Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #121
What mistakes did I make with the general anatomy? I will probably spot most of them after I start
-
-
short legs
or weird legs
-
Shading should fix them
Edited:
I changed the shape slightly and found the problem
-
You really should drop all of the unnecessary lines and try to have cleaner sketches.
-
Some doodles
My canvas is always in native resolution when I doodle, so I thumbnailed it
-
The sloppy lines help me fix the anatomy without tons of fuss, after that I usually make a nice clean trace
Edited:
Forgot to erase the grass
-
you have way too many unnecessary scribbly lines because your strokes are too short.
try to get some long fluent ones.
Edited:
drawing from reference is the best practice you can ever get
-
Boli te kurac,a?
Nice hands.
-
I hate when people say something has anatomy mistakes when it clearly is a made up creature.
-
its a pterodactyl, prehistoric badass
-
does not fucking matter it should be based on basic anatomy and for the moment, it has none.
even if that creature was real it wouldn't be able to function.
anatomy SHOULD be applied to even made up shit
Edited:
making up creatures is not an excuse to draw poorly
-
Look at the wings
-
Then you're stupid. Making up a creature does not allow you to ignore anatomy. That's just an excuse made by children and people who don't want to admit that they are bad.
Anything and everything living is based on anatomy, no matter what.
-
-
What kinda facts are you pulling out your butt.
H.R. Giger
Google that name then go draw some more rats.
Edited:
I'm not talking about the drawing I'm talking about how you can point out something is anatomically incorrect, I could give a shit about the guy who drew it or what he drew.
Point is this dinosaur thing should not be able to fly
Yet it fucking does because *gasp* holy shit! its fantasy not reality.
-
It doesn't help that the picture is a trophy from ssbm where he's altered to actually fit on the screen.What kinda facts are you pulling out your butt.
H.R. Giger
Google that name then go draw some more rats.
Edited:
I'm not talking about the drawing I'm talking about how you can point out something is anatomically incorrect, I could give a shit about the guy who drew it or what he drew.
Point is this dinosaur thing should not be able to fly
Yet it fucking does because *gasp* holy shit! its fantasy not reality.
-
oh okay you got me, not like he changes size in every gameIt doesn't help that the picture is a trophy from ssbm where he's altered to actually fit on the screen.
-
-
Well it can't be solved. In Prime they try to be realistic with him. In the NES games they make a cartoon character out of him.oh okay you got me, not like he changes size in every game
-
sarcasm bro, my point is that there's no rules to art and people who say that there are are very much stupid.
-
Wow that is where you are incredibly wrong.
This entire thread contradicts what you just said: http://www.facepunch.com/threads/107...iation-Station
-
Do you want me to post a monster with a penis for a head? Because I totally will, and the funny thing is you will recognize it.
-
I googled that name and all I see is anatomy all over the place.
If you don't see incredible anatomical knowledge being used to form those creatures and surrealistic pieces, then you sir must be blind.
Related although not to the subject of creatures:
Knowing how the anatomy of the being you base your drawings off is the key element to make it successful. You don't just draw some fantasy stuff, you draw something that is deformed from anatomical structures keeping all the rules intact, but the looks different.
-
Well I recognise the wings in the drawing and I recognise they ain't anatomically sound, will not work and you're using ~styling~ as an excuse for his incompetence. To stylise something, it HAS to be recognisably styled. Problem with that picture is it's not styled. He even said himself he's making anatomy studies and still needs work in them, you don't just go studying anatomy to then use it incorrectly and call it styling. Not saying that he's trying or not trying to style it, but you're using a bad excuse.
-
See the thing is not everything has to have the shape of a humanI googled that name and all I see is anatomy all over the place.
If you don't see incredible anatomical knowledge being used to form those creatures and surrealistic pieces, then you sir must be blind.
Related although not to the subject of creatures:
Knowing how the anatomy of the being you base your drawings off is the key element to make it successful. You don't just draw some fantasy stuff, you draw something that is deformed from anatomical structures keeping all the rules intact, but the looks different.
Take this
Is it anything at all related to that graph?
-
Wow, you can't even read my fucking post where it clearly says it's not related to the subject of creatures, but rather the subject of "HURR DURR STYYYYYYYYYYLLLLLLEEEEE".See the thing is not everything has to have the shape of a human
Take this
Is it anything at all related to that graph?
