Quite a few lines of text to follow - full pic review
included as perceived by the artistically challenged; read
on!
--- Tyler Wight <syrob_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> From the look of the second picture, she can fit on more
> then just one floppy.
Eeeh, from re-reading my hasty post (appended), many
connotations or euphemisms can be misconstrued from what
has been written, as that ever observant skunk Borys has
just pointed out.. ^_^
> --- Scrapper Black Dragon <scrapperbd_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm sticking by the excuse of it is hard to read signs
> > while watching over your shoulder for co-workers who
> > may be obeserving what you're observing!!! All fits on
> > a floppy,
> > so it'll be going home tonight and I'll write a proper
> > appraisal of what I observe, posting tomorrow. :-)
And now for the promised pic review. Spent about 25
minutes zooming in and out (actually, didn't zoom in on
that area, already large enough...) and titling the screen
to get a clear view. Can't say that I'm impressed with TFT
screens for graphics work, though couldn't be motivated to
hood up any of the CRT's in the area. About 30 minutes of
typing this up to, but that's okay, company time. :-)
Did you use a softening filter at all after scanning? Only
reason I asked this as I was twiddling in Irfanview
(sometimes running a filter allows you to spot things you
didn't see previously) and found sharpening the image one
level made it wickedly clear. Nothing wrong with the
current level, just very defined once sharpened one level.
The red-eye reduction button I pressed for the heck of it
and it reduced the colour of her 'open feature' to a grey
shade! Looked funny, but not useful...
No black ink, though I'm tipping black pencil? Even gamma
correcting the screen, some parts still look black to me.
Again not a problem - excellent effort to achieve such
linear graduation, just an observation. I find it a good
way to improve my own art by scrutinising works by those
who know what they are doing!
The sky was digitally added later? The 'unedited'
version's sky is better. The edited version seems blotchy
to me; too centred and appears to draw focus to the
incorrect area of the picture. Not an issue with the
unedited.
Don't know who else has zoomed in (140% seems to be a good
level) and srutinized the detail on (no, not THAT part!)
things like the fence with its wood grain, the grass and
cement with their own textures. No photoshop overlays
here! Looks GOOD - the little details that add to the
overall.
The fur going 'over the borders' of shapes gives a more
realistic appearance - I'll have to try this with my next
pic. The lack of 'hard outline' is closer to real life.
One of the reasons computer edited stuff is often easy to
spot. The graduation for edges on digital pics is
frequently poor, so when you watch a digitally edited
movie, the excessively sharp items immediately stand out as
being digital add-ins. Definitely a furry looking furry!
The light source and shadowing are excellent. Notice how
the light source can be pinpointed from the light spots on
the bear's eyes? Now imagine where this source is coming
form and project down to ground level. Notice objects
closer to the ground have more distinct shadows than
objects a bit higher up that have more diffuse shadows, eg,
her tail? This is very good mapping. Being an engineer, I
appreciate accurate physics. :-)
With the light colour hairs on her chest, are these added
afterwards with, eg a white pencil etc, or is this area
just very thinly coloured? Not a problem here, just
curious how to achieve the technique.
Clever with her foot blocking the sign. "Don't look at
that, look at THIS!" Mind you, I think I've seen smaller
craters left by 500lb bombs... :-P
The edited pic to me, when I first glanced at it, didn't
appear to hold quite the usual JMH level of detail in the
pink parts. I thought it was just me and chastised myself
for being too obsessed with little details where one
probably should be looking excessively anyway... Then the
unedited version came to light and all was revealed (oh
yes, it certainly was!) to the level of detail I was more
expecting. :-) Not that I'm unhappy with cheesecake,
swimsuit, topless or nude, but if you're going to go all
the way, you may as well do it right!
I had to look _really_ hard, but I think I found a flaw.
It could be from the base paper even and unless you're
being REALLY picky, it's nothing. There is a red mark on
the sign where it appears the writing has been moved. If
you can't see it, then I'm not going to point it out!
Overall, bloody good work Jim! Scrutinising this pic has
revealed to me a few more things to try with my own
drawing, so for even this alone I am very grateful for you
sharing with us. Generally don't spend more than 4 hours
on a picture in total, so I've got a fair way to go...
Scrapper, Black Dragon, suitably impressed, flicks his fine
tooth comb and tries to put it back in his pocket. It
falls to the floor. Oh yeah, being a dragon, you don't
have a need for clothes. Then again, I don't have hair
either, so why have I a comb???
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Jun 19 2003 - 19:58:54 CDT