PDA

View Full Version : WiP-Artwork - Angels cruentis



colrouphobic
15-07-2011, 11:20
So I have been working loads, but inbetween I continue to do some stuff on my personal project, a project I been working on since 2003.
Its going to be a graphic novel.

Here are some previews of the latest illustration Im doing for that project.

Updates will be forthcoming.

drmarco
15-07-2011, 12:09
Somewhat microcephalic

Cheers,

Marco

colrouphobic
15-07-2011, 13:16
Somewhat microcephalic

Cheers,

Marco

Not quite. The terminator Armour is very bulky in the first place. And Pre-Heresy Terminator Armour is even bigger....

I done the research.


Here is another update...

Son of Sanguinius
16-07-2011, 06:54
Fantastic work.

colrouphobic
18-07-2011, 14:25
Next update. Worked up Sar Haroth some. This is still not done ppl.

Fizzy
18-07-2011, 14:29
Wow thats really awesome O.O

If you make a Death korps of krieg with green grayish coat I will sub :)

Pacorko
18-07-2011, 19:40
I must chime in, and it will seem harsh to some, but I really like your work and some things just have to be pointed out.

You have made John-Blanchesque "proportions" even more disproportionate with those two pieces. Especially the second one.

The heads really are minuscule and the bodies and especially the legs are too long to be nothing short of absurd.

Your colouring skills are top-notch and most of your other stuff is fantastic, yet these don't seem to be as good as some previous pieces you guys have produced.

I know this one (http://mikhailsavier.deviantart.com/art/warhammer-227468061?q=favby%3A1mpact&qo=3) is supposed to be a scout, but just notice the head-to-torso ratio. Even if a pre-heresy termie armour was doble the size of a new one, the head still is way too small.

I suggest you revisit your pieces "The Unknown Terminator" and "Angirim: Assault Brother" and see how well you handled proportions there and try to rework these two promising pieces.

Don't take as mean-spirited criticism, but as a few observations over definite weaknesses in your pieces so you can reowrk them and turn them into great artwork deserving praise.

Be well, and good luck with your GNov project.

colrouphobic
19-07-2011, 07:00
Since some people voiced concerns about anatomy.

I use a standard GW "10-head(Heroic)" anatomy. That is, normal humans are roughly eight heads tall, to make it more heroic, painters usually make the humans nine heads tall, GW (and me) make the spacemarines ten heads tall.

As you can see, this image shows the anatomy of the Sar in red, and next to it you can see nine head-circles on top of eachother (one is below the image, cropped out if you will). The only thing that looks odd about the image, anatomy-wise is the leg-armour, because it is bent differently then how the leg would go, and then only by a minute difference. These are things that I fix as I go.

With Sosol, the terminator, there is a similar thing going on, though the terminator armour was never anatomically correct. The arms just wont fit. Therefore I favour a point of view where the ams of a terminator armour is part mechanical (like in the teaser-trailer from Starcraft2) and that the legs have the actual feet of the SM before the foot of the armour begins.


Hopefully this helps a little.

colrouphobic
19-07-2011, 16:54
Next update Sosol.

Still alot to do...

Pacorko
19-07-2011, 19:35
It's not the overall "heads in height" but the actual size of the head in contrast to everything else. They remain minuscle even if everything else is still in a "10-head proportion".

Your work's good, but I'd pay a lot more attention to these details before trying out for an in-house illustrator position. Heavens know just how many people get rejected from publishing and/or advertising because of a couple of not-quite right illos on their portfolio submission.

colrouphobic
20-07-2011, 08:19
You need to look again mate.
The heads are not miniscule.
They have 2-inch= thick armour on them.


I did not get rejected for painting theml off anatomy, I got rejected because there was one(!) person who painted better then me.

If anatomy would have been an issue then I wouldnt have gone on to the next rounds, where Brief-following, execution under preassure and deadlines where checked.

