Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-09-09 20:31:58 +0000 UTC]

Of course! We've had some great conversations. and you are a prolific and thoughtful poster.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-09-09 20:36:51 +0000 UTC]

 POSTER BOY!  Hehe.  
thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-08-28 01:02:48 +0000 UTC]

I'm alive! Sort of! I have been focusing more on the analog side of art - I've been doing a lot with oil painting and charcoal. I will at least post of some that material, but I've really had to pare down my artistic endeavors into some narrow channels, so not much digital art has been happening.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-08-28 02:38:15 +0000 UTC]

LOL.  So glad to hear it! (WELCOME BACK!)
I understand what you mean about channeling the work.  For me it went the other way, from charcoal and ink to digital.  Digital probably saved me, getting me back to color and the challenge of learning Adobe PS and AI, just when it was all starting to feel a little too much like a grind.

I've taken strides since I first discovered you and left some comments . . . and gaped in awe at your work with Photoshop.  I'm wondering if you work. also, in vector in Illustrator? Your painting is so precise, I thought for sure it was vector, or vexel, or whatever - you know what I mean, based on paths instead of pixels.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-08-30 01:28:15 +0000 UTC]

I have a hybrid approach. I used to do a lot of product illustration, where everything is neat and precise. So a lot of times I would start with a base sketch laid out in illustrator, then import those paths into Photoshop, and use those vector paths to make selections. You can make complex, precise selections in a second, and slop in color however you need to within that selection. It works for really clean pen and ink too, although the process is a little different. I can dig up some examples and post them if it would help you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-08-30 03:59:45 +0000 UTC]

". . . you need to within that selection."  I think a word or phrase is missing from the sentence.

Yes.  If you checked my gallery the degree to which I make a mess must have impressed you.  I'm trying to work more cleanly.  When I used what I think of as a design approach for the "Paper Friends" project (i.e. the publisher logo, book jacket design, and web banner" it turned out very prim and proper.  But that was following steps from  a course by Gareth David (The Complete Beginners Guide to PS)  There he used the vector tools (shape tools, pen etc.) as one might do in Adobe Illustrator (I also took his illustrator course, that's how I know to make the comparison).  So, when you say you have a hybrid approach, that interests me.  It seems I'm following along the same path (XD pun not intended), though it's not working very well at the moment. 

What I have accomplished is identifying some principles of the design work model and applying them to my painting model.  For example, I used to work on as few layers as possible, using temp layers a la Matt Kohr to work through problems.  Then I went through a phase (that I'm still in) where I put every component on it's own layer.  As in the design model, this keeps every facet of the piece editable.  (It's not necessary for painting, but it's good practice for learning the method.)   I would call this my hybrid model, though it really doesn't completely solve the problem of neatness and precision.  I think working with vectors or paths is the way to go.

ANY help would be greatly appreciated.  I probably have the knowledge I need, but haven't put it in the right perspective to see and address the possibilities. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-09-02 16:03:11 +0000 UTC]

OK. I have ideas for two quick tutorials, one for crisp 3D shapes and one for pen and ink comic characters/flat work. I have a horrible, horrible cold right now so it may take me a week or so to produce something, ugh.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-09-02 16:23:51 +0000 UTC]

  GREAT (well, not about the horrible cold - about the tutorials.  You're a saint.) 
Crisp 3D shapes . . . er, shapes?  Well, I think I know what you mean - the shapes of the forms, what Matessi calls the key to animation art aka silhouette.

Can't wait. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-09-09 01:31:29 +0000 UTC]

By 3D shapes, I mean technically rendering objects in perspective from vector paths, vs. using pen and ink which may not be as technically correct.

What sort of tools do you have to work with? It sounds like you have Photoshop and Illustrator, do you also have a Wacom tablet or Cintiq? You can do without either of them, but I ask because it's a different technique.

Also, sorry about the delay. I am now well, and will have something in a day or two if I can find some of my old material.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-09-09 02:20:46 +0000 UTC]

Glad to hear it.  Summer colds are the pits.

Pen and ink?  I left that behind a year and a half ago.  I'm fully digital, Allison.  I work with PS-CS2 and Illustrator (well, I used it briefly for ONE project) -  use an Intuos tablet, medium.  (Wacom calls it medium, but it's very small).    

I'm raring to go, but based on what you've said, I fear I might be wasting your time.  I know how to use selection tools and how to turn paths made by, say, the pen tool, into selections.  I do that in PS for design work (which was, like, once.  LOL  That was when I did Gareth David's course).  I never do it when I paint.  

For painting use temp layers and, recently, I've been using masks.  For example, I'll clean up edges with a layer mask (well, that's the intent . . . ).  

I've also experimented with clipping masks, which are fine for coloring line work, but not for painting.  The only time I use them for painting is when I want to isolate the effect of a layer adjustment.  For example, when I do a page of figures, I'll make each figure it's own group comprised of layers for sketch, colors, adjustments.  By clipping the adjustments to, say the color layer, I can contain the effect of the adjustment to that figure/group.  I can do that for each figure without cross contamination.  

