AuthorTopic: Slime  (Read 21083 times)

Offline coffee

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • JohanAronson
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #50 on: August 21, 2013, 07:20:23 am
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.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 08:31:40 am by coffee »

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #51 on: August 21, 2013, 09:34:36 am
^ 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?

If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline Mathias

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1764
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • im not real
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/9542.htm
    • mathiaspaints
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #52 on: August 21, 2013, 09:36:44 am
. . .
With that, can we drag this back on topic?

Yeah. Draw some slimey stuff!

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #53 on: August 21, 2013, 10:16:16 am
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.
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline Mathias

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1764
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • im not real
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/9542.htm
    • mathiaspaints
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #54 on: August 21, 2013, 11:04:47 am
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.

Offline coffee

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • JohanAronson
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #55 on: August 21, 2013, 11:50:52 am
"It all ends up in Microsoft's pocket anyway"

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

Quote
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

« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 06:50:34 pm by coffee »

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #56 on: August 21, 2013, 02:56:35 pm
Quote
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.

Quote
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'.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 :lol:

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.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 01:50:30 am by Ai »
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline yaomon17

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 660
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • YaomonKS
    • taiya.sun
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/28472.htm
    • yaomon17
    • valedev
    • playvale
    • View Profile
    • portfolio

Re: Slime

Reply #57 on: September 06, 2013, 08:01:01 pm
Following the tutorial on how to draw a wooden plank: http://gimaldinov.deviantart.com/art/How-to-draw-wooden-plank-267517599

C&C ty

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Slime

Reply #58 on: September 06, 2013, 10:39:59 pm
* 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.
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.