Col. Tartleton
20-07-2011, 15:39
I'm with Colrouphobic on this, Marines aren't humans, their proportions shouldn't look right. Their heads are only going to grow slightly whereas their body grows a lot. An accurate human is 7 heads tall. I think a marine should be 9. However 10 doesn't look absurd to me. Sar Haroth looks fine. Solol looks weird, but Terminator armor doesn't work the way GW designed it anyhow.

They might not be "realistic" but they're in line with GW stylings.

Pacorko
21-07-2011, 19:46
Yes, whatever. Suit yourselves and well... good luck with the artwork as it is now. Just look at this official source (http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/index.php?title=Terminators&image=Sm-terminator-squad-gif) and visual reference and tell me the proportions you are using--and Col. Tarleton is defending--aren't all goofy looking.

Care to see some more? Here (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aHUFxtO0b0A/TbxVgxIwpmI/AAAAAAAAAe8/nMZdI_znZbI/s1600/termgrp.jpg), here (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IGymtMJFBk4/TbxVieKq-TI/AAAAAAAAAfA/yxkORed-3mY/s1600/terms1.jpg), thenhere (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nmhvXAt26eA/TbxVjjQ9eFI/AAAAAAAAAfE/9vRZfuYvAJo/s1600/terms2.jpg) where we can see that the head is about the same size as the power armour fists.


Some more pics like this one (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/4495561445_5dc60f3351.jpg), this (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_-HZLorI1B0w/ShnTnTGEGGI/AAAAAAAAHLI/odKuiaZua70/Space%20Marine%20Terminator%20Librarian%20finished %20close400.jpg) and this one (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sDEdojy41jM/TfEL5sGvLuI/AAAAAAAAN9Y/0uVFe4mn83A/Citadel%252520Finecast%252520Space%252520Marine%25 2520Terminator%252520Librarian%252520copy.jpg) will only help to get my point across

As I've said before I like most of your work over at deviantart, but these two particular pieces are under par with what you are capable of rendering.

No matter what proportions you care to use for their size, and how inhuman the SMs maybe... there's no real reason for their heads not to grow in proportion with their bodies unless they are indeed a microcephalic genus full of dim-witted brutes.

But what do I know? Have it your way and may you land your illustrator job without too much hassle.

PondaNagura
21-07-2011, 20:29
actually there is Karl Kopinski's (http://www.karlkopinski.com//) stuff. he did some 2-page spread battlescenes in the 4th edition rulebook, marneus calgar sitting on his throne in 4th ed codex space marines, inquisitor (http://www.karlkopinski.com/image.php?id=126)and the former Daemonhunter codex image of the grey knight in the inside back cover.

most of his stuff has big shoulder pads, tiny heads and are typically 9-10heads tall.

Col. Tartleton
21-07-2011, 21:32
Yes, whatever. Suit yourselves and well... good luck with the artwork as it is now. Just look at this official source (http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/index.php?title=Terminators&image=Sm-terminator-squad-gif) and visual reference and tell me the proportions you are using--and Col. Tarleton is defending--aren't all goofy looking.

Care to see some more? Here (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aHUFxtO0b0A/TbxVgxIwpmI/AAAAAAAAAe8/nMZdI_znZbI/s1600/termgrp.jpg), here
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IGymtMJFBk4/TbxVieKq-TI/AAAAAAAAAfA/yxkORed-3mY/s1600/terms1.jpg), then here (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nmhvXAt26eA/TbxVjjQ9eFI/AAAAAAAAAfE/9vRZfuYvAJo/s1600/terms2.jpg) where we can see that the head is about the same size as the power armour fists.


Some more pics like this one (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/4495561445_5dc60f3351.jpg), this (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_-HZLorI1B0w/ShnTnTGEGGI/AAAAAAAAHLI/odKuiaZua70/Space%20Marine%20Terminator%20Librarian%20finished %20close400.jpg) and this one (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sDEdojy41jM/TfEL5sGvLuI/AAAAAAAAN9Y/0uVFe4mn83A/Citadel%252520Finecast%252520Space%252520Marine%25 2520Terminator%252520Librarian%252520copy.jpg) will only help to get my point across

As I've said before I like most of your work over at deviantart, but these two particular pieces are under par with what you are capable of rendering.