I'm also familiar with how to lock transparent pixels, which is very similar to applying a clipping mask.  

 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-09-09 12:22:37 +0000 UTC]

Regarding the tablet: any size is really fine, I prefer the smaller ones myself because I tend draw small anyway. I have a cintiq and it's grand and all, but I do have to challenge myself to make long confident marks.

Hmm, regarding tutorials, it sounds like you've been through a lot of material. I used Photoshop and Illustrator a lot for work, so I'm very familiar with them although it wasn't for digital painting. I believe you mentioned Matt Kohr, I LOVE HIM. So much. He's my digital art hero, haha. His stuff really helped me have an 'aha!' moment with my digital art, and made it much easier for me to control the digital pen.

This is a difficult question, but where do you think you're struggling? Sometimes it's hard to explain you don't know. Your pen and ink is good and confident, you've got a trained eye. Your color work is fuzzy, but that can be fixed by changing brushes and working larger. If there's something specific you want help with, maybe I can focus on that instead of the full workflow.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-09-09 12:51:15 +0000 UTC]

Haha.  My idea for using a Cintiq would be to turn off the display and use it just like a giant tablet!  This way I wouldn't strain my eyes looking so close, yet would have the freedom to draw using my whole arm and body.  Pipe dream.

I have, in fact, just recently switched over to a hard round, which does make things less fuzzy.  But it's still MESSY.  Joe Kubert called it "loose," and said there's nothing wrong with that, unless it's TOO loose (and it is too loose, which is what he was implying).  The irony here is that I used to call him "sloppy Joe," like the food, because his brush was - or could be - so loose, especially with shadows and background effects.  A more polite way to say it is that his inking is "painterly."  

My theory at one time was that there are two kinds of inkers - drafters and painters.  The drafters are meticulous with pens and brushes, making brush lines that look penned; the painters are sloppy with brushes and use pens to tighten up what would otherwise be a muddy mess.  I tend to identify with the latter.

At this point I'm at my wits end.  Part of me says, "just keep making mud until your method refines."  Another part says, "how is that going to happen if you don't take deliberate steps to make it happen?"  I'll pay attention to whatever you say and show.  I admit, I have my preferences, so resist change, but I also know those preferences are part-in-parcel with the problem, so to some extent I know I have to go against the grain.

In the end it's about getting into the other artist's skin, absorbing the mind-set, and modeling it in oneself.  One sympathetically takes on the character traits of the other. That may be underway, already.  I wouldn't be surprised if it starts to show in my artwork.  So, then, really - it's all grist for the mill.  You lead.  I'll follow.  The Greeks called it Mimesis, which is the root of mimic, as in, to copy.  The larger, more powerful part of it is unconscious.  The only thing that's necessary to facilitate it is rapport, preferably positive LOL.  How it transpires and progress is anyone's guess.  Kind of like two computers exchanging data at speeds the conscious mind cannot begin to grasp.    

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-09-09 13:32:57 +0000 UTC]

I found that I really got a much better when I started using Matt Kohr's brush set, which is I think just 3 main brushes. Having a brush that responds to pressure is really great, and gives you so much more control. You can download them for free on his site, and he also has a really in-depth tutorial about creating brushes for a very reasonable price.

I am definitely a drafter, haha. Before I became a 'domestic engineer', AKA Mom, I was an industrial designer, which is a very glorified drafter. I mostly drew objects (think blenders and furniture and backpacks), so while I learned a lot about volume and perspective I didn't learn a lot about gesture. I've been learning to paint these past few years, and it has been a big challenge to my way of thinking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-09-09 15:00:33 +0000 UTC]

Yes!  I used that brush set up until a week ago! Well, actually, clung to the soft round almost exclusively. And, being cheap (all the loose change goes to the Cintiq fund) I found freebee instruction on how to make custom brushes.  It's by the same fellow, Gareth David, who offers the PS and Illustrator course (The Complete Beginners Guide to PS/Ill).  I featured Gareth's courses it a couple of weeks ago in my weekly Journal/blog, here.  Recently I actually did use the hard round, then forgot to switch back to the soft and have been using the hard ever since, getting used to it.  (Two down, one to go.  XD)

So, you can see how bad the situation is, given that I'm using a small selection of brushes, and now, using what Kohr calls the most useful and versatile of all the PS brushes.  Oi.  
______________________
Not to be snide - if you study people like Vilppu and those connected with animation (he was an instructor for Disney animation), they'll explain how everything has a gesture . . . or, rather, how one can find a gesture in any "thing."  At the same time they will exhort to "Study the model; don't copy the model."  That advise is a major difference between the academic model and the one we discussed earlier.

I was never good at (or had patience for) literal translation of the model to paper.  Even now when I copy it's to work out a problem, so it's limited and highly selective.  Mostly it's about copying what someone else drew, not about copying the original object.  The main thing for me is to get the an idea, or concept, or essence, to work with, relying on my own "vocabulary" to express it.  Same as in conversation - you may adopt someone's philosophy, but in holding it yourself, you use your own words and concepts and actions to express it, speaking and acting for yourself, owning it, as it were. 

