Slime

[yaomon17]

First serious attempt at doing digital art. I have no idea what I am doing.
Help me pls. It is supposed to be the slime in my avatar. I pretty much just drew the outline and colored it in like a coloring book :\
I don't know what the process is supposed to be.

[Mathias]

It's simple - practice like a madman. TONS of easy to find resources on the web. Look at Youtube process videos (disregard the speed-painting ones for now). Check out FZD.

Your first attempt will suck. It should. Start building' them skills! Discover what techniques work for you. Test out all the tools at your disposal.

[yaomon17]

How much would a tablet help ?

[Ymedron]

It'll make practicing quicker and probably help with avoiding mouse-related injuries. However, it's not going to make you any better than you are at drawing by hand.

http://art-and-sterf.tumblr.com/post/50740632858/lentilbacon-youngartist-city-i-would-like
I haven't watched this yet, but apparently this is a good tutorial video.
Also going through the archives at http://www.ctrlpaint.com/ can help  with digital art. (though you might want to skip some photoshop-specific videos if you don't have it.)

More blogs you could look at:
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/
http://muddycolors.blogspot.com/
http://illustrationfixation.blogspot.fi/ (doesn't seem to update anymore, but still has some stuff you might learn from)

[Mathias]

How much would a tablet help ?

A tablet is crucial for serious work. A tablet is only as good as it's user, though. It's just a tool. Nothing more. I'm sure you know that.
I use a 6x9 Wacom Intuos 3 and 6x9 Intuos 5. I recommend the Intuos line. And a 6x9 is plenty big, IMO.

[yaomon17]

I don't have the chalk brush dynamic adjust thing in MyPaint :\

[jams0988]

A tablet will make it much more intuitive. I'd recommend giving Paint Tool Sai a shot; the way the brushes handle in that program is incredibly intuitive. Open Canvas is another cool little program, but the way the "paint" handles isn't quite as easy to understand, imo.

Your pixel art avatar is incredible looking, with all that fantastic sculpting and the great color choices. You're obviously a good artist, so I think you must just be overthinking things here - in your painting, you used no hue shifting, and used black lines to separate the different forms. On top of that, the forms are all much better defined in your sprite version. Drawing is drawing. Since you don't have the benefits of pressure sensitivity, why not just use a brush that's nearly opaque? Just do that, and draw the same way you'd make pixel art. The results will be great once you get a little used to it, I'm sure! =)

And again, try Paint Tool Sai. For digital painting, finding the right tool for you makes a much bigger difference than in pixel art, since all the programs behave so differently. Paint Tool Sai is the easiest program I've found. Good luck!

You could also take your sprite, blow it up, and paint on top of it. Or scan in a sketch, and paint on top of that. Drawing so large with a mouse is very difficult; having the basic sketch down to paint on top of will help a lot, probably.

Can't wait to see what you make! Pixel artists are all secretly incredible painters on the inside, picking every single color deliberately, without the crutch of being able to smear paint around like normal painters. Just draw the way you always do. =)

Edit: Ah, also, Open Canvas has a nifty feature that saves every single brush stroke you make, for later playback. You can then upload it to their website. http://www.portalgraphics.net/pg/ Check them out if you want. It'll give you a good idea how to make certain effects.

Remember, though...you always have the option of using a completely opaque brush, and doing very large pixel art, hahah. It's an excellent skill to have!

[yaomon17]

Why is it when I try to paint/fill in anything with opacity, it turns out like this.

[jams0988]

What's the opacity set to? I forget how Sai works...it's made for tablets, so it might be that even when you have the opacity set all the way up, it still mixes. You can change the brush settings to decide how much of the background/other paint and things get mixed in though, iirc.

[yaomon17]

Ok, here is my go at it...

[Mush]

I like the little guy :3 Try to push your values more (i.e. more contrast).

Awesome resource: http://ctrlpaint.com/

[yaomon17]

More practice. This is definitely easier than what I was doing before 

[Mush]

Another tip: try not to use pure black for shading, it makes it look muddy.

[yaomon17]

How is this?

[Ymedron]

When it comes to practicing rendering form, I imagine cel-shading is the best way to start with defining the forms before smoothing things out. Patterned characters I'd start without any patterns and then apply the patterns above the lineart.

