AuthorTopic: Afghani Girl  (Read 9028 times)

Offline balls01

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 231
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • 사랑
    • View Profile
    • Balls Art

Re: Afghani Girl

Reply #20 on: January 07, 2009, 11:08:00 am
ive been monitoring this fro a while good friend.
but every one else seems to be handling all mu crits when i check. this time im getting in first  :D

wel the most visible cheek isnt highlighted enough. add a brighter highlight not too big just a little to make this maybe better im not sure thats just a guess it might ruin ifso were rippin this off. the eyes and lips still not striking enough make her look like if you get a step closer shes gona cut your head off you. the dithering works well for this piece but i still say dont go overboard or your going to be taking steps back

your choice of color, is your voice of color
BallsArt

Offline Dr D

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 415
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Not a real doctor.
    • View Profile
    • PJ Gallery

Re: Afghani Girl

Reply #21 on: January 07, 2009, 12:31:51 pm
Her eyes are larger and intenser yet. Try to capture that deep cold stare. Her eyes seem to be focused greatly on something in the actual picture, while in yours she's just 'looking'. She's obviously using the muscles around her eyes a little more as opposed to the relaxed look you have now.

EDIT: Looking at it again, I really think you should light up the right half of her face, that could be a large change that should benefit the piece.

She also still doesn't look even nearly as petite as in the reference.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 07:09:20 pm by Dr D »

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2426
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Afghani Girl

Reply #22 on: January 07, 2009, 07:05:28 pm
What I mean is like in photos, but I don't think I have the right terms nor knowledge to explain that :(. I believe there was a Weekly Challenge on that, and was looking for the winner's piece (can't remember by whom it's by nor its author, only that it was a cute little monkey), but I couldn't find it. Field of range I think it was called.
What he could do is have that effect and work on it in order to focus the piece on an element, for example the eyes, and everything around it slowly loses detail. That's what I mean.
Hope it's an interesting idea.

Focus for simple range, Depth of Field for breadth.  It exists primarily in photography because not only is the human eye far more accomplished than a camera lens, but we are unable, in regular vision, to focus on the out of focus areas as we are when looking at a photograph.

In all, it's neat, but entirely cosmetic.  the point of foundational skills is that they are what actually makes a piece work, and all the dithering and glazing and AA etc are only the icing on the cake.  If the cake does not work, nobody cares about the icing.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.