No matter what proportions you care to use for their size, and how inhuman the SMs maybe... there' no reason for their head not to grow in proportion with their bodies unless they are indeed a microcephalic genus full of dim-witted brutes.

But what do I know? Have it your way and may you land your illustrator job without too much hassle.

You do realize that all of GW's models have disproportionately huge body parts like heads and hand right? They've been making them less garish looking but they're nowhere near accurate. A Cadian model is like 5 heads tall. Since humans are 7 heads tall that's a bit of variance.

Power Armor

http://images.wikia.com/warhammer40k/images/4/49/Post-90027-1205171981.jpg

Power Armor

http://www.wouldyoukindly.com/wp-content/uploads/space-marine-picture-02.jpg

Power Armor

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100316165620/warhammer40k/images/c/c7/Chaosmarine.jpg

Power Armor

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RfD80Ww88ew/TRHDtHcF-TI/AAAAAAAAA2A/i2dlt466tc8/s1600/b0050781_471702d665f8b.jpg

And Terminator is even more disproportionate.

Pacorko
22-07-2011, 00:38
Yes, I am aware of all that. But do you realize that even when it has been published it doesn't make them less ridiculous-looking or poorly executed?

I recently said to a handful professional illustrators who presented me a series of sketches and preliminary renders for a multimedia project I am consulting for: "Look, guys, a lot less ego from you all. A bunch of bad illustrations and poorly proportioned human beings are just that. Neither a style nor a trend. They are just bad illos. Get it right next time, period."

So I must say this quite clearly: The work of an illustrator is exactly that. Illustrate a concept while make it both aesthetically pleasant or congruent with the overall theme and believeable.

The fact that GW's load of illustrations always have impossibly proportioned termies or people in power armour with disjointed limbs, heads and heads doesn't mean someone cannot try to make all that a bit more "realistic"; as was the case with Karl Kopinski who even when drawing figures who mostly are 8 and 8.5 heads in height, he made everything look as proportionate as possible. Again, his termies have heads barely the same size of their armoured hands--an impossibility unless you cut out and elongate the fingers.

But anyway, the work can be perfected. Let it be said that as I noted, the OP has better pieces on his portfolio and these two could be improved so they become really good illustrations.

colrouphobic
22-07-2011, 07:37
So I must say this quite clearly: The work of an illustrator is exactly that. Illustrate a concept while make it both aesthetically pleasant or congruent with the overall theme and believeable.

The fact that GW's load of illustrations always have impossibly proportioned termies or people in power armour with disjointed limbs, heads and heads doesn't mean someone cannot try to make all that a bit more "realistic"; as was the case with Karl Kopinski who even when drawing figures who mostly are 8 and 8.5 heads in height, he made everything look as proportionate as possible. Again, his termies have heads barely the same size of their armoured hands--an impossibility unless you cut out and elongate the fingers.



Actually, you are wrong.
The work of an illustrator is to paint what the client wants to see.
It is my job as an illustrator to use my abilities to make it as aestetically and pleasantlooking as possible, within the specs given by my client.

GW does prevent you to do just that, if you wish to paint for them. They have very specific notes on how big things have to be in comparison to other things. This is why the illustration-department of GW said (I believe in a WD just before releasing the latest Dark Angels Codex) that they where throwing away every conventional look of anatomy and go for the 10-head anatomy of a man in their illustrations.


If you ever worked in illustration as an AD (which you seem to imply that you do) there are two things you need to realize:
1) Good illustrators paint what the client wish to see

and

2) With rudeness you loose all your possibilities for getting anywhere.

Considering what you have supposedly told the proffessional artists about ego- I guess you're having a bit difficult to find replacements.


My point was that you base your anatomy-ref on the size of the armour, but for the armour to be a good reference it need to be paper-thin, or atleast thin as knightly armour.
Thats just not the case with spacemarine armour.
Look at the rim of the neckguard on any given image and/or illustration of marines and you can see the thickness. Thats atleast two inches, probably as much as four.
Take that into account with the entire body of a marine and suddenly they are feeble.


