GR#013 - Xochiquetzal (Nudity) - Human Anatomy

[Jeremy]

First really serious attempt at female anatomy, decided to do something shiny. The skin's meant to be golden, feathers are a macaw's (Was previously trying to pixel a macaw this size but discouraged myself ) though they sorta look archaeoptrix-ish. So yeah, any crits on anatomy, face, rendering style, colours or anything else I failed to mention would be great



Nothing but the face and some of the feathers has been seriously pixelled, obviously, and the ref from posemaniancs is to the side. I pretty much copied straight off it.

I decided to make it an Aztec-type figure because the feathers and abundance of gold reminded me of them, and just now found that the feathered Goddess Xochiquetzal who just so happens to "have great beauty" existed. Yay coincidences

[EyeCraft]

If it's your first serious attempt at female anatomy, you're making it very hard for yourself by not only attempting to do it, but also pixel it on a pretty large canvas, and then douse it in complex texture and colour work.

I recommend just doing anatomical studies with pencil and paper, or a tablet, and learn the basic 3d shapes. If you just sit a reference next to you and start copying the contours and basic shadow shapes, you're taking the long... loooong road to learning figures. Learn how to capture the gesture of the figure, then fill it out with basic construction, then detailed construction from more extensive study of skeletal and muscular systems. Once you feel pretty fluid with that... then you can make the crazy bird lady (which is wonderfully colourful and interesting, don't get me wrong).



Start with basic solids (I start with a simplified ribcage and pelvis), work out the spine curvature, then build the forms up. Once you have your forms you can establish your planes and lay down your shadows. Sorry, don't think the edit demonstrates it very well. 

[questseeker]

Eyecraft's advice is good, but I think the problem is that you not only "start copying the contours and basic shadow shapes" of your reference without a good grasp of the general structure, but that you take an unreliable reference picture too literally as a consequence of this insufficient understanding.
For example:

• The breasts of the bird lady are as spherical and unnaturally erect as those of a silicone-filled pornstar, and strangely flat and deformed (the left nipple is remarkably out of place) as if pressed against a glass, in motion or something. This is a direct consequence of the reference having large breasts in a strange pose and lacking the flesh on the upper half  of the breasts that would give them a more natural shape.
• Arms are too thin and muscular because actual people, even if they are slim, have a bit of fat and skin over muscles.

[Jeremy]

Thank you both for your criticism, I realise that posemaniacs is really just for proportion and  posing help 

I posted this as the start of what I hope to be a more long-term project unaffected by deadlines, the version I posted started as a map of where the feathers would go but turned into me scribbling all the shades too I did, as I said, just pretty much faithfully copy (I.e. the abs and legs won't end up being anywhere near that defined) the reference, and obviously not very accurately in regards to the legs

I have a book, Human Anatomy for Artists by Andras Szunyoghy, which my mum grabbed a couple of christmases ago. I'm not sure of its reputation or anything but it has nice views of respective segments of the body from different views, so I plan to use that for more in depth stuff.

Here's the unfeathered version, I haven't done any further work on it but it may highlight any other errors I've made that were otherwise obscured. I know about the ridiculously over-defined legs \o/

[questseeker]

I have a book, Human Anatomy for Artists by Andras Szunyoghy, which my mum grabbed a couple of christmases ago. I'm not sure of its reputation or anything but it has nice views of respective segments of the body from different views, so I plan to use that for more in depth stuff.

But there is no "more in depth stuff": you are already trying to make a large and detailed drawing of an anatomically plausible person in a nontrivial pose, what could be more challenging? How can copying a bad rendering of a bad 3D model from posemaniacs.com compete with a book that really teaches you anatomy? "Proportion and posing" is precisely what you should learn both from books, from experience, and from your own taste without looking for shortcuts; a mannequin would be more helpful than confusingly detailed references.

[Jeremy]

I have mannequins too, they're just pretty simple ones (Not detail-wise, bending ability). The book's really simple as well, shows different body types and everything. 
By in depth I meant shallower ( ), as in with skin.

I'm not looking for shortcuts either, I'm not talking about laboriously copying from book to screen. Just for a reference which is unobstructed by coloured rendering like the one previously used. I need reference because otherwise I find myself with appendages which grow bigger and bigger, and not realising until I've put in more work

[EyeCraft]

Good update!

You need more solid construction, a strong base upon which to render the subject. For instance, the figure is off balance, since the feet are further to the right than in the reference. Compare vertical landmarks (eg measure the alignment (or lack of) of the head, naval and ankles).

Your focus on details is dominating and obfuscating the shading process. It like super-shiny pseudo-pillow shade. Planes! Break the forms down into planes, decide on your lightsource and then lay down the values.

I agree with questseeker in that your reference (and your apparent copying/mimicking process) is leading to bizarrely thin, skinless limbs. There's flesh and fat that needs to go over the top of what you have; it creates rolls/folds and more significantly softens a LOT of the musculature.

NaCl asked me to elaborate on my earlier post, and I ended up making a (bit of an ugly, but serviceable) mini-tut. I figure I might as well make it available for you, too, since I think it applies... and I'd rather not write it all out again!  
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z212/gastrop0d/sketches/figure_process_00.jpg

Keep it up!

[Jad]

Why are you drawing individual musclesssss!!!!!?

Draw a silhouette! Draw geometry! Draw curves that are appealing! Check that all this seems to correspond to the muscles on your reference but don't bother more than that - just make that base solid and then put in the details YOU want there.

[Jeremy]

Further update, a little closer to my intended rendering style 


@Eyecraft: Thanks for that tut, believe it or not this did start as that  I end up going overboard and instead of mapping out shades end up with scribbly pillowshading, so I basically redraw every pixel a couple of times

@Jad: Because I like to make more work for myself >.<

So, I'm pretty happy with my technical side of things thus far, concentrating on making sure the image has depth, a problem I generally have.

EDIT: Those feet were done at 2 am last night. No where near how I want 'em

[TheOne]

Eyecraft that tute is awesome! If you could recommend some books for the know muscle groups stage that'd b nice.

Hey jeremy the head features don't follow the looking up perspective. I like the finished hand.

You know mermaids they are sexy even though they are half fish. You don't think about having sex with a fish as Ricky Gervais pointed out in a joke. If the head was a fish head and there were human legs it wouldn't be sexy anymore. I think there is a fine line between a sexy mythological woman and something that is just weird. This goes over the line for me. Just an idea less feathers on the body and just keep them on the head and wings and tail: http://images.inmagine.com/img/image100/06004/060040269.jpg