Graffiti Drawing

[Gimpquester]

Hi guys

Just finished my first project in Gimp which is a graffiti. Would like to get some honest and critical feedback from competent artists and people who just want to give me their impression. 

https://ibb.co/dcGV6Dn

I'm working in Blender mainly and I think it shows in a negative way. The image looks a bit too much like several layers stacked on top of each other and not like one coherent image. Anyone knows how I could change my workflow to get my next project more uniform/coherent?

Cheers

[rickk]

(02-04-2022, 03:49 PM)Gimpquester Wrote: Hi guys

Just finished my first project in Gimp which is a graffiti. Would like to get some honest and critical feedback

Cheers

Since no one has volunteered an opinion, I'll offer-up.  

First of all, I think it looks better than anything that I could draw, so..."well done"!

But, on the critical side, how many intended light sources do you have?  On the surface I would expect the fire to be the light source, but the shadows cast do not:
1. all align with one another
2.project from the campfire as a common light source

I think the combination of the two send a message to the viewer that "somethings wrong", and that kills perception of depth

Additionally, the leaves on the tree branch all appear to all be the same size, in contrast with a perception of depth where leaves further from the viewer should ostensibly be smaller. If you put them more in perspective with appropriate scale, the branch might look less like something drawn on a bag of Keebler cookies. 

In that same vein (depth), I think the petals on the purple flowers at the base of the tree are very well done, while the red flowers on the other side of the drawing ...decidedly less so.

But overall I think your drawing is really cool.

[Gimpquester]

Thanks alot for your kind words. 

There is only one intended lightsource which is the fire. I tried to do this justice with the rule of thumb: the further away from the fire, the darker. With some occasional splinters of light allowed higher up on the tree bark and stuff. I did my best with the shadows but do also agree that they do not fit perfectly which makes it weird. The rule of thumb here was: If the object that casts shadow is smaller than the fire, so is its shadow, and vice versa. This is why the shadow of the letters spreads very high up and far back for example.Can you point out any instances wherere the shadows are clearly misplaced? Im sure they are obvious but if you drew it yourself it\s more difficult to see. 

Depth perception might also be impaired because I didnt use clearcut perspective lines but drew it in more of a free style. The whole environment was initially just meant as a sort of decoration for the graffiti as is usually done, but it ended up taking the majority of my time and I think this is also why it's more of an issue that the perspective isn't perfect. The tree on the left is indeed meant as a sort of framing for the image, but I will try to take better care for the leaves and their size next time, wasn't particularly happy with how they look either. 

As for the flowers, the perennial on the left was drawn from reference and the red flower just from memory, which obviously shows. I'm glad you noticed the perennial because it really took a disproportionate amount of time as compared to how much space it gets in the image  

I really appreciate your feedback. Have a nice day. 

(02-04-2022, 03:49 PM)Gimpquester Wrote: Hi guys

Just finished my first project in Gimp which is a graffiti. Would like to get some honest and critical feedback

Cheers

Since no one has volunteered an opinion, I'll offer-up.  

First of all, I think it looks better than anything that I could draw, so..."well done"!

But, on the critical side, how many intended light sources do you have?  On the surface I would expect the fire to be the light source, but the shadows cast do not:
1. all align with one another
2.project from the campfire as a common light source

I think the combination of the two send a message to the viewer that "somethings wrong", and that kills perception of depth

Additionally, the leaves on the tree branch all appear to all be the same size, in contrast with a perception of depth where leaves further from the viewer should ostensibly be smaller. If you put them more in perspective with appropriate scale, the branch might look less like something drawn on a bag of Keebler cookies. 

In that same vein (depth), I think the petals on the purple flowers at the base of the tree are very well done, while the red flowers on the other side of the drawing ...decidedly less so.

But overall I think your drawing is really cool.