Of course, without precision and detail accurately referenced from the subject, one produces thumbnails, approximations, sketches that give a general idea, insufficient, in most cases, to compete with and be called "finished" artwork.  This is one thing Matt Kohr helped me understand and encouraged me to do - that is, work from reference.  But even when I copy, I tend to work more from the mental image or concept that I form than directly from the model, so, usually in artist's comments I say "loosely based on" such and such reference.  (If you compared the work with the reference it would go without saying! Haha.)

It sounds as if you have molded yourself one way through practice and work directed to a specific kind of subject matter and presentation.  And that you know the solution.  Now, to find the time amidst the duties and responsibilities of "domestic engineer" to mold yourself the other way.  Reviving your presence at DA should help.     

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Dissonata In reply to Sol-Caninus [2016-09-09 18:39:00 +0000 UTC]

I usually use the hard round brush, with opacity and brush size tied to pen pressure; it ends up looking/feeling the most like an analog pen to me. I never got used to his flat brush, although I've seen him to some awesome sketchy landscapes with it. Haha, I also had a Cintiq fund, I think it took me 5 years? Poor thing has been used exclusively as a monitor the last year or so, what an indignity... Obviously time to use it for its' proper purpose. It feels like an archaeology project to get it back to my old workflow setup again, it's been a while and it's been reset to defaults. But it's sort of like riding a bike, if the bike had softkeys, haha.

Are you sure you haven't talked to my art teacher? He chides me for trying to copy everything too perfectly, says that my eye is pretty good but I don't have confidence. I think I always focused on copying the subject perfectly, hoping that would make it beautiful, but they still lack something. It's why I really haven't done a lot of creative/digital art lately... it's been more fruitful to focus on oil painting skills, rather than to beat my head against that (perfectly rendered) wall.

My teacher uses a lot of John Singer Sargent as class exercises- he was masterful at capturing the spirit of his subjects, both with details and broad strokes. I love portraiture, and it's so hard to balance bringing a face to life and keeping it looking like the subject, especially when that subject is a paying customer (or paying customer's favorite grandchild, haha).

But, in any case, gesture drawing, thumbnails, quick sketches - analog and digital - will do me nothing but good. I just have to DO IT. Like now, during naptime.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Sol-Caninus In reply to Dissonata [2016-09-09 20:26:49 +0000 UTC]

Aha.  Yes.  I too enable pen pressure.  I'm too impulsive to fiddle with opacity settings.  I want to- have to- feel the stroke.  The act of drawing and painting is for me primarily kinesthetic, rather than visual.  (Maybe that's why I'm so sloppy?)  The people who are primarily visual generally cant get a good gesture or project themselves into the drawing - they can't "role-take," if you catch the analogy.  They can copy only from outside.  These are the artists using methods like the "block-in" and what Loomis calls "the visual survey."  They are strictly based on a two-dimensional assessment of the subject matter.  And yet the people who do this may achieve excellent 3D illusions.  Point is, it's based on seeing, not kinesthetic sensitivity, or "physical sympathy."  Animators, on the other hand, work the other way around.  They have to mime the subject in order to represent it - and they represent it's spirit, not its material fact.  How is it that the animators of today carry the torch of Great Masters from the Renaissance?  I don't know how that happened, but it happened.

You seem to characterize yourself as primarily visual, interpreting from what you've explained of yourself.  The nice thing is that some people have the capacity, indeed, the need, to grow from pole-to-pole.  They expand to engender their opposite - not just in art, but in all things.  For example, marriage is a concrete, unconscious expression of it.

I little while ago I journaled an experiment in drawing in a manner that was totally visual.  It was based on training to see and extend the visual afterimage, and, so, to trace it.  It was absolutely mechanical and precise, and equally boring.  It demanded total submission to mental passivity.  One had to still the mind completely in order to keep from dispelling the afterimage.  So, no measuring, no assessing shapes, or composition, no talking to oneself, no naming body parts or thinking about origins and insertions of muscles - no willful cognitive activity other than to see the lines and  trace the lines.  It was interesting, but antithetical to learning and training to become an artist.  I was, in effect, a camera obscura for that brief time.  So much for engendering my opposite.

For you I think the opposite will show when you're practically dancing - or wrestling - at the easel. That is, when the whole body is engaged in reflecting, amplifying, and transmitting the rhythm of the subject as you capture the gesture.  I say that, because it would seem to be the missing part - or, not so much missing, as you are aware of it, as atrophied from lack of exercise.   

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Dissonata In reply to JRd1st [2012-10-08 17:06:33 +0000 UTC]

No problem- Bluebirds are my favorite, and that is such a wonderful picture! You're very talented, I have to imagine that it's not easy to get shots like that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JRd1st In reply to Dissonata [2012-10-08 17:30:38 +0000 UTC]

Well, bluebirds come around in Winter, here, so keep a lookout for more pics of them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0