FA+
Shop
1737
Views
Views
107
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Wolf
Size 765 x 1244
File Size 287.9 kB
Report this content
More from jodimest
*eloquent summary*
'Dem Vucari be furries! Uh, why they gawt funny hats?
Part of the Realm of Sejhat, one of many races I have to draw at some point. What have I gotten myself into? If you want to read more about the Vucari, their society, and why a perfectly good wolfman might have a musket, read the racial history here ->
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4302075/
'Dem Vucari be furries! Uh, why they gawt funny hats?
Part of the Realm of Sejhat, one of many races I have to draw at some point. What have I gotten myself into? If you want to read more about the Vucari, their society, and why a perfectly good wolfman might have a musket, read the racial history here ->
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4302075/
Category Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Wolf
Size 765 x 1244px
File Size 287.9 kB
Its a british show, the lengths almost 2 hours, happen during Napoleon war, and is about a commoner named Richard Sharpe, played by Sean Bean, who rises through the British ranks and must deal with enemies both outside and inside. Should definately check them out, even though they are almost 15 years old now or more.
ACK do not rest your hand on the top of the musket, rest it on the rammer!
Very neat image. Even loves those Shako! ;)
Though I have to say clothing looks tad too tight(even if tight was fashionable least in the real world version) unless cloth of this universe is close to lycra(which if it is then hey!) you really can't see definition of muscles in layers of wools and linens ;)
Very neat image. Even loves those Shako! ;)
Though I have to say clothing looks tad too tight(even if tight was fashionable least in the real world version) unless cloth of this universe is close to lycra(which if it is then hey!) you really can't see definition of muscles in layers of wools and linens ;)
well it all comes from trying to adapt clothing fitted for the human skull shape to an animal one. Trying to retain the practicality while allowing ears/horns etc. to fit. Some still work: tall hats, hats that don't lose any structure through allowing strategic holes. The helmets in your Fred Savage comic are quite clever in having optional ear holes depending on the species of the soldier issued it.
Though It's quite simply the case that certain hat designs wouldn't exist in an anthro universe and, likewise, there would be certain anthro designs that wouldn't work for us or would look ridiculous. I should imagine baseball caps are probably more like a combo of a bandana with the bball hat's visor where it's tied up or clipped together to accommodate ears and horns. Kinda like how no horned or atlered anthro would be able to wear a sweater or T-shirt unless they were fastened up at the front.
It's like how would car seats work for those animals with long or thick tails?, either they'd go through the back of the seat meaning small cars would have to be bigger to offer more room or they'd curl down beneath the seat, yet again meaning seat heights would need to be at a set level. All in all it would mean that car companies would be marketing their cars to certain species as much as what the customer technically wants from their vehicle.
But then this is fantasy and sometimes annoying practical stuff can be ignored in favour of the 'looks cool' argument. But when this stuff is taken into account it adds to the realism.
Though It's quite simply the case that certain hat designs wouldn't exist in an anthro universe and, likewise, there would be certain anthro designs that wouldn't work for us or would look ridiculous. I should imagine baseball caps are probably more like a combo of a bandana with the bball hat's visor where it's tied up or clipped together to accommodate ears and horns. Kinda like how no horned or atlered anthro would be able to wear a sweater or T-shirt unless they were fastened up at the front.
It's like how would car seats work for those animals with long or thick tails?, either they'd go through the back of the seat meaning small cars would have to be bigger to offer more room or they'd curl down beneath the seat, yet again meaning seat heights would need to be at a set level. All in all it would mean that car companies would be marketing their cars to certain species as much as what the customer technically wants from their vehicle.
But then this is fantasy and sometimes annoying practical stuff can be ignored in favour of the 'looks cool' argument. But when this stuff is taken into account it adds to the realism.
lol, I was fully aware of the risk this guy was taking when resting his hand on the muzzle, and I think it sort of hints at the fact that the Vucari have spiffy uniforms, but are still a bit lacking in fieldcraft.