Also a derpy attempt at the slime but I'm not sure either how to go about it.

[r1k]

from your latest attempts, it looks like you need crisper, more contrasting highlights.  Your colors feel a little grayish too.  Heres a bunch of photos of different types of slime:

http://domainshane.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/jelly_toast_Strawberry.jpg
http://craftfail.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/slime.jpg
http://www.saynetwork.com/tenspotlight2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Slime.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OSlf215TSv4/TAtv6USKZyI/AAAAAAAAADI/tn42Ey4PTOI/s1600/jelly.jpg
http://lukebray.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ooze.jpg

[Ymedron]

I hope you didn't confuse me for yaomon but I shall try to fix my pic regardless.

[r1k]

no I was referring to yaomon's post above your's.

[Ymedron]

Doesn't look like it's a slime to me..! But I do agree, it's a bit dull.

Another thing I'd advise on is... using more planned lineart I guess? I found my work improved quite a bit when I stopped being so anal about working "lineless". Defining the borders between forms with a line before painting over might help?

[yaomon17]

How is this

[Mathias]

This is an interesting challenge. Took me by surprise how difficult it is to get a goopy jello-y transparent look. More should jump in.



Not happy. I'll be back.

[yaomon17]

This one feels a lot less muddy and dark

[Mathias]

Yes it does. You've made it lighter, are using more vibrant greens and less deep shadow. More speculars, too.

You have to decide what surface properties the object needs - dull matte, or high gloss.

Obviously, high gloss. Then what about translucency and subsurface scattering?



Do you want #1 or #2?





Here's the start of my attempt:



Basic surface shading almost done. Next, will need to work on reflectivity and transparency.

[Mathias]

ATTACK



Done with it. 70% happy. Not enough transparentishness. It looks like opaque green material covered in baby oil, rather than subsurface scattering translucent stuff. Oh well. Next time.

[Ymedron]

Perhaps a better solution is to look at jelly:
http://easyscienceexperiments.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/jelly.jpg
Seems like thick imperfect glass (-> distorted refractions) might be a good start for it?
The slime strands to me make the whole image feel flattened out, like the slime has been splattered on paper -> the rest of the picture is derived from that.

[PixelPiledriver]

That's a cool slime Mathias.
Maybe try changing the color more as it gets thinner like the second photo.
Also reuse that red.
It's a really nice color.

[Mathias]

Perhaps a better solution is to look at jelly:
http://easyscienceexperiments.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/jelly.jpg
Seems like thick imperfect glass (-> distorted refractions) might be a good start for it?
The slime strands to me make the whole image feel flattened out, like the slime has been splattered on paper -> the rest of the picture is derived from that.

Yeah, I think that's the perfect reference you found. I'm savin' that.
Also agree - I cheaped out on the 3D appearance. The slimy tendrils and blobs flying off of him all seem to be co-planar. Quite cheap! My primary focus here was achieving a good slime material, though. Course, I failed at that as well haha.
Good observations.


@ pixelpiledriver    Hey, cool edit. There really should be more color refractions in his body. That helps. As for the red in the tongue - something helping there is a layer of subtle, gradient hot pink clipped to the tongue that gradually makes the tongue color more and more pink it reaches the tongue's end. Subtle color shifts here and there seem to help realism, I find.
I was unpleasantly surprised how hard this was. What I did manage to achieve took many passes and very slow, gradual volume building with very low opacity brushing. Time-consuming.
His lower body especially looks like a cheap, air-brushed mess.

[yaomon17]

More improvement I hope.

[coffee]

I'm not extremely well experienced in digital art but I think your newest version looks a bit too static, like a sculpture or mud.
I would probably also add some more vision inside his mouth and define the shapes of the inner shades less, brightening up the areas which are very shaded.
Like the direction Mathias & PixelPiledriver  took. A slime would "gather" more light.

[Ai]

I have to comment that your original avatar, although it looks neat, is not actually very slimy, light-physics-wise. It actually looks carved, which may be why your renditions are contrasty and somewhat more rigid-feeling than I'd expect from a slime.

