'd recommend sticking to pencils for this.  The rule of thumb is if it looks ok penciled it'll look AMAZING rendered, but if it looks AMAZING pencilled....  You get the point.

All this from a woefully inept artist.  But that's what I'M doing to improve and it's really helping.  Hopefully it'll help you too, Larf.

[locustsofdeath!]

Larf, I really enjoyed taking a minute to study your artwork. I like the first one better, mainly the beautiful red b.g. and the way it highlights her red hair and eyes. I do like the body armor in the second version, but would keep her skin tone the same as the first. There are little things that a noticed - I agree on the position of the head and the missing left hand - but I like the lines on her face. They seem to give her an edge, like someone who has been from one end of the galaxy to the other. Great job, though, and I hope to see more!

[LARF]

:-)

Thanks everyone, that's all very enlightening! I know that my figure work is off, and it's all down to reference really and time (both of which I never seem to have: business to run, four kids, wife, dog, crabs, family etc. etc. etc.), but I think my approach to the next months comp will be more methodical, and I will certainly take all your comments into consideration and put them to good use.

I don't think I'll change this illo though, keep it as a reference: the chin, the neck, the shoulder and the missing hand (if I'm honest I was hoping nobody would notice that - bugger), the linework on the face (Durham Red is difficult here because she's so old / but young - it's like you want to show her age through her eyes...)

I really appreciate all the kind comments as well, and the way everyone has approached this critique, it really shows what a great, friendly and wonderful place this board is. If I'd posted my work on the Byrne forum I think I'd be swinging from the rafters, or be cowering in fear of the large spotty prep boy flying into Heathrow with death on his mind!

Thanks everybody I've really, really enjoyed all these comments - I feel purged (like having an artistic colonic)

Mike

PS: Dave, thanks for Liz Hurley I really, honestly do not know what to say - I think I flushed...

[Richmond Clements]

You've got crabs?

[LARF]

I knew that was coming as soon as I posted :-)

We bought four fresh water crabs for my youngest ( who's 8 ) and they live in a tank* in the kitchen...

* a glass one not a Sherman that fires bullets