These here images are not intended for GW, they are for me, which means I try to make them better proportioned.
The fact that my terminatorarmour is bigger has to do with it being Heresy-timeline, as I said earlier in this topic.

I did research on it. The descriptions of it, given in both BL-books as well as in snippets in codexes throughout the editions, suggest larger suits of armour during the heresy and before.
Example images also give the same impression. One example is the one below.

And the Thousand Sons had smaller terminator armour then some other legions (notably Space Wolves and World Eaters).


Everybody is entitled their own opinion on things, but you seem to only want to be rude. That wont get you that far with anything really.
Especially not puncturing "ego", as you put it...

No-One
22-07-2011, 07:56
i think its awesome work as always Colrouphobic, while yeah, i think the head is out of proportion on the terminator, given that both

a) its based on something GW

b) its pre-heresy termi armor

its perfectly in proportion with the rediculously over the top stuff i've come to expect from GW artwork and their typical imagery. As you said, its what the client wants, not whats "proportionate" and in this case, GW isn't all that big on proportionate, they're lords of over the top, stuff way too big and way too small proportions and i think you've nailed that perfectly.

you ever do "pro-bono" artwork? i have a drawing or two i'd love to see your take on, and see how you'd interpret the image that i want.

Pacorko
22-07-2011, 15:26
First don't even begin suppose you know anything about my professional life. The guys I work with, still work for me (and the project), and now stick to the guidelines and adhere to the concepts instead of trying to "improve" the looks of what they were asked to do. That, and I've worked for video game dev, Advertising, Marketing (Prod Dev) and Television... so, trust me, I know my business and how to be firm, without being rude. I can hold power without the need to use it, mate.

So, you are wrong on that respect: I was not being rude. You put that tone in what you read because we disagree and therefore you paint everything I write in a negative light. It's all right, it a basic human reaction.

The complete background is that I said that after five get-togethers to tune the project up. After a series of ever so slight changes, a different way to pose something to see if we were convinced by it, a pinch less "weird" and a swap of colours... they still were peddling their ideas. That's what they wanted to sell: their "original" ideas and something they had a vision for and "created" a few months before they were called by me to do this job. The worst part was they tried to pitch they work as: "well, it's trendy. You see that kind of things these days. Besides we have worked very hard to create this unique style for the project. We are professional illustrators and think you should..." That was exactly what got me saying what I said. So, with a tone that denoted a bit of wear from all the revisions and trying to make up for their stubbornness about how to render it all, I just clearly spelled it out for them in front of the contracting agency... so they would keep the job! Because it came to that: either they stuck to the guidelines and stopped the hard-selling of their ideas, or the producers would can them and look for another team.

Second, the way you see the job is not the absolute goal. Sure, you want to please the client, but there are a many other rules you need to apply in order to come up with an illustration that good and doesn't have any soft-spots or weaknesses that could very well mean a rejection.

It may be that the lack of other elements in the pics (a background) make it far easier to spot the little details as they are displayed in stark contrast, with nothing to balance them or distract out attention with. But again, don't mind me... art school was a long time ago and a lot less sophisticated. When I was there, you just could not "undo" something and re-paste it over the piece you were digitally working on. In my time we had to take the piece, crush it into a ball, throw it away and start over. The lucky ones got to use a lightbox to retrace what was done properly and seriously work on those last things they got wrong to improve their piece. The rest used to work into the wee hours and look like hell the next day.

Finally, if GW specifically ask for these things (I mean, they have always been OTT, that's a given to a certain point)... it doesn't surprise why I like the art less and less with each new piece they feature. But if you can give them what they indeed ask from you, all the better.

Let's leave it at that and, again, good luck with you submissions and the job hunting with them.

colrouphobic
23-07-2011, 14:17
First don't even begin suppose you know anything about my professional life. The guys I work with, still work for me (and the project), and now stick to the guidelines and adhere to the concepts instead of trying to "improve" the looks of what they were asked to do. That, and I've worked for video game dev, Advertising, Marketing (Prod Dev) and Television... so, trust me, I know my business and how to be firm, without being rude. I can hold power without the need to use it, mate.

