/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

	Re: wow.
	Posted By: Yossarian	Date: 3/10/04 7:46 p.m.
	In Response To: Re: wow. (Anaphiel) : Thanks Steve, your comments and analysis mean a lot, and I really appreciate : you taking the time to write that. I don't think I'm likely to ever : develop a swelled head about my painting (about pretty much anything else, : sure, but not that) so don't worry too much. See that you don't! : I know enough to know how : much I have left to learn. I think I'll have to nod emphatically about that. Regardless of the field of work/art/science/what have you, one knows he can acheive true failure quite easily by believing there is nothing left to master. It is, in a way, a curse this lack of cognitive ability we humans have, yet at the same time it is a blessing as well; for I tend to think the secret is to keep learning, even if you're re-learning things you forgot... : Your read on Mullins' work is right on: Craig has an amazing talent for : leading your eye through an image, setting clear focal points, and using : detail and the lack of detail to clarify and emphasize rather than just to : embellish. I'm still learning where I need to have detail, and where it : just becomes clutter. In Photoshop it's really easy to render at a very : high level of polish, but what I keep finding out is if an entire piece is : that fully rendered it tends to lose it's focus. The individual parts all : look great, but the whole lacks something. I'm starting to break out of : that trap a bit, and get a little more loose in spots... it can only help. My comment on this will have to come from my experience as an amateur (bad) photogragher. While I agree that selecting an appropriate depth of field for any painting or photograph is an important element to consider, it is, often times, quite appropriate to leave all of the details in the picture clear and in focus. Because of the amount of detail you've included on the two pics you've provided to us, I think its pretty safe to say that you're shooting to make these things look pretty darn realistic. This being the case, I don't know if you want to do so much of loosening the focus, and here's why: In neither of these pictures is any real distance. There is depth, oh yes, the depth is good, but the distance is lacking. Now, we humans quite naturally have a relatively large depth of field, a fact we owe to the aperture of our pupils, and therefore, we tend to see thins more in focus. So if we were to be gazing upon the marine from behind in real life, most all that we see would be in focus, asssuming that he is indded the subject of the piece; he would be in focus and in the middle of our depth of field, thus rendering nearly everything in sight in front of him and behind him in focus. Same thing with the trooper and major fighter emerging from the massacre. If behind them it could be seen a large bay or open area of some kind I could understand taking the far away items out of focus to draw attention to your subject. However since this is not the case, we can once again assume that seeing this in real life we would not only collectively soil our pants but see the entire view in full focus. What I'm really trying to say is, if your angle here is to make it as real as possible, don't tweek too much with the focus. There are things you can use to shift attention besides focus, there is lighting for one, which you seem to have down quite well, and subject placement, another thing you don't seem to have a problem with. In fact, both of these work quite well with both the detail and full version of the trooper pic. But this is all first-year stuff anyways... The main differences I noticed between what I've seen of yours and Mullins is he utilizes color coordination and shading a lot more in an attempt to make very...epic pieces of work. As Steve stated, there is a lot going on in his paintings and a lot to see, it's a veritable feast for the mind. However, looking into the areas that are out of focus you'll notice that a lot of these shapes are merely thick lines of color with no more detail than a shadow. A lot of his paintings lose the air of realism once you isolate and zoom in on a certain area. Craig does a great job using his colors, lighting, and selective detailing to give what amounts to a near illusion of a fully detailed work. Yours, on the other hand, tends to be more...photographic I would say. The shots are from realistic angles (where Mullins has his camera all over the place) and make the viewer a participant as opposed to an observer, something someone like myself, from the photography camp, can really appreciate. Your colors and lighting go towards the same end as well. I'm not going to say one is better than the other, no one artist is exactly on another's playing field, and that's what makes it art. I think both of you guys are tremendously talented...to each his own, you know? : It's interesting that you picked up on the recurring theme of fatigue... for : some reason when I think back on Marathon, I never really picture the : Marine as the supersoldier/action hero/swashbuckling type. By the time I : was done with that game I felt like I as the character had taken a pretty : savage beating, and had only just endured. I always picture Max at the end : of, well, all of the Mad Max movies. He's won, but only just, and he's not : necessarily the better for it. That's how I always paint the Marine: : exhausted, beaten, bloodied, but still standing, still going. Endurance is : the key theme. Exactly, exactly, exactly. REALISM. You seem to be hitting it from every angle. It is more realistic to see our characters as they would be if we were seeing them as they were in the game. : PS. My name isn't Adam ;) What IS your name then? I want to be able to tell people I knew you way back when...

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

	Old and... Improved? (pic. big pic)	Anaphiel	3/8/04 5:27 p.m.
	Very nice. *NM*	HolyMcGibblets	3/8/04 5:44 p.m.
	Re: Old and... Improved? (pic. big pic)	Mark Levin	3/8/04 6:22 p.m.
	like so? *NM*	Anaphiel	3/9/04 2:42 a.m.
	How about a widscreen v. - say >/= 1152 X 768? *NM*	Steve Levinson	3/9/04 4:48 a.m.
	ta daaa!	Anaphiel	3/9/04 10:03 a.m.
	and, at no extra charge...	Anaphiel	3/9/04 10:05 a.m.
	Keen! *NM*	Yossarian	3/9/04 11:16 a.m.
	OK, that is defiantly going up as my next desktop *NM*	deathmonger	3/9/04 12:35 p.m.
	You've made my day *NM*	Steve Levinson	3/9/04 1:28 p.m.
	Sweet.	HolyMcGibblets	3/9/04 3:19 p.m.
	Wallpaper Page is up	Anaphiel	3/10/04 2:05 a.m.
	Re: Wallpaper Page is up	Kirk	3/10/04 4:15 a.m.
	hey! get out of my files!	Anaphiel	3/10/04 6:47 a.m.
	Re: Wallpaper Page is up	the Battle Cat	3/10/04 4:51 a.m.
	wow.	Anaphiel	3/10/04 6:43 a.m.
	Re: wow.	Steve Levinson	3/10/04 2:59 p.m.
	Re: wow.	Anaphiel	3/10/04 5:09 p.m.
	Re: wow.	Steve Levinson	3/10/04 6:50 p.m.
	Re: wow.	Yossarian	3/10/04 7:46 p.m.
	Re: wow.	the Battle Cat	3/11/04 5:01 a.m.
	Cool!	Anaphiel	3/11/04 6:40 a.m.
	Re: Cool!	Yossarian	3/11/04 7:21 p.m.
	Re: Cool!	Anaphiel	3/12/04 4:56 a.m.
	Re: Cool!	the Battle Cat	3/12/04 6:00 a.m.
	Re: wow.	Hamish Sinclair	3/11/04 11:04 a.m.
	Tres chic, man *NM*	Yossarian	3/8/04 8:01 p.m.
	Re: Old and... Improved?	rampancy	3/10/04 11:49 a.m.
	yeah, they were...	Anaphiel	3/10/04 12:01 p.m.
	Re: yeah, they were...	Steve Levinson	3/10/04 1:00 p.m.
	Re: yeah, they were...	Adam Ashwell	3/10/04 2:00 p.m.
	Whoa 133+ness *NM*	Me!! /_43	3/11/04 8:16 p.m.
	Re: Old and... Improved? (pic. big pic)	Grasshopper	3/12/04 5:55 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts