Helm, yeah that's definitely a flaw Ryu helped to expose. I do prefer his more stylish intuitively painted image over my calculated realistic wanna-be one.
Seems logical to have an actual size (not scaled, just cropped) chunk to look at, if this topic is coming up:
So there's that. Not too bad up close I hope. Apparently, realism is what I've been targeting, but without the effort really required to create a realistic image. Rather, this is polished digi paint with a grandiose desire to
be realistic, as opposed to impressionistic or clearly painterly.
But where do you draw the line? When do you know to stop refining? This is a question I'm trying to answer. I just do what comes naturally . . . and whatever happens, happens, hehe.
I do anything when doing this stuff - paint with traditional media simulating brushes, use vector shapes, create flat patterns and apply a series or warps to bend them on flat planes into what is supposed to look 3D (her lace gloves - each finger is done separately, shiny cloak border is painstakingly warped to flow with contour of cloak, etc). I put it all together as I work.
Started with 2 layers, but things quickly got out of hand. Yes, very compartmentalized, which is a pain.
See my layers stack if you dare.
But someone tell me
this, how do these 1 layer guys deal with things like completely different materials juxtaposed together and not ruin everything as they paint? Look above at the shiny embroidery on her vest area, or the shiny border on the cloak. You can't paint them simultaneously - the cloak fabric is mat, while the border is way more reflective because it's satin or something, and it has fine exact edges you can't accidentally paint over while stroking down light and dark grey on the cloak when defining the folds.
Must I paint everything first that's on the bottom, polish it up, and then start stacking on things as they appear closer to the viewer? My solution for this is a maddening amount of layers. Highly flexible, but also highly irritating because it almost becomes scientific.
The old classic painters didn't have layer stacks and they managed! I guess I just have a lot to learn.
What I wish I could get myself to do is create a palette of main colors, have a predefined set of brushes which I don't modify while painting and just make do with that. Here's a thought - we try to simulate traditional painting when we create these images, right? Why then, do we assume we can violate the rules/limitations of traditional painting and
still reap the rewards of a genuinely painterly end-result? Either I need to constrain my digi painting practices to bring them more in line with real actual traditional paint or I need to drop the pretense and just go on to something entirely and honestly digital in nature and appearance.
@ JJ - I hear that! The bg is a stand-in. Final bg will be similar, supporting the fg mostly and hopefully not drawing too much attention)
