Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
Madster | 01/04/2008 @953 | edit post

HI all! This one's been floating around, doing nothing for a few months, now. Other projects and other obligations have pushed it into the UFO (un-finished objects) category, so I thought I'd throw it in here for anyone that might be bored and want to play with it. This is the image as far as I got with it. The Phoenix Woman is rising from the ashes... And here is a linework made from the image if it will help anyone: Please post your results, good or bad. Have fun! ~M

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
chillie | 01/05/2008 @078 | edit post

Yeah, Maddy, I know you said this was supposed to be a TakeAway, but I couldn't help but crit this, since you are one of the most actives critics we have around here. Even if you gave up on this, tell me: what were you trying to achieve with this piece? I say this because I see: 1- Vector-like work (on wings and skin) 2- Painting work (on the hair and face) 3- Photomanipulation (on the ashes) So, what were you trying to do with it? A vector-work, a painting or a paint-over/photomanip? Second, I have noticed, not only here but also on the speed painting thread, a tendency of yours to use Photoshop filters, burn and dodge tool. Shame of the shames on you! I never really saw a finished work of yours (guess nobody did, at least around here), but if you keep using these, I don't really think you'll go very far on studying textures and color theories. Why don't you Google this last one? It's a great thing to know the theories before practcing. Third, did you use a model or a reference picture for this? Because even if you teach us (and I say us because this heavily includes me, who learned A LOT with you) anatomy, why did you make so many mistakes? I mean, there were so many anatomy issues I decided to paint-you-over. Hope you don't get offended... Let's check on it: 1- I did not mark it red, but her hair, on your drawing, was growing from the middle of the forehead! When she'd look at us frontly, in a passport-like picture, she'd look more like this: than to a woman!!! LOL!!! She-Cousin Itt 2- Also about her hair, on the lower part of it, you drew it as if it was growing from her neck. Unless she's a half-monkey, this should not happen! So I made it upper. But you'll say: "Noooo, that's because it's floating!!!", but nah, the way you drew it, it gave us the impression it was growing from the bottom of her neck, almost from her back! As you ever mentioned, consistency is utmost important while doing art. 3- Her hands (specially her fingers) are extremely small and thick! They are also stretched in a wooden-way, and so your character turns itself into... Pinnochio!!! Guess you don't want her to be a puppet, do you? So, I changed her hand and finger shapes to a more female-like hand, and added some movement to it, folding the fingers slightly. 4- Not marked in red as well, are her breasts. Her right breast (our left) should be looking heavier. As it is, it's looking lifted by some mysterious force that acts not on Earth - unfortunately!!! Gravity still takes its toll, milady, so low it! "But heck! She's lifting her arm!" Even so, it is still misplaced. The other one is better, though I think it should be crossing the back's line. Do you see that her right breast crosses it even if she's bending to her left? That should not happen to this breast, but to the left (our right) one. 5- Still not marked (my computer rebooted and I lost my patience, that's why) are her wings. They seem, as the breasts, somehow misplaced. There is a problem with the perspective of it, that should follow her shoulders' perspective in a parallel line. And the left wing (our right) should be bigger than the right one, due to the rotation of her body (again, the perspective issue). 6- Her legs seem kinda weird as well. I'd risk that her left leg (our right) should be rounder, and there's a bone from the hip that's missing! I still don't know what you were trying to do, and I think this is due to a lack of focus of yours. And even with your bathroom troubles, I guess you should take some time, even if it's 20 minutes a day to play your art and go back to this piece, which is a great idea. Just, PLEASE, forget about burn/dodge tools! They ruined her hair... Hope it was helpful. ~Chillie [Message edited on 01/05 @083]

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
Daykan | 01/05/2008 @764 | edit post

Chillie said all!

