In the first one the cat's ears are kinda sketchy and the second one has really nicely detailed ears. Plus I think the face got cleaned up a bit I think, the first one looks a little more out of focus.
The right shoulder looks to be sharpened up a tad, and I think maybe the paws, but that could just be scanner differences.
You guys both have better eyes than Steph, but Scott's eyes are the best.
I fixed the ears, raised the cat's right shoulder, evened out the shading on the cats face, rounded out the cat's chin, reshaped the cat's left flank and softened the background.
I think it was probably the raising of the shoulder and the better defined chin that gives it the illusion of a longer face.
Xanga's comment system went down, so I guess I'm stuck here with the grownups today (sigh).
Incredible work again. If the original was a "quick" sketch, imagine what you could accomplish with less pain and more free time! I suppose we'll find out in a few years, when Malachy grows up, Willow implodes into its generation gap, and Canada invades--uh, liberates the US.
Good luck with your search for a viable live subject. The answer might be closer than you think: Malachy + baby-sized portion of Vicodin = success?
When I read Lauren's and Crystal's comments (which seemed to be the primary motivators), my first thought wasn't that you should try live subjects, but that you should try something completely from scratch, from an idea that only existed inside your headspace. That strikes me as a more freeing form of creative expression. Photoshop manipulations notwithstanding, I would probably bore myself cray-cray if I tried my (no-doubt mediocre) hand at painting, but focused exclusively on real-life subjects.
Well, I might have exagerated when I said "quick" and "I tweaked a couple things." I think the first one took about 40 minutes and the second one took about 10 or 15 minutes. The one I worked on the day before (the two headed guy) took about 2 hours. Cat in a Tree probably took about 30 minutes because I mostly just focused on the face.
I think you are right Chad. I don't know if I can do that though. I ain't a visual thinker. (kind of ironic I guess) When I take a peek in my brain I see mostly words and stories.
But if I'm ever going to be able to illustrate for children's books I need to learn how to turn stories and ideas into images, so you guys are right, that's how I should be pushing my "boundaries."
6 comments:
I can see that this cat's face is a little longer than the first one. I just have a better eye than Steph. =oD
Actually I don't think that's it.
In the first one the cat's ears are kinda sketchy and the second one has really nicely detailed ears. Plus I think the face got cleaned up a bit I think, the first one looks a little more out of focus.
The right shoulder looks to be sharpened up a tad, and I think maybe the paws, but that could just be scanner differences.
I think the second one looks pretty sharp.
You guys both have better eyes than Steph, but Scott's eyes are the best.
I fixed the ears, raised the cat's right shoulder, evened out the shading on the cats face, rounded out the cat's chin, reshaped the cat's left flank and softened the background.
I think it was probably the raising of the shoulder and the better defined chin that gives it the illusion of a longer face.
Oh, and you are right about the paws too. I added some highlights to the front of the toes using my eraser. I did that in the chest hair too.
Xanga's comment system went down, so I guess I'm stuck here with the grownups
today (sigh).
Incredible work again. If the original was a "quick" sketch, imagine what you could accomplish with less pain and more free time! I suppose we'll find out in a few years, when Malachy grows up, Willow implodes into its generation gap, and Canada invades--uh, liberates the US.
Good luck with your search for a viable live subject. The answer might be closer than you think:
Malachy + baby-sized portion of Vicodin = success?
When I read Lauren's and Crystal's comments (which seemed to be the primary motivators), my first thought wasn't that you should try live subjects, but that you should try something completely from scratch, from an idea that only existed inside your headspace. That strikes me as a more freeing form of creative expression. Photoshop manipulations notwithstanding, I would probably bore myself cray-cray if I tried my (no-doubt mediocre) hand at painting, but focused exclusively on real-life subjects.
Well, I might have exagerated when I said "quick" and "I tweaked a couple things." I think the first one took about 40 minutes and the second one took about 10 or 15 minutes. The one I worked on the day before (the two headed guy) took about 2 hours. Cat in a Tree probably took about 30 minutes because I mostly just focused on the face.
I think you are right Chad. I don't know if I can do that though. I ain't a visual thinker. (kind of ironic I guess) When I take a peek in my brain I see mostly words and stories.
But if I'm ever going to be able to illustrate for children's books I need to learn how to turn stories and ideas into images, so you guys are right, that's how I should be pushing my "boundaries."
Post a Comment