I realize that his clothes are a bit too tight to be correct as well, but part of me wanted to go for the bulging, impressive look since I wanted to also portray some of the physical impressiveness of the Vucari, thinly disguised by a modern uniform. The Vucari are still somewhat steeped in ancient ways and still have a rough and ready quality about them.
I realize that his clothes are a bit too tight to be correct as well, but part of me wanted to go for the bulging, impressive look since I wanted to also portray some of the physical impressiveness of the Vucari, thinly disguised by a modern uniform. The Vucari are still somewhat steeped in ancient ways and still have a rough and ready quality about them.
For some reason, this makes me extraordinarily happy to see... I think Empire: Total War has infected me a bit more than I'd like to admit.
Everything about this picture is awesome. I mean, how often do you get to see a very well-drawn musket in the hands of a furry, and an imposing furry at that. I wouldn't mess with this guy...
The expression catches the eye and holds it, and the clothing seems very well thought-out and researched.
Well done, all around. I'll definitely be reading into this story of yours!
Everything about this picture is awesome. I mean, how often do you get to see a very well-drawn musket in the hands of a furry, and an imposing furry at that. I wouldn't mess with this guy...
The expression catches the eye and holds it, and the clothing seems very well thought-out and researched.
Well done, all around. I'll definitely be reading into this story of yours!
It's a special and quite reliable ignition system called a "Quartz Lock". A tiny fragment of magically infused quartz set on the serpentine (a vestige of the old flint lock, but still reliable) plunges into the chamber and strikes a small metal protrusion, setting off the crystal's electrical charge, igniting the powder. This has side effects- the electricity jumps through the gun and the user as well, giving them a rude, but harmless shock. The Beastfolk are the only people on Sejhat that have unrestricted access to their own mana and magical products. In both Human and Dwarven lands the Elves have a strict monopoly on the substance, so those two major races use more mundane ignition systems.
Summarized, the Quartz Lock is very similar in function to a percussion lock, except that one uses a frugal, focused charge of magic where the other uses fulminating compounds.
Summarized, the Quartz Lock is very similar in function to a percussion lock, except that one uses a frugal, focused charge of magic where the other uses fulminating compounds.
Well, the Total War-series are one of my favorite games.^^
I prefer Medieval II-TW a little more, but the sea-fights and these glrious infantry-formations are defenitly amazing!
And yeah, it's a little more pupular here, but i do not even know why. For me, it's the best game of this genre (If you can life without the batlle, you shall try "Europe-Universalis", but as i mentioned, no epic battles...)
I prefer Medieval II-TW a little more, but the sea-fights and these glrious infantry-formations are defenitly amazing!
And yeah, it's a little more pupular here, but i do not even know why. For me, it's the best game of this genre (If you can life without the batlle, you shall try "Europe-Universalis", but as i mentioned, no epic battles...)
I think that Europeans have a better sense of history's relevance than most Americans do, since it's difficult to avoid when you're surrounded by historical buildings of various layers of history. There's also a sense of patriotic sentiment as well, I suppose, though I find it funny that E:TW's Road to Independence campaign is all about the United States and yet the game doesn't hold much appeal for gamers here.
I'll bet that if the Creative Labs made a game about the American Civil War it would finally be able to definitively portray the combat of the era, and it would probably sell well in the U.S.
Then again, I can see why they don't make a Civil War game, since their greatest fan base seems to be in Europe and not our funny little cultural island. Additionally, since the Civil War was a major event in U.S. History, we tend to behave like it was some sort of global cataclysm where in fact it was very much a regional conflict lacking in global importance.
I'll bet that if the Creative Labs made a game about the American Civil War it would finally be able to definitively portray the combat of the era, and it would probably sell well in the U.S.
Then again, I can see why they don't make a Civil War game, since their greatest fan base seems to be in Europe and not our funny little cultural island. Additionally, since the Civil War was a major event in U.S. History, we tend to behave like it was some sort of global cataclysm where in fact it was very much a regional conflict lacking in global importance.