I find it hard to describe the exact quality I mean, so have a blender material-test render on a rough sculpt of your avatar:

('subsurface scattering' is your friend for organic materials)

Mainly what I want to point at here is the way light is transmitted -through- the surface. both of mathias' examples have a decent level of translucency and reflectivity, with the result that unless a plane is at a very sharp angle, or a blob is very voluminous, it doesn't get very dark (some light is received from the other side of the surface). It feels like you are using the lineart as a 'cast' somewhat, whereas for something this soft you might seriously consider just dropping some temporary lines to layout the positions of major features and just value-paint 99% of it.

The other thing that I find odd about both the original avatar and your latest CG is that the blobs (clusters) don't feel like they're trying to run together, rather they convey a plasticine sort of consistency, that they're sort of squishy but hold their shape. I assume that for a slime this is not what you want.

But yes, IMO it is a significant improvement on the last version; more readable and structured.

[yaomon17]

I didn't really intend for this thread to be about making slime like textures, rather it be about digital art techniques and ways to practice. Now I feel obliged to try to make slime like textures though...

[Ai]

Well, as mathias suggests, that -is- a good way (the only way?) to learn the techniques: just try to do work that is good in terms of whatever it is (whether that means a slimy rendering, a cracked rendering, glowing, whatever) and let it press you to develop techniques for that type of rendering. IMO you'll be more able to effectively develop your rendering technique if you try to render actual objects rather than rerendering an existing drawing; my experience is that it can make you try to too rigidly reproduce the particular features, instead of reproducing the -concept- and being free to experiment with the details of the actual form. (For example, the gray rendering you just did is much more coherent, whereas earlier renderings felt like you were trying to mix illustration technique (in the form of strong crisp lines) with CG technique). In case you were wondering, yes, it does also look much more slime-y to me.)

My personal perspective is that CG is no different from pixelling really, I tend to use the same techniques and think in terms of stacks of color clusters whether I'm CGing or pixeling; I just can be a little messier and more complex when CGing.

Anyway Moatdd has a neat series clearly explaining various digital art practice methods and why they're good.  Not to mention a truckload of other interesting digital-art related tutorials/discussions. HTH

Oh and BTW, are you currently using SAI, or MyPaint? In the case that it's MyPaint I can give some specific advice on brush choice and color/line control.

[yaomon17]

I'm using GIMP. The brushes in MyPaint or Sai keeps acting like an airbrush for me :\

[Ai]

^ All of them? Mypaint has hundreds -- have you looked at the brush selector dialog? (a mini version is available in the top toolbar for recent MyPaint versions, and you can access the full brush selector window via the menus.) .
And if you bring up the brush Settings dialog, you can turn on the 'Update the last canvas stroke in realtime' option at the bottom of it, which will redraw your last stroke with the new brush as you change brushes; it gives a pretty accurate preview of what your experience could be with any particular brush you are thinking about trying.

Here's an image showing various doodles, each drawn using only one brush from one of the standard MyPaint sets:



(In my installation, all but one of these brushes are included in the set identified as 'Set #2')

EDIT: A few additional thoughts:

* It's possible that you are inadvertently lowering the brush opacity and this is causing the effect. Because MyPaint brush rendering is based only on dab opacity, lower opacity drawing can seem somewhat airbrush-like with certain brushes.
* GIMP is in general a poor option for painting. Dedicated painting/drawing apps (SAI, MyPaint, Krita) make painting and drawing much simpler than GIMP or Photoshop is ever likely to be. I mention that mainly to point out Krita as another option (I personally don't like it quite as much as MyPaint, but it's certainly much better than GIMP)

[yaomon17]

It turns out like this rather than filling in 1 color per me holding down the button.

[Ai]

I understand that (and for a few brushes that effect is intended), but under what conditions? With all of the brushes you've tried? What brushes -have- you tried?

Edit: note that Y'sen's screenshot is misleading -- it depicts the effect of stroke opacity, but MyPaint uses only dab opacity.

[Y?sen]

It turns out like this rather than filling in 1 color per me holding down the button.

It may be the amount of Hardness or Opacity that you're using for the Brush.

Although this I am using Photoshop in this screenshot, you should be able to figure you're way around the example given (I use to use GIMP and Sai a few years ago and remember them having Brush settings).


As you can see, the amount of Hardness and Opacity being used is at 100%.


