FA+
Shop
2810
Views
Views
184
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1000 x 600
File Size 290.5 kB
Report this content
More from whiteraven90
Well... Buildings. Yep. The bad thing is that the perspective is wrong. The good thing is that i know where did it go wrong. The third thing is that i'm not going to fix it. 8D
Category Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1000 x 600px
File Size 290.5 kB
even if the perspective is off it looks damn awesome, besides it's you're art and you're imagination, i don't see why it has to be right for anyone else..
Art is art it doesn't have to be perfect and tied down by unimaginative people who think it should be "perfect" and real, it's you're view not theirs.
Art is art it doesn't have to be perfect and tied down by unimaginative people who think it should be "perfect" and real, it's you're view not theirs.
lmao you could always sneak secret stuff in just to spite them like Michelangelo did with cherubs flicking off the pope in the Sistine Chapel, lmao
http://www.cracked.com/article_1838.....ks-art_p2.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_1838.....ks-art_p2.html
>>The bad thing is that the perspective is wrong.
Not only the perspective. I think that part of the problem is a lack of scale, and overlapping forms that distract and confuse; they break the spell of an otherwise interesting picture, and draw the focus away from the strong points.
For instance, that structure at the upper left corner: I know that it's part of a building, but it throws off the composition. If more had been shown of it, it would have been less distracting and more effective as a frame.
You also have certain forms overlapping others that are equally detailed and equally clear; this breaks any sense of scale, and makes your architectural background hard to understand.
That inverted pyramid to the left of the balcony -- is it part of the balcony, or part of a more distant structure? I really can't tell, because there's no visual clue to let me see if it's attached to the main building, and it seems as clear and sharp as the structure even further to the left, which is either free-floating and attached only by a balcony to the main building, or a tower standing on its own. It's like a photographic model cropped off at the knee: an awkward place to crop, because it makes the model seem crippled.
Aerial perspective would definitely help to give a sense of scale. If the structures in the background were vaguer or weaker in colour, they would seem both larger and more distant.
And if the composition included architectural forms that were cropped less severely, spaced more carefully within the frame, and shown with a better sense of their structure as actual buildings, this would help to make sense of your background, and strengthen your picture as a whole.
So if you see something wrong with the picture, you have a good eye; that's a great asset, and worth developing. :)
Mark Usk
Not only the perspective. I think that part of the problem is a lack of scale, and overlapping forms that distract and confuse; they break the spell of an otherwise interesting picture, and draw the focus away from the strong points.
For instance, that structure at the upper left corner: I know that it's part of a building, but it throws off the composition. If more had been shown of it, it would have been less distracting and more effective as a frame.
You also have certain forms overlapping others that are equally detailed and equally clear; this breaks any sense of scale, and makes your architectural background hard to understand.
That inverted pyramid to the left of the balcony -- is it part of the balcony, or part of a more distant structure? I really can't tell, because there's no visual clue to let me see if it's attached to the main building, and it seems as clear and sharp as the structure even further to the left, which is either free-floating and attached only by a balcony to the main building, or a tower standing on its own. It's like a photographic model cropped off at the knee: an awkward place to crop, because it makes the model seem crippled.
Aerial perspective would definitely help to give a sense of scale. If the structures in the background were vaguer or weaker in colour, they would seem both larger and more distant.
And if the composition included architectural forms that were cropped less severely, spaced more carefully within the frame, and shown with a better sense of their structure as actual buildings, this would help to make sense of your background, and strengthen your picture as a whole.
So if you see something wrong with the picture, you have a good eye; that's a great asset, and worth developing. :)
Mark Usk
As i said, i know what's wrong with the picture. =P It doesn't show but it's a 2 years old picture.
About aerial perspective... there is. The buildings closer have more contrast and darker shadows. That's also a visual clue to the balcony-pyramid issue, and the problem with that is the perspective only. It wouldn't matter if it was meant to be a part of the front building or not if i had used separate vanishing points for each building in a fish-eye-related fashion. All would become clear. Instead, now all of them have the same vanishing point and that especially shows on the building in the bottom middle part. Also, the repetitive winged bas-reliefs serve clues to how far is the pyramid-thing from the building on the right. And the pyramid-bottom-building's top is another clue. If it was part of the right building it's top (and it's bottom too) wouldn't be that light blueish-gray, it would have the shading of the column shown next to it (dark gray). + I know the issue with the upper left building.