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
Madster | 01/05/2008 @844 | edit post

Well, first off, Chilli, thank you for the time and consideration you put into that critique. I'm sure it has given you a bit more understanding of just how much effort and time goes into doing a thorough observation and commentary on an art work. But, while you have a good eye, you are still lacking perspective... No, I did NOT request a critique. If you notice, this IS the "Take AWAY" forum, for those pieces that aren't going anywhere, or aren't working out, for someone to possibly “breathe new Life into them,” not kick them…By my own admission, this piece was essentially abandoned months ago. It is not, nor was ever intended to be, a completed or finished (presentation quality) work. My activity level on these forums should not necessitate a "sharpen your knives" mentality for a post such as this, in a PLACE such as this...It's akin to kicking someone from behind. Perhaps you didn’t notice, but the Take Away forum doesn’t get a lot of action. I posted this to try to breathe a bit of Life into it, not to have someone take it as some sort of opportunity to attack the sketch that was uploaded. So, yes, I AM offended that you presumed to take it upon yourself to offer advice where none was expected, nor asked for. This image is the compositional reference for the planned final painting, more of an "underpainting," done with filters, photos, and linework, with a bucket fill for the skin tone, and no highlights/shadows, as you should be able to discern. "Phoenix rising from the ashes" should give you some direction on what the intent was. Photorealistic? Not really. Cartoon? No. My intent is a bit more illustrative in nature. But again, this project went on a back burner. I may return to it, or no. Re-read the Original Post. The use of vectors, photomanips, etc. are all part of getting my under image established BEFORE I tackle the 300ppi full size version. This piece IS the size and res you see it uploaded. 600x600 px @ 72ppi. It is in NO WAY close to the intended final version, which is intended to be printed on 11x14" canvas... While you’ve done a nice job on the linework, you are painting over essentially an outline of the edges, not the actual finger edges themselves. The jaggies at the ends of the fingers at a 600x600 resolution (the original working size of this rough) does not allow for much fine point detail. I was more bothered by her broken right wrist, which was so obviously not a straight line from her elbow, I’m surprised you missed it…The anatomy and hair positioning are photo-tracing (OMFG, not only does she shamelessly use filters, burn and dodge, she TRACES her compositional refs?!?!?!!!)...The hair that you crit "coming out of her forehead is fire, Chillie, not hair. The reference photo for the hair was a model, whose hair had been painstakingly spread onto a floor beneath her, only I added more hair, and attempted to reshape the ends to look like flame tips. Since this is a compositional rough, I was playing with it to see if I could highlight and shade the hair (burn and dodge, if you will) to look like fire, with hair strands, or if I would have to paint the fire as a burning flame, which I really do not want, as her head will then just look like the tip of a matchstick, with flames coming off of it...Again, your perspective of this piece is misplaced...Rather than painting just the lines to show how "wrong" it is, Chillie, feel free to paint over/adjust the work to show how that hair can be improved and look "better as a rendering of fire/flames." Again, your perspective of the importance of this version of a work is disproportional to it's actual existence. One reason that people seldom critique compositional roughs, is they understand that they are not presented as a finished work, most of which (including MINE) go through several stages of rework and revision...You cannot ruin hair that has not been painted, Chillie. I wanted to see in this compositional rough whether I would be able to paint the hair as hair strands, with highlights and shadows, or if I would have to paint flames, as from a fire. I created a rough linework from the painting, so that anyone wanting to play with it (rather than attempt to use it as ammunition for a critique) would not have to deal with my coloring experiments… The wings are vector to allow for easier, yet CLEAN resizing (which only vector can do), as I was piecing this comp rough together. I didn't want to futz with jaggies as I worked on positioning, and when I resize the rough for painting, I won’t care about the rest as much as the wings. The "ashes" are a photo ref from the World Trade Center tower debris., and do not signify much of anything at this stage, although in the colored version, you can see bits and piece which would render nicely amongst the basic gray dust that constitutes ash. Not all visual references need be photographs, nor purely imaginary. You can have a mashup of them. Their purpose is for reference, not the actual rendering. Perspective… As for your anatomy lesson about the breasts, try standing up, and reaching your arms upwards and outwards, Chilli (Males, do NOT attempt this! Females only! Men might be injured...;P) If you don't feel the muscles supporting your breasts pulling them upwards, you either do not have enough breast tissue to feel the noticeable pull, or you