The amount of Hardness being used is at 11% and the Opacity has been changed to 48%, all while still using the exact same Brush.

So perhaps you just need to check your Brush settings and reconfigure the amount of Density/Hardness/Strength and Opacity that you're using for the Brush.

[yaomon17]

I understand that (and for a few brushes that effect is intended), but under what conditions? With all of the brushes you've tried? What brushes -have- you tried?

Edit: note that Y'sen's screenshot is misleading -- it depicts the effect of stroke opacity, but MyPaint uses only dab opacity.

Yes, I have tried every brush.

[Ai]

Interesting. Some of those (like the ink brushes) shouldn't be rendering even slightly soft. Have you tried adjusting the global pressure curve (in Edit->Preferences, 'Pen Input' tab)? If that fixes it, then your tablet's pressure reports may be miscalibrated (eg. saying it reports 0 to 1023, but actually reporting only levels 0 to 511), which is a general issue that would effect every app until you get it fixed.

Of course, if the 'Mode' in the 'pen input' tab shows 'Disabled', then there is your problem: you have not configured MyPaint for the tablet so it's just treating it as a mouse.

[yaomon17]

I think the issue might be that I don't use a tablet :|

[Ai]

Waht? I thought from something you had said earlier in the thread that you had bought a tablet. If not, you should be aware that you haven't 'really' started to CG until you are using a tablet -- 'drawing with mouse' and 'drawing with tablet' are practically in different universes. There are rare people who CG with a mouse, but nobody who's tried both would seriously dispute that tablets are much faster to achieve a given effect. Which gives you much more time to experiment with different effects and learn how they work and whether they are suited to the context.

About mouse-usage I cannot comment much, all I know is that using a mouse in MyPaint acts as if the pressure were 50% of maximum pressure. This may mean that adjusting the global pressure curve as I mentioned will help (make a point in the centre of the curve and drag it to the top -- if I'm correct this will make the effective pressure level 100%)

You can also use the line tools (see the top toolbar) -- they were actually programmed by someone who only uses a mouse, and provide 'artificial' pressure attenuation via a curve. I find these pretty useful for lineart and painting any shape (curved or polygonal) that needs to be very regular/neat.

[yaomon17]

Yep, just have to get some money. 

[surt]

What Ai said about MyPaint. Top two lines are mouse with default pressure curve, lower two are with the displayed pressure curve.

[Mathias]

Get yourself a real drawing program - Photoshop CS2 is now free: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=cs2_downloads

[Ai]

^ Photoshop is not even a drawing program, despite the fact that some people make it serve as one. Actual drawing programs can be good drawing programs. Photoshop, GIMP, Pixel, etc. can get the job done, but they're hardly optimized for the purpose. There are plenty of actual drawing programs that will not subject you to the acres of unrelated cruft and complexity found in photo editing software.

[yaomon17]

I don't have a serial number and it is asking me for one very sternly.

[Mathias]

^ Photoshop is not even a drawing program, despite the fact that some people make it serve as one. Actual drawing programs can be good drawing programs. Photoshop, GIMP, Pixel, etc. can get the job done, but they're hardly optimized for the purpose. There are plenty of actual drawing programs that will not subject you to the acres of unrelated cruft and complexity found in photo editing software.

Oh . . . you're one those too, eh Ai? Hehe
I honestly don't care how anyone defines Photoshop. What if Alexander Fleming looked at the mold spores he accidentally discovered as having bactericidal properties and thought, 'Naw dawg, dat's jus' nasty ol' mold, mang', then threw it out the window? Hmm? HMMMM???
It's irrelevant.
We all have opinions on software. My opinion is that Photoshop is well suited for digital painting. Are you fully researched on it's current capabilities (CS6, not CS2)? Are you suuurrrre?
Besides the fact that I understand Photoshop very very well, one of the big reasons I've stuck with it all this time is the very reason you cite as it's downfall - all that cruft. By intelligently utilizing all that cruft in combinations, one can do just about anything. Even 3D now. You don't need the histogram panel for digital painting? Neither do I. So, let's just not use it.
I'm glad your preferred drawing program(s) works well for now (which I assume have features you don't use/need). And I'm glad Photoshop works well for me.





Not working?