So, you are wrong on that respect: I was not being rude. You put that tone in what you read because we disagree and therefore you paint everything I write in a negative light. It's all right, it a basic human reaction.

The complete background is that I said that after five get-togethers to tune the project up. After a series of ever so slight changes, a different way to pose something to see if we were convinced by it, a pinch less "weird" and a swap of colours... they still were peddling their ideas. That's what they wanted to sell: their "original" ideas and something they had a vision for and "created" a few months before they were called by me to do this job. The worst part was they tried to pitch they work as: "well, it's trendy. You see that kind of things these days. Besides we have worked very hard to create this unique style for the project. We are professional illustrators and think you should..." That was exactly what got me saying what I said. So, with a tone that denoted a bit of wear from all the revisions and trying to make up for their stubbornness about how to render it all, I just clearly spelled it out for them in front of the contracting agency... so they would keep the job! Because it came to that: either they stuck to the guidelines and stopped the hard-selling of their ideas, or the producers would can them and look for another team.


See, thats not what you said in this here topic.
To be quite honest, how could you ever expect us all to know the background having been such a long and winding road to the conclusion-speach from your behalf when you have stated things with a quite rude tone in this very topic from the beginning, and then as-a-matter-of-fact-ly posting:



I recently said to a handful professional illustrators who presented me a series of sketches and preliminary renders for a multimedia project I am consulting for: "Look, guys, a lot less ego from you all. A bunch of bad illustrations and poorly proportioned human beings are just that. Neither a style nor a trend. They are just bad illos. Get it right next time, period."

That just comes out as you being a generally rude person.
I am glad that that isnt the case, because that would have been a shame. There are too many persons with too little experience in the business of being AD's for it to be a good thing, generally speaking they end up spoiling people who would have been remarkable painters and illustrators if they wouldnt have been put off by rudeness and abuse.




Second, the way you see the job is not the absolute goal. Sure, you want to please the client, but there are a many other rules you need to apply in order to come up with an illustration that good and doesn't have any soft-spots or weaknesses that could very well mean a rejection.

You misunderstand me.
If the client is unhappy, I do not get paid. This is the way it works in this business. That said, I have declined further work for clients because they wanted me to paint figures that just wherent anatomically correct, but there is a difference between incorrect anatomy and "looks flat out wrong".
You toss around opinions like they where facts, hence you come off as rude and non-constructive in your critiscism.

Now that we have sorted the fact that you arent rude (you just failed to mention a few bits and pieces that made the puzzle complete as to your reasons for posting such comments) we can move on from that.




It may be that the lack of other elements in the pics (a background) make it far easier to spot the little details as they are displayed in stark contrast, with nothing to balance them or distract out attention with. But again, don't mind me... art school was a long time ago and a lot less sophisticated. When I was there, you just could not "undo" something and re-paste it over the piece you were digitally working on. In my time we had to take the piece, crush it into a ball, throw it away and start over. The lucky ones got to use a lightbox to retrace what was done properly and seriously work on those last things they got wrong to improve their piece. The rest used to work into the wee hours and look like hell the next day.


But here is where you are again failing to see things right.
You see, the anatomy is not incorrect. In fact, I bet you spend way too much time looking at the armour. You are seeing the armour as the base mesh for anatomy, which would be completely right, if the armour would be that of a knight, or a modern-day military, but it isnt. It's 2-3 inches thic in most places, where the joints need to be thinner to make moveability possible.
Since the joints are thinner, the figure will look squashed, automatically, because its like taking a naked human, and then make all the joints smaller.


This is also why the heads look so small, for the very same reason. If I would put a helmet on to any of the figures, suddenly they would actually look a bit more thin then normal GW-marines, and then I would get flak for making them "too skinny" (which I will get once I add the Chaplain, since he wears a helmet...)
Mentioning artschool is a subtle way of trying to claim that you are right in your critique, though I can mention artschool just as much, doesnt mean it is more true. How about showing what you mean instead. Like I did, and do in this post as well as a previous one...