can't raise your arms above your head. Also, you have been exposed to FAR too much "filters are EEEEVIL" propaganda, as ALL beginner digital artists are (for good reason ~ they have no clue what they’re doing with them beyond “oooh…looky!). The trick to filters, is to LEARN (like anything else) to use them effectively, rather than just click the filter on its defaults and proclaim, "Done!" Personally, I LOVE filters, although I hate misuse of them. This dichotomy is resolved by the effective usage of them (e.g. they are a PART of the work, not a dominant focal point in their own right). I cannot access my Art Books at present, they are in boxes as we remodel, but there is an EXCELLENT (although out of print, I believe) book called "Photoshop Filter Finesse," and it teaches you about filters, how they work, and how to better use them. I have absolutely NO shame in using them, as I work on learning them inside out to achieve effects such as those by artists such as Joel-Peter Witkin, or Jerry Uelsmann. (Google them, and you will see filters are your friend, IF you know how to use them...)There are many different levels of filter usage, just as there are many different levels of pencil usage or digital paint…Filters and other tools are just that. TOOLS. I don't know how to use a surgical laser, but if I wanted to use one, I would take the time and effort to LEARN...I have no problems with filters, I just have time issues in how much time I can devote to practicing with them, and I do not work a piece to death and beyond to correct and re-correct. I learn what limitations I come across, and what remedies there are (if any). If the work can be brought into better compliance, so be it. If not, it becomes a UFO, sometimes with the Note Tool (another "useless thing," according to some) highlighting any steps or discoveries I may need in the future. This piece actually has a quite a bit of focus, as I worked out various compositional issues relating to visual flow, balance, value and shape, although negative vs. positive space is still a bit problematic, as I do not want the ashes or the background too visually dominant, yet do not want just a bunch of dust at her feet, and smoke in the air...My next revision of this work (should I find the time), would focus more on the debris pile of burnt and smoking ashes, as I do not want her coming out of the ground, but arising out of ashes, without heaping them at her feet like a volcano cone. I find it funny that with the title, and the introduction, and the color version, you don’t know what I was trying to do, and so decide to pass judgment that I lack focus…I'm glad you had fun analyzing this piece, and I'm sure there are more than a few bruised-ego members who enjoyed reading your efforts. But it was poor form on your part. By critiquing a piece, unasked, without taking into account the quality or intent of the piece you critiqued (compositional rough, intended for motivation/inspiration/practice material), you then posed questions, made assumptions, and passed judgment on things that were not an issue. I then have to write yet another "wall of text" that reads as a page of excuses, simply to point out that what you're slamming is, quite honestly, a bunch of non-issues on a compositional rough, not a WIP, not a finished work. While that may have been fun for you, I didn't put this here for others to play with, intending to have to explain why it is here, why it isn't finished, and why it is what it is, rather than a more refined WIP or finished work...That wasn't quite the fun I was encouraging. My intent was for you to go ahead and correct anything you think wrong, make any changes you see fit, rework, paint and play with the image, and post it here, not try to "take me to school" over it...Time and Place, Chillie. This was neither. It came across as snarky, and certainly doesn’t do much to encourage anyone to post any old, neglected works in here, if instead of giving them a new life, posting something only encourages people to cut on it…Nice job, Chillie. Not. Daykan, your affirmation of the uselessness of Chilli's critique in the wrong forum is as incorrect as your announcements of information that people have to e-mail you for when public forums are designed for interaction. If that is the best you can do, I kindly request you to save your time in responding to me, or to replies directed to me (although I doubt you'll honor the request.) ~M [Message edited on 01/05 @847]

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
kayness | 01/05/2008 @847 | edit post

well said Miss Chillie!

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
SandraS | 01/06/2008 @053 | edit post

I don't like to get involved with The Mad-ster... so I'm just gonna say geeeez....

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
Daykan | 01/06/2008 @805 | edit post

Oh, sorry!! I forget that you´re a really Master!! Sorry, sorry!!

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
Vixen-jellyfish | 01/13/2008 @248 | edit post

This explains alot.

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
Millink | 01/13/2008 @478 | edit post

Did someone actually read this?

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
Kaizu | 02/28/2008 @582 | edit post

most of it

Re: Nudity Warning: Phoenix Woman
ekim | 07/10/2008 @825 | edit post

hmm the nudity warning is quite exaggerated nice idea, nice realization