[Ai]

I'm not objecting to your presenting Photoshop as an option, because it -is- an option and it does work for some people. Just with your presentation of these other programs (notably MyPaint and SAI), which are -dedicated specifically to drawing-, as 'not real drawing programs', and presenting Photoshop, which is -not in any way- dedicated to drawing, as a 'real drawing program'. That's quite plainly false.

I would like to point out also that a newbie to digital painting will not actually know -what- to ignore (you seem to be speaking from your position as someone who already knows the software), so even if they settle on Photoshop (or GIMP, or Krita) eventually as their tool of choice, it's not a very smart option to -learn- the basics of digital painting on. Even just the basics of digital painting involve a lot of factors.

[Mathias]

Photoshop isn't a dedicated tool of ANY sort - photo editing, painting, 3D modelling, etc. Never said it was.
And yes, it has multiple feature sets. Its drawing/painting feature set is clearly superior to many programs that only possess drawing/painting features, though. So, to use an app that's "dedicated to drawing" means nothing. Photoshop is, and has been for years, the digital drawing program of choice for a vast number of serious digital artists, pro's and hobbyists alike. It has great video card support. It's 64-bit. It uses the newly implemented Mercury Engine. Now what's a "real drawing program" anyway? One that gets the job done. My slightly snide, passing comment may have rubbed you the wrong way, but I think the conclusion here just needs to be - to each his own. Opinions . . . that's all they are.


LET THE SLIME FLOW

[yaomon17]

Actually I think this could be an interesting activity to try to create the most slime like texture using pixels ( could be other textures too but given the context...).

[coffee]

It all ends up in Microsofts pockets anyway!

I wouldn't even think of buying such a tool. It's the same with 3Ds max, a lot of free programs are often the same quality and in some cases even better, like Blender, some people have just, for some reason, started to(or always has) think that these programs are a lot better . Using a free software is also good for the big picture, meaning not just throw money at microsoft etc. but encourage independent developers that actually looks out for artists and have passion for creating a tool that serves the purpose of helping create good and high quality art, instead of building a program that is ment to reach out to a bigger group of buyers. the purpose to make money.

[Ai]

^ you make some good points. Please don't combine them with unsupported sweeping generalizations like "It all ends up in Microsoft's pocket anyway". Portraying this as a moral issue is ineffective, because there is not yet a -general recognition among people- that open-source has substantial benefits that closed-source can never attain. Getting on your soapbox is only good if it actually convinces people that change is possible.

If commercial software works for you, then use it. If open source software works for you, then use it. Don't let anyone else unduly influence your decision, try all your options and decide for yourself.

With that, can we drag this back on topic?

[Mathias]

. . .
With that, can we drag this back on topic?

Yeah. Draw some slimey stuff!

[Ai]

I did that:


But was not really satisfied with it -- pixelling from scratch would surely get much better results than this quick indexpainted modification of a pixelled tomato.

Still, it did capture a few slimey aspects, so maybe someone can find inspiration in it.

[Mathias]

I like it's general drippy/droopyness. I think that's important for a slimey appearance - for the form to be fluidy. It's not enough for the object to just be dressed up with a slimey surface texture.

I intensified your speculars and added more, for a wetter look.

[coffee]

"It all ends up in Microsoft's pocket anyway"

was not ment to be very seriously taken. Perhaps I shouldv'e added a: 

If commercial software works for you, then use it. If open source software works for you, then use it

My point was really that you don't have to pay around $1423 for a software that you can get for free, one that is just as good.

You can't be totally oblivious about the turning of the market/products/commercial/giant companies. If you actually read a lot about it and the consequences and aftermaths it makes
I think you will change your opinion. It's not at all an ineffective discussion but I guess it's up to everyone if they want to be aware or ignorant, if that's what you mean with everyone
choosing their own products. That's the kind of talk/opinion that will prevent anything from changing.

Also you can't expect not to get any reactions if you did intend to open a discussion or say your opinion about the subject.

Try at slime coming up



Edit:
pretty boring and dull previous slime I produced... new try

[Ai]

If commercial software works for you, then use it. If open source software works for you, then use it

My point was really that you don't have to pay around $1423 for a software that you can get for free, one that is just as good.