It's related to the graph in the sense of following structures of living species. Those claws and arms as well as the neck is very anatomically correct.
He's carefully planned just how that thing would even be able to live and walk, thanks to the knowledge of anatomy allowing him to place the limbs and muscles right in order to make it actually function and thus give a strong impact of actually being a being rather than a blob with sticks coming out of it.
But I'll have to go to bed so I will have to continue this tomorrow, although unnecessary since you don't have the ability to read nor make good points, because so far you haven't proven me wrong in any way at all, you have just strengthened my points by showing works of a man that clearly knows his anatomy and sexual symbols.
-
I just used a picture from the same google search as you did, bust you've seemed to have overlooked it to benefit your argument.
And its anatomically correct in respects to what specific real life animal, its nothing but surreal art style, a style, just like "realistic" style. Your style argument is flawed seeing as realist style is also a style of art just like surrealist art style
Edited:
I've drawn creatures that I've purposefully made disproportionate because that is how I wanted them to be, even though from an anatomical perspective I've known to be flawed. Yet I do not seem to give even a slight fuck because that's how I wanted them to be in the first place.
Point is even though what you have said that the illustrator was studying anatomy at the time does not directly tie to that drawing. Just because you know perfect anatomy does not mean you are now forced follow it every time.
Edited:
Admit it, you're just going to sleep 'cus that argument I've made knocked you out.
-
Doodle of a bottle of Aquafina on my desk.
-
Does anyone know how to fix a vector layer in photoshop, when it just won't move whatsoever? I've even tried duping the layer but the dupe doesn't move either.
Edited:
nevermind, it doesn't matter.
I've spent absolutely fucking ages doing this; an obscene amount of time for something so simple :frown:
-
@F1101011
Poorly drawn anatomy =/= new anatomy. Say I want to draw a muscle or a skull on my own, made up creature. If I draw the muscle horribly skewed and mangled, the muscle I've drawn is not new anatomy. Granted you always can draw something that makes no sense and is obviously incorrect, but it never will be good.
Your point on H.R. Giger was very incorrect/misinformed. He follows the rules of anatomy in every picture I saw. I think you are viewing this "rules of anatomy" as proportional accuracy concerning specific creatures.
"I've drawn creatures that I've purposefully made disproportionate because that is how I wanted them to be, even though from an anatomical perspective I've known to be flawed. Yet I do not seem to give even a slight fuck because that's how I wanted them to be in the first place."
You can draw a creature with enormous feet (for example) and still have in anatomically correct.
-
without anatomy it is shitty because shit has no anatomy
@ that one guy with the fnumbers
-
-
Much better than the first. Much more readable. I would take out the punctuation on the "Secure Specialist and Safe", it's a little distracting aesthetically unless you're going for the punchy end of sentence feel.
regardless it's sharp looking.
-
Actually, I think it just bored him enough.
Anyway, just because you made them disproportionate, doesn't mean they didn't have anatomy. Everything has proportion and balance. Everything is balanced. If you purposely drew it disproportionately that doesn't prove that you don't have to use anatomy, it only proves that you, yourself, can't use proportion/anatomy/etc.
-
wow F11, why is it so hard to understand that anatomy does not have to be based on reality to be bad? Do you even know what anatomy is?
Even if the characer is fictional, the anatomy can suck just like how the linework and shading can suck
-
I love how wrong you are.
Edited:
The thing is it looks believeable because it mimics human anatomy. Looks at the muscles. If it had no muscles and just thin lines, you would agree that it would look unrealistic.Point is this dinosaur thing should not be able to fly
Yet it fucking does because *gasp* holy shit! its fantasy not reality.
And just to clear this up, by using the word unrealistic I didn't mean the opposite of that would be photorealistic and not fantasy.
-
I've noticed some stock arguments/counter arguments emerge
A: I'd like to see you do better
B: You don't have to be a chef to know that the cooking is shit
A: Yeah but you have to be a chef to know how to make good food to tell others how to make good food
B: :raise:
A2: That argument is getting old!
A3: I don't listen to criticism from people who I don't respect!^In this case A and B2 do not even understand what they're talking about.
I could just refer people to this post from now on.
-
Damn I'm rusty
WIP as usual
-
-snipple-
-
Looks good so far
Damn I'm rusty
WIP as usual
Agree x 1
Artistic x 2
Dumb x 7
Winner x 1
Friendly x 8
Funny x 2
