Ahh, no one shades armor like you wolf! Okay I I tried ramping up the contrast and making things a little more metal like in your version. I think part of the problem is that I was following the shading on my reference pictures too carefully (which was dull metal), where as I should of gone for something a bit more "ultra-real" like you did. Looks a lot better.

Okay so here is my attempt, (2 variations)




Not 100% on the colour ramps for the gold yet.

@Mr. Fahrenheit, Thanks, the only two restrictions I've been told to follow are the ones I've mentioned. Are there more?

Hello forum,

So i'm doing some c64 fantasy portraits for a client. Here is the first among 6.

Current:
The Necromancer,



Finished:
The Knight,

Peasant Girl



The pixels are double width. And I should point out that the black is a slightly off blue for the sake of the engine it's going into.

whadoyathink?

(crossposted here)

@tim
Well at risk of derailing this thread...

As someone who considers them self a feminist I would defend the right of Cyangmou's design to exist. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the sexualization of characters, I think the issue stems from how overwhelmingly one-sided this sexualization tends to be and the shallowness of writing that causes sexualization to become purely reductional objectification.

I suppose you have to look at it like this;
There is nothing inherently wrong with a character that identifies with and displays traditional femininity (pink, frills, ect)
Nor is there anything inherently wrong with a character that displaying a degree of sexuality, so long as sexuality is not there sole defining feature. (as this leads to objectification)

Now you could argue that Cyangmou's female design is objectified, and maybe that is a fair enough argument to make, but this does make a specific presumption about a shallowness of character and intent that I don't think, given the art on display, you can rightly make at this point. Now if you were talking about Rob Liefeld's art I wouldn't second guess you. I suppose I would say that objectification as a crime of bad writing as much as it is one of lazy art.

Honestly I would encourage Cyangmou to explore all his characters from a point of depth and respect. And if that exploration leads to a feminine, sexualized character? cool, so long as he is open to other character types, bodies and personalities as well.

Lastly, I think a lot of artists, myself included, tend to express a degree of sexuality in the art they create, I don't think this is a bad thing but it is something you need be conscious of and keep in check as it will not always be appropriate, especially in terms of character design.

@Carnivac
please don't mischaracterize feminists.

I wasn't so much talking about making him dynamic or comicbookish, just adding a degree of purpose to his pose. He doesn't currently transmit anything to me in either his face or pose, not even a sense of intensity or passive mystery. to be perfectly honest all i'm getting from this is "wax works". Perhaps this in part because his eyes look a touch unfocused.

Honestly no matter what you do with this guy he is going to turn out great, because he already looks great. I just think that for an artist of your considerable magnitude paying attention to these things in an early stage and pushing a pose as far as possible, including an inactive or passive pose (if that makes sense), is going to improve your work more then any minute detail I could possibly point out.

Something to keep in mind for next time. 

Okay so I took your suggestion with the middle ones eyes, though I went for something a little less manic. I'm pretty ready to call these guys done.

 
I've also started a few new monsters,
slimes,

and the very wip nymph and bear