Whether there is actually such a program depends on the field.

* Blender is an excellent 3d software, and it does sculpting too (which is hellishly fun), but not as well as ZBrush.
* Similarly, GIMP has a vast range of capabilities, but there are still a number of features in Photoshop that they are no equivalents to yet in GIMP. The converse is also true (eg. GMIC)
* On the other side of things, AFAIK there is really nothing commercial or otherwise that begins to compare to GPick for RGB palette editing, and
* I'm not sure if there even IS any commercial equivalent to Alchemy.

For someone who is aiming to produce a lot of works (as a serious artist must), you can adapt your artworks somewhat to the tool, but your tool must also have what you need to get the job done efficiently.  It's just like anything else, ideally you would use OSS for everything[1], but just like anything in life, there are areas where it's not as effective to do so. If those areas are ones you deal with, then compromise is necessary.

I'm not saying 'buy the expensive package if you want' (I'm no fan of -mindless- individualism), I'm saying 'work out whether you genuinely need the expensive package, and act accordingly'

[1] I do use OSS for everything, BTW.

You can't be totally oblivious about the turning of the market/products/commercial/giant companies. If you actually read a lot about it and the consequences and aftermaths it makes
I think you will change your opinion.

That scores about 30 out of 10 Nopes.

You just won't get people to change with vague statements -- vague statements only feel good or informative to people who are already onboard. Change is hard, you have to show people -concrete information- about -specific programs- showing that it's worthwhile to change, rather than assertions of the general superiority of OSS. For example David Revoy uses MyPaint and has his own CC-licensed brushset for it and a number of videos showing how he uses it.  That is the kind of stuff that people can use to make an informed change.

Hell, saying "I get a lot out of OSS, with the community and responsiveness, I feel more involved and capable than I ever did using closed-source software, and I personally have migrated all of my workflow to open source software" also has information value; it says that 'someone else has already been here and had a good experience, so maybe I can do this and get something out of it, too'.

Also you can't expect not to get any reactions if you did intend to open a discussion or say your opinion about the subject.

My comments were about software that is relatively -specialized- (MyPaint, SAI, Alchemy, etc) versus software that is extremely -generalized- (Photoshop), and the bad reasoning involved in portraying Photoshop as more of a drawing program than.. well, a program that is -actually- dedicated to and optimized for drawing.
If I somehow brought OSS into it, by all means point out where -- I intended to specifically avoid that issue.

Try at slime coming up

Is this supposed to be a sort of 'mixed viscosity' effect, with some parts being more runny than others? It looks like some kind of slime-newt stepping out of the cup. You got a lovely squishiness going, maybe you could 'sag' the eyes (this seems to be a common technique in drawing slime-creatures, to give more 'runniness' by having the facial features running.) Or an extra color (would come in useful for softening some of the spots on the back of the head.) Nice expression , too

BTW there seem to be two identical copies of it.

EDIT:
Wow, pretty impressed by the new one. those little spots work much better at a larger scale,  and it looks so animated, as well as having a pretty solid sliminess everywhere. OTOH the back hand feels a little uncertain, and perhaps it could do with more reflected/refracted light where surfaces are curving away from the camera.

[yaomon17]

Following the tutorial on how to draw a wooden plank: http://gimaldinov.deviantart.com/art/How-to-draw-wooden-plank-267517599

C&C ty

[Ai]

* Work higher res. Double what you currently have, at least. It's very difficult to get nice crisp edges on the final result if you don't work at a larger size than the final product. The fact that the pixels describing the 'blots' near bottom describe a line that's only 1-2 pixels wide is a sign of your resolution being too low.

Working larger/downscaling will also give more flexibility as to the brushes you use -- the current one is too soft for many of the edges.

In general this is a very common practice -- working larger (2x to 4x) than your final product has several workflow and aesthetic benefits.

* There are some quantization errors (sudden saturation/color shifts with no apparent purpose), which is typical of an 8bpc brush engine like GIMP's. This is not completely avoidable without using a different program with a 15bpc or at least 12bpc brush engine, but working higher-res will reduce the visibility of this problem.

* I think otherwise you're following the tutorial pretty well. any other aesthetic crits I have are mainly also due to the lack of resolution. Keep on keeping on.