You've got some mind reading skills, because i was very temped to write a critique on the character's anatomy, but as I'm a very technical person and the artists who I've met were usually very emotional ones... well let's say it usually ends with me, sent in some horrible hell of eternal agony, where the only thing you can draw with is photoshop's smudge tool
I think your problems with anatomy are pretty much entirely localized in the shoulder's area, or to be more precise in the shoulder's bones and motion, because you can render muscles fairly well, when you get the underlying structure right (this judging also by your work on Fred's comic).
First: shoulder's bones ARE NOT CONNECTED with the ribcage. Scapulae can freely glide on the rib cage's surface, while the clavicle moves like a pencil held by two finger at the extremities, of which only one is fixed in place, while the other is the freely moving dirty-anarchic-godless-evil scapula. This means that shoulders act more like a third segment of the arm than as a semi-fixed part of the chest. And it will always follows the arm's motion: it just happens to be connected to the chest.
Second: well this may sound strange as it's a philosophical thing: in human's mind, pectorals and back's muscles are those cool big imposing shapes that make for cool art and heroic poses... in Mother's Nature nature view, those are the sheets of meat who avoid the shoulders from falling down and exists only to serve their movements. So if you want a perfect representation of anatomy, be ready to sacrifice those shapes in order to accommodate the shoulder's needs, even if it feels like cheapening the subject's impact. A professional artist would have probably gone shy from such a relaxed and natural pose to represent a soldier, this is why in most comic poses are really REALLY stereotyped: there are only so much "dramatic" choices before real anatomy rears it's mundane head: softening pectorals, flattening abdominals, and turning biceps into cute wiggly shapes.
In this drawing, especially in the character's left side, it shows that you've thought of the shoulder as a part of the chest: it's not following the arm's forward motion and this is the mistake that's making the subject look uncomfortable. On the other hand, this error is making the pectoral look more defined, and the figure more imposing. If this was done the correct way, you'd have the shoulder moving forward-center, compressing the pectoral and the medial mass of the deltoids, covering it and making its remaining visible shape rounder and softer: making the whole character look more like a man than an idealized soldier.
Sorry if i dragged myself in this loooooong digression (and in broken italian-engrish to boot, I'm really sorry about that). Guess I'll be taking a quick trip to hell right now, I don't mind the heat but damn that crappy smudge tool...
I think your problems with anatomy are pretty much entirely localized in the shoulder's area, or to be more precise in the shoulder's bones and motion, because you can render muscles fairly well, when you get the underlying structure right (this judging also by your work on Fred's comic).
First: shoulder's bones ARE NOT CONNECTED with the ribcage. Scapulae can freely glide on the rib cage's surface, while the clavicle moves like a pencil held by two finger at the extremities, of which only one is fixed in place, while the other is the freely moving dirty-anarchic-godless-evil scapula. This means that shoulders act more like a third segment of the arm than as a semi-fixed part of the chest. And it will always follows the arm's motion: it just happens to be connected to the chest.
Second: well this may sound strange as it's a philosophical thing: in human's mind, pectorals and back's muscles are those cool big imposing shapes that make for cool art and heroic poses... in Mother's Nature nature view, those are the sheets of meat who avoid the shoulders from falling down and exists only to serve their movements. So if you want a perfect representation of anatomy, be ready to sacrifice those shapes in order to accommodate the shoulder's needs, even if it feels like cheapening the subject's impact. A professional artist would have probably gone shy from such a relaxed and natural pose to represent a soldier, this is why in most comic poses are really REALLY stereotyped: there are only so much "dramatic" choices before real anatomy rears it's mundane head: softening pectorals, flattening abdominals, and turning biceps into cute wiggly shapes.
