Fox - Render fur or keep it simple?

[Q.K.]

It's really been a while since I posted here... anyways, I was fiddling around in GraphicsGale the other day, trying to rough out a fox. Started with a silhouette based on some reference images and then tweaked things like the ears and tail to be a little more exaggerated.

I've never been very good at rendering texture though, simple or otherwise. Not sure if I should try and suggest a coat of fur, which might be hard because fox fur has a pretty subtle gradient, or just keep a simpler colour block style kind of like what I've got going on now. If anyone has any suggestions, either for rendering or anatomy, I'm all ears!

[Ambivorous]

Hi! Made an edit for you.



So, while fox fur is pretty short, some parts of their fur is nice and fluffy, so I only rendered those parts as fur and the rest I left pretty simple.

Picked top left as my light source.
Fluffy parts: tail! the lighter bits under the chin and down the chest, and the cheeks.
I also made your foxy look more strapping by reducing the stomach bulge (and shading the underside darker).
I bend the rear legs and gave the front legs a more active pose.
I also moved the cheek puff and the ears.

A lot of my changes are just personal choice. You are welcome to continue your style.
Things that you need to change are the lighter parts that come across the fox's front right leg (which I assume is in front due to the shading), and work with the light on your tail a little more.

As for how to shade fur. As you can see I've just made triangles facing downwards and to the back of the fox of the lighter colour in each case. sometimes this creates shade on the hair beneath. I also added more triangles to the silhouette to imply fur further.

[Pusty]

Hmm well I tried but I gave my self not enough time (again...) . I'm kinda disapointed in my self for this edit haha Just ignore the back part and just look at the head I guess that would tell you my point.
My edit is way to noisy. A reference would have helped. (or something similar lol).



ah well Ambivorous edit is way better so you may ignore this haha ^^

[API-Beast]

The important part is Shadow and Light, Texture just adds minor variations to the lit part, a lit textured surface will never be darker than the same surface in the shadows.

[Decroded]

I would argue that the light and shadow IS the texture.
The noisy texture in the lit area looks bad and has no place in pixel art imo.
Instead focus on how the edge between light and dark is disrupted by the clumps of fur.

[Q.K.]

Wow, thank you all for the critique and advice!

Ambivorous, thank you for the awesome anatomy fixes and shading suggestions.
Evidently my update borrows heavily from your edit, but I toned down the tail a little and added some fur texturing.

Pusty - nice avatar  also, thanks for the fur texture example.
Initially I was leaning more towards flatter colour blocks, but after experimenting with texturing I think I like the extra detail it adds.

And finally, thanks API-Beast, that's a great way to explain it

So, thoughts on the update?

[Atnas]

Yo,

Decroded is right

Look at any object, its has a form, light and shadow is just a language to tell you about that form,

texture describes a surface with a lot of smaller forms on top of a larger one, usually the same material

but really the form IS the texture, like a chicken skin is bumpy, its actually raised and pitted. And fur is so much more than just bumps, its a lot more drastic

Your latest version is saying "this wolf has clumps of fur raised up everywhere EXCEPT along the edges when viewed perfectly from the side"

Like you used a hairbrush all over the fox but only down it's middle. Thats not to say the back isnt smooth on foxes, but to say that the hair you indicated with that texture doesnt make a lot of sense compared to where you can see the texture from the side as it rounds the back.


look at this beautiful fox

study the direction of the fur, and you can come to some conclusions about how to shade the fur texture

[API-Beast]

Well, if I wanted to be accurate I would have used the words low frequency shading instead of shadows and high frequency shading instead of texture. I just tried to make the concept a bit more understandable.

Point remains, there are variations of brightness on any plane, but the brightest value of a surface in the shadows should always be darker than the darkest value of a surface in direct light. E.g. light and shadow should have two separate value ranges, which don't overlap. (If there is only one direct light source, which is the case in the vast majority of 2D art.)

[Q.K.]

Thanks, you're right of course, and that is a beautiful fox. I'll keep at it over the next couple days.
I really love the way the tufts of fur along the fox's neck have those dark roots that show the depth of the fur.
I feel like it might be hard to clearly communicate that at the scale I'm working at, but I'll try 

[Decroded]

that will be hard actually I wouldn't try the black bits personally as its probably going to become noisy.
u could probably describe a layer of fur clumps though.
remember u dont need to do every layer, just one or two is usually all that's needed to suggest the rest of the clumps.