Finally, if GW specifically ask for these things (I mean, they have always been OTT, that's a given to a certain point)... it doesn't surprise why I like the art less and less with each new piece they feature. But if you can give them what they indeed ask from you, all the better.
Let's leave it at that and, again, good luck with you submissions and the job hunting with them.


This is not a submission to GW, this is a personal project.
You mistake this topic for another topic I have posted on these forums.

I'd like to re-iterate that you are entitled to your own opinion, if you dont think this is correct anatomy, then that is your prerogative. What I DO mind is comming with non-constructive or unfounded critique that tries to undermine my ability as a proffessional illustrator since 10 years, with numerous publications within the entertainment-business, ranging from Cinema to RPG's to wargaming and bookcovers.


I am not infailable, I do make errors, hence I would appreciate _constructive_ critique any day of the week.


The posting of these WiPs are actually more of a service to the community, I know that I was screaming for something like this when I was younger and it just wasnt there, nobody ever showed their progress and their thoughts behind creation of artwork for things like GW-games or anything else. As a result from that, I spent a good seven years working as an amateure until I dared go proffessional, because I simply couldnt get all the knowledge on how to paint digitally faster.

If anyone sees something that is wrong (and people have, they have spotted an error with a leg that I had missed and would have cursed to have to repaint at a later time) I am grateful for that.


I have a rigid background in illustration since 25 years and I had to re-learn almost everything when I went digital. At the same time, getting a baby and being poor meant that there where no room for my oils and turpentine and so I had to go the digital way or stop painting.

That said, I do not just "undo" or cut and paste, I paint everything on the same layer and if something is wrong I paint over it, just like on an oilpainting. The major highlight of painting digitally for me is the dryingtime is gone, meaning that instead of having to wait for three days before I can begin anew I can just continue right away.

I would wish that people who come with those sort of statements actually had something to back their arguments with.. you know, something like "I use the 10-head heroic armour anatomy base when I paint my marines, here is an example image of what I mean, the image is cropped but you can see how it mostly works out, even though it is impossible to lmake terminator armour and the arms work out without it looking like the chest of the marine is three times as wide as a normal human but with the same head, and the legs stop a bit higher then one would expect".

That would be great...

MarcoSkoll
23-07-2011, 17:21
I have never seen such disagreement over "I paint Marines 10 heads tall and they're wearing thick armour".


...there's no real reason for their heads not to grow in proportion with their bodies unless they are indeed a microcephalic genus full of dim-witted brutes.
Yes there is. The head doesn't change size in direct proportion with height - in fact, there's relatively little variation at all. Seven and a half heads tall is typical, but a tall person might be more than 8 heads tall and a short person less than 7. It's part of how someone can look tall in a picture despite there being no other scale references.

So, a Marine of seven to seven and a half feet wouldn't be of the same skeletal proportions of a five foot ten Imperial Guardsman.
Add to that their artificial muscle growth, which will greater bulk up the thicker layers of muscle on the arms, head and torso far more than it would the thinner layers on the head (simple logic - double the thickness of a 1 inch layer of muscle, and it'll thicken up more than doubling a quarter inch layer of muscle) and this will be further exaggerated.

Here we are - this is a good picture (http://i2.listal.com/image/908122/936full-dalip-singh.jpg). Dalip Singh Rana, a 7' 1" wrestler. Measure the height of his head compared to the guy he's next to (who looks to be of fairly average height). And do actually use a tape measure and don't just go "it looks bigger" - if it does, it's an optical illusion, because on my screen, I'm getting about 41mm for both of them.
Bigger, more muscular people's heads are not proportionally scaled up. Sure, he's got a wider neck and a bit more muscle around the jaw, but his skull is pretty much the same size as the other guy, which is why his head looks smaller in proportion.

A Marine SHOULD look proportionally odd even before you add several centimetres of armour. These are actually some of the most sane proportions for Marines I've seen in a long while, a very welcome contrast to the truly bonkers proportions of the GW models...

... actually, to be quite honest, there is no way I can take someone who used the 40k range as a proportion reference seriously. Sorry, Pacorko, but that really hindered how credible I can find you on the subject.