In this drawing, especially in the character's left side, it shows that you've thought of the shoulder as a part of the chest: it's not following the arm's forward motion and this is the mistake that's making the subject look uncomfortable. On the other hand, this error is making the pectoral look more defined, and the figure more imposing. If this was done the correct way, you'd have the shoulder moving forward-center, compressing the pectoral and the medial mass of the deltoids, covering it and making its remaining visible shape rounder and softer: making the whole character look more like a man than an idealized soldier.
Sorry if i dragged myself in this loooooong digression (and in broken italian-engrish to boot, I'm really sorry about that). Guess I'll be taking a quick trip to hell right now, I don't mind the heat but damn that crappy smudge tool...
I've never really thought about the shoulders in such a way, and while the concept you've laid out will take practice I appreciate that you've put to words one of the things that I'm dogged by when illustrating characters. I don't think you have too much to worry about from me when it comes to taking criticism, though I suppose I can think of times when I've been guilty of defending my choices when I should have rejected them.
I know that you're very good with your stuff, and I'm kind of curious to know what you use for anatomy practice/reference. Are there any good books on the subject that could help me out?
I know that you're very good with your stuff, and I'm kind of curious to know what you use for anatomy practice/reference. Are there any good books on the subject that could help me out?
Well, I've studied anatomy from multiple sources, mostly books: Burne Hogart's Dynamic Figure Drawing, Bridgman's Drawing from Life (that's actually a collection of all his drawing handbooks), and finally Eliot Goldfinger's Human Anatomy for Artists (i've also got his Animal Anatomy). I've done some life drawing classes, not many to be honest, and i don't think they matter that much for drawing without a model ad a good knowledge of the inner workings does (gesture drawing is more important for animal anatomy, i guess).
They're complimentary book in my view, each one correcting the weakness of the others.
Burne Hogart is very good to get comfy and begin to draw figures that aren't shy of movement and expression; but his anatomy is old, sometimes seriously wrong (some would recommend Andrew Loomis's "Figure Drawing for all it's Worth" over Hogart's one, but i think Hogart gives more freedom and security, which is a good thing for a beginner, but should be dropped ad soon as the artist starts to think the body as made of bubbles lol). I don't think such a basic book would be a good chouse for you.
Bridgman got a more academic approach, he uses Michelangelo's work as reference, so his anatomy is more pleasing than Hogart and much more correct regarding the actual human shapes and planes. It's also got a nice section about the mechanics of the body's joints. It's a good book to work with. I guess most should just stop here, even professionals, unless they want to understand anatomy for the sake of knowledge itself or want to become holy monsters like Claire Wendling, or want to learn actual realistic anatomy. For a comic artist, i would suggest to drop the study of real anatomy here, to focus on the "good looking mistakes" that compose the visual dictionary of modern comics, they're part of the ninth art ad much as panels and balloons now days, especially with American comics.
Finally Eliot Goldfinger's book is... well.... the final boss of artistic anatomy, just one step short of doing/watching actual autopsies for artistic purposes, perhaps even better. He talks about one muscle or bone at a time, each one explained and showed both in diagrams and in action, on the live model. It's perfect but ridiculously overwhelming, it's a book i would recommend only to artists who have already developed a good understanding and want to fix the last imperfections or have very specific problem with something (in my case i wanted to really understand the back). As the only book to study anatomy from, is truly excessive. I tend to consult it only when a very specific doubt arises.
Of the these three books, Goldfinger's is the only one without mistakes (sometimes i REALLY think only a James Bond's arch-nemesis could have written such a serious book ). And by mistakes i mean "illusions", there are a couple of muscles that seems important but are as thin as a sheet of paper, fully made of tendons, like the latissimus dorsi, or whose shape is just too deep or complex to be understood from a typical anatomic chart like the great abductor of the leg. Goldfinger resolved these issues by showing clearly one muscle ad a time, but also by displaying "horizontal" slices of the body, making you focus on the muscles that actually influence the overall volume. For example before buying this book i had never heard of the erector spinae, which is the most influential muscle of the lower back and a very visible one. (BTW, if I'm not mistaken, extracts of this book were available on Google's book service for free, a while ago).