I'm rather surprised that the clouds didn't get as much attention as the buildings, since the clouds take the golden medal of looking unrealistic. And the shading of the lighter wing. And the anatomy. And the direction and speed with which the blood drops are falling (they shouldn't, under any conditions, fall faster than a guy who enhances speed with wings). And the two smaller flying buildings, since they don't have the same vanishing point as everything else, they seem tragic.
About aerial perspective... there is. The buildings closer have more contrast and darker shadows. That's also a visual clue to the balcony-pyramid issue, and the problem with that is the perspective only. It wouldn't matter if it was meant to be a part of the front building or not if i had used separate vanishing points for each building in a fish-eye-related fashion. All would become clear. Instead, now all of them have the same vanishing point and that especially shows on the building in the bottom middle part. Also, the repetitive winged bas-reliefs serve clues to how far is the pyramid-thing from the building on the right. And the pyramid-bottom-building's top is another clue. If it was part of the right building it's top (and it's bottom too) wouldn't be that light blueish-gray, it would have the shading of the column shown next to it (dark gray). + I know the issue with the upper left building.
I'm rather surprised that the clouds didn't get as much attention as the buildings, since the clouds take the golden medal of looking unrealistic. And the shading of the lighter wing. And the anatomy. And the direction and speed with which the blood drops are falling (they shouldn't, under any conditions, fall faster than a guy who enhances speed with wings). And the two smaller flying buildings, since they don't have the same vanishing point as everything else, they seem tragic.
Not tragic, just not as well crafted as they could have been. We learn by doing, and I can vouch from my own experience that not everything we do is golden. At least, not everything I do.
But as you've said, it's a two-year old picture, and by working on it, you learned more about seeing.
There's nothing tragic in that. :)
But as you've said, it's a two-year old picture, and by working on it, you learned more about seeing.
There's nothing tragic in that. :)
And it's also my first picture with a significant amount of buildings on it... :T I just like to say things colorfully, like "tragic". I just look at it and think "oh my god, the piano is falling out through the window" and no matter how small a piano is, a piano's death is nothing but tragic. =P
There is no piano on the picture though. :o
There is no piano on the picture though. :o
I never slap anyone. Instead, I don't put a smiley icon at the end of my sentence. :)
And there's no reason to apologize: nothing you wrote seemed offensive, and I never felt that you were being childish.
But I'd like to ask: do many people give you such detailed comments? Mine was quite long!
Mark
And there's no reason to apologize: nothing you wrote seemed offensive, and I never felt that you were being childish.
But I'd like to ask: do many people give you such detailed comments? Mine was quite long!
Mark
Not many long comments, unfortunately. =P
I just felt like i could have handled the critique better. When i receive critiques my stubbornness goes 200 percent high. On top of it i start acting like my turtle who can keep a locked door under siege for hours, ignoring the fact that headbutting into it won't do any good. These feelings/behavior may not have been obvious, but i felt like apologizing for them anyway.
I just felt like i could have handled the critique better. When i receive critiques my stubbornness goes 200 percent high. On top of it i start acting like my turtle who can keep a locked door under siege for hours, ignoring the fact that headbutting into it won't do any good. These feelings/behavior may not have been obvious, but i felt like apologizing for them anyway.
>>When i receive critiques my stubbornness goes 200 percent high.
That's not unusual. In fact, many people respond that way. It can be almost impossible to separate ourselves from our work.
But when we do learn to separate ourselves, life becomes simpler and much more fun. That's when we start to develop and grow as artists -- or as writers. Gotta remember the writers. :)
>>These feelings/behavior may not have been obvious, but i felt like apologizing for them anyway.
Again, nobody was offended, nobody was hurt. No harm was done. So you see, it all turned out for the best. :)
That's not unusual. In fact, many people respond that way. It can be almost impossible to separate ourselves from our work.
But when we do learn to separate ourselves, life becomes simpler and much more fun. That's when we start to develop and grow as artists -- or as writers. Gotta remember the writers. :)
>>These feelings/behavior may not have been obvious, but i felt like apologizing for them anyway.
Again, nobody was offended, nobody was hurt. No harm was done. So you see, it all turned out for the best. :)
Comments