[rickk]

Well. First of all, look at the two green arrows. I feel that you have your depth shading reversed, the shadow located where arrow #1 is pointed should be where arrow #2 is pointing, and vice versa. The fire has nearly a straight shot to the inside of the letter, yet that is where you have your shadow. While the outside edge of the letter clearly is closer to the front of the image than the fire, yet no shadow?

And, the  Shadow on the face of the gremlin, the "hook" should be just about between his eyes, based upon the fire location, but where you have it suggests a light source closer to the red "ray" that I've added. 


The shadow where I've put the yellow cross hatched area, suggests a light source from above the picture (the yellow "ray")

And the shadow where the blue crosshatched area is....IMO is located too far towards the center of the letter, and should be nearly behind the letter itself based upon the fire location. The location you've selected implies  a light source more along the lines of the blue "ray"

None of them are "deal killers" in their own right. But IMO the aggregate wrongness of them all as a collective whole, rings some bells.

Additionally, the tree branch that I've marked in violet, probably bothers me most of any single item in the drawing. To me it just looks like someone who did not understand depth, tried to fake it...

Now bear in mind, you asked for a critique, so I've gone out of my way to be critical, "what the doctor ordered" etc.
There is nothing bad about your picture... I wish that I could do what you have....etc etc  

[rickk]

Additionally, the shadow cast by the red mushroom at the base of the tree appears to project as about "8:55" on the clockface. But based upon the location of the fire I'd expect something more along the lines of "10:15"...fwiw

[Gimpquester]

Damn that was really in depth (unlike my tree branch^^). I can retrace what you pointed out and it makes sense. The whole shadowing thing was an issue to tackle for me in general because in Blender where I usually work, the shading is done by the software, you just have to add a light source and put an object in front of it and the shadow is cast automatically etc. I knew it was very important to get a better natural feeling for shadows and depth to progress further, so I even went out into the forest at night, armed with a suitcase and a flashlight, to see how the shadows project, which helped me draw the shadows of the letters onto the trees in the background. 


With the O-shading I'm not really sure because the outer edge of the O is turned in about a 45° angle on the ground plane towards the camera, which makes the outer edge closer to the camera than the inner edge, and the fire is also closer to the camera so I figured it might be a bit lighter on the outside. However, when looking at it, it also felt wrong, but I just couldn't quite point the finger as to what exactly was the issue. I now think that the inner edge is just waay too dark which doesn't make sense anymore in relation to the outer edge because in relative distance to the fire they are about the same. 

As for the hook-shadow on the Gengar: I knew it was out of place, but for aesthetic reasons I wanted the eyes to be outside of the shadow, so I put up with the misplacement. Initially I put both hooks of the "O" onto the Gengar but that was just so horribly out of place I had to redraw the shadow. Alternatively, I could have replaced the pokemon or the hooks of the "O", but at that point I had already progressed so far I wanted to finally get done. 

Thanks alot for taking the time to point these things out, I really appreciate it and can use it for my next project.

And on a final note: Leave tree-branchy and the cookie-box it belongs onto alone 

[rickk]

As a parting note, I'm really quite envious. I wish that I had even a modest proficiency at blender. But, at 64 years old, I'm fairly confident that even if I crunched, I would just get good at it in time to die.

[rich2005]

Quote:..But, at 64 years old..

...just a youngster....

[Gimpquester]

(02-15-2022, 06:53 PM)rickk Wrote: As a parting note, I'm really quite envious. I wish that I had even a modest proficiency at blender. But, at 64 years old, I'm fairly confident that even if I crunched, I would just get good at it in time to die.

If you're enthusiastic about it that sounds like an ideal endeavour for retirement and even before. Especially since the 2.8 version it got much more beginner friendly and there are thousands of fun (and less fun) tutorials for free to get started. You can surely translate some skills from gimp aswell. 

As my former psychology professor once told: An old man will not be apt to learn chinese anymore like a young man is, but an old man who fell in love to a chinese woman in china will still pick it up on the fly. If you have some emotional attachement then give it a go! Worst that can happen is that you challenge yourself with something new.