Other than books, i would suggest looking ad yourself moving and posing in front of a mirror, or asking someone to pose and move, not to do life drawing (well, at least not only) but to get the feeling of the underlying mechanics. Videos can also be an help. Photos aren't as much useful, but are a good tool to spot errors and lack of knowledge. To me most photos of upper backs and shoulders, for example, were a complete puzzle of bumps and holes that would never fit with my understanding of it, and that was a major drive to search for more detail.
They're complimentary book in my view, each one correcting the weakness of the others.
Burne Hogart is very good to get comfy and begin to draw figures that aren't shy of movement and expression; but his anatomy is old, sometimes seriously wrong (some would recommend Andrew Loomis's "Figure Drawing for all it's Worth" over Hogart's one, but i think Hogart gives more freedom and security, which is a good thing for a beginner, but should be dropped ad soon as the artist starts to think the body as made of bubbles lol). I don't think such a basic book would be a good chouse for you.
Bridgman got a more academic approach, he uses Michelangelo's work as reference, so his anatomy is more pleasing than Hogart and much more correct regarding the actual human shapes and planes. It's also got a nice section about the mechanics of the body's joints. It's a good book to work with. I guess most should just stop here, even professionals, unless they want to understand anatomy for the sake of knowledge itself or want to become holy monsters like Claire Wendling, or want to learn actual realistic anatomy. For a comic artist, i would suggest to drop the study of real anatomy here, to focus on the "good looking mistakes" that compose the visual dictionary of modern comics, they're part of the ninth art ad much as panels and balloons now days, especially with American comics.
Finally Eliot Goldfinger's book is... well.... the final boss of artistic anatomy, just one step short of doing/watching actual autopsies for artistic purposes, perhaps even better. He talks about one muscle or bone at a time, each one explained and showed both in diagrams and in action, on the live model. It's perfect but ridiculously overwhelming, it's a book i would recommend only to artists who have already developed a good understanding and want to fix the last imperfections or have very specific problem with something (in my case i wanted to really understand the back). As the only book to study anatomy from, is truly excessive. I tend to consult it only when a very specific doubt arises.
Of the these three books, Goldfinger's is the only one without mistakes (sometimes i REALLY think only a James Bond's arch-nemesis could have written such a serious book ). And by mistakes i mean "illusions", there are a couple of muscles that seems important but are as thin as a sheet of paper, fully made of tendons, like the latissimus dorsi, or whose shape is just too deep or complex to be understood from a typical anatomic chart like the great abductor of the leg. Goldfinger resolved these issues by showing clearly one muscle ad a time, but also by displaying "horizontal" slices of the body, making you focus on the muscles that actually influence the overall volume. For example before buying this book i had never heard of the erector spinae, which is the most influential muscle of the lower back and a very visible one. (BTW, if I'm not mistaken, extracts of this book were available on Google's book service for free, a while ago).
Other than books, i would suggest looking ad yourself moving and posing in front of a mirror, or asking someone to pose and move, not to do life drawing (well, at least not only) but to get the feeling of the underlying mechanics. Videos can also be an help. Photos aren't as much useful, but are a good tool to spot errors and lack of knowledge. To me most photos of upper backs and shoulders, for example, were a complete puzzle of bumps and holes that would never fit with my understanding of it, and that was a major drive to search for more detail.
Heh, looks can be a bit deceiving! The Vucari are ambitious, but overall lacking in modern infrastructure and a strong central government. Their pattern of fighting is adopted from that of the Dwarves. The Vucari served the Dwarves as mercenaries for some decades, but before this they lived in nomadic and feudal societies with lots of barbarian antics.
A spiffy uniform is important- at least, from a state's perspective. It brings prestige and sex appeal to the wearer, and these are very important when an individual decides to join the military.
A spiffy uniform is important- at least, from a state's perspective. It brings prestige and sex appeal to the wearer, and these are very important when an individual decides to join the military.
Comments