Well, I've had my wacom for about a year now, and while I've certainly been using it- I haven't really gotten the hang of really drawing with it- which has been frustrating, to say the least.. However, Corel's Painter X is too tempting to the fine artist in me, so I've decided to force my way through the frustration and essentially re-learn to draw.

There are a few things working in my favor this time. One is this Monster. While it's not one of those super graphics performing ulti-monitors, I must say that real estate is KING when it comes to doing creative crap on the pc. I can spread those little pallettes everywhere.... Which brings me to my next thing working in my favor. I finally figured out how to set up all the custom pallets of tools I'm accustomed to using with normal drawing. So with these things, some *seriously good coffee* and really good source books on hand, I sat down to see what I could do (I did have a solid back-up plan, too. I figured if I got too bent out of shape, I had paper and pencil handy to whip out and remind myself that yes, I could in fact draw and the urge to throw the pc out the window would most likely be counter productive).

Remarkably enough, I liked what I did well enough to show it here. I've got 4 phases of the preliminary drawing done- it's my intention to take this all the way to a finished digital painting. Here's hoping, right?

As always, constructive critique is *very* welcome (That means you especially, Sandy- I'm counting on you for painting tips when the time comes).

Ok, here is image 1. I'm (obviously) one of those scribble drawers- I just keep scratching lines until I find the ones I want.


Second image shows a few small changes, most notably a switch from horns to antlers.


Third image is really trying to figure out the antlers more. Ment was good enough to point out that the perspective on the first attempt just didn't seem quite right, so I've shifted the location just a bit.


Image 4 is working more with the extended hand and the little birdy. Ask 'Card what kinda bird it is, I'm sure he's got a picture of one on Wikimedia somewhere. I've also added branches and suggestion of foliage to her woodland seat.

Huh? There was a bird?

Next step was figuring out how to move all the scribbling off the canvas and onto layers- sadly, Painter X isn't as intuitive about layers as Photoshop is, but I think I got it figured out.

Here I've separated out the tree stump, and given it a little more form.


Next, I took Faun and cleaned up a lot of the scribbles.


Then I painted the tree, using primarily their gouache brushes with a grainy water blender. This seriously took some time to figure out, and the stump needs more detail, but overall I am happy with the natural painting look I got.

Can I get you to magic-wand that tail and promote it to Layer, then kindly slide it a bit more under the butt cheek?

Otherwise, I LOVE IT!!

Thanks for the tip- the tail is indeed in need of re-aligning. I shall have a correction posted shortly!


Here we go:

Ok, the next part here is where I'm going to need some help. I've been working on the background, and while I can't say it's *bad*, I'm not entirely sure if I'm going the direction I want to.

First is just laying in atmospheric colors in the very back:


Next, I added in some loose, spongey tree like shapes with shadows:


Thinking they were perhaps too dark, I decreased the opacity of that layer:


Then I turned on the layer with the tree stump to see how it all fit together. First with 100% opacity:


Then at half opacity:


In neither instance do I feel like the stump sits very realistically in it's space. A lot of that has to do with lighting, but also, it really has a very "cut-out" feeling to it. The edges need work- they're too crisp, I think. Of course, I'm also trying to decide if my background colors are really giving me the overall feel that I want. Even if I made the edges of the stump a little more natural, I still don't know if it would work in that background.

Give me thoughts and opinions, folks!

Can you work some of the ground up, over and around the roots and base of the stump?

The problem is what's in focus, and what isn't.

I know, I know... photography terminology - but that's all I know.

So to run with the 'photograph' analogy, think of what you're doing as a wide-aperture shot. Subjects in the background will be blurry, subjects in the foreground (nekkid hawt doe/satyr thingie, stump she's sitting on, and the ground the stump is sitting on) all need to have about the same level of detail. Detail level presumably dropping as you drop away into the background. So sharp stump sitting on blurry ground means it doesn't look right.

As for the bird... I dunno. Maybe a Mourning Dove? Or if you decide you want a splash of color there try an Eastern Bluebird.

I realize that I'm about to sound like a snot here and say "I knew that!" But, well, I knew that. I did fail to mention in the previous post that I had not yet accomplished the foreground details, which I knew would improve things. I stopped short because there was something else about it that was bothering me- and I believe I've figured some of it out. First thing I've done is utilized the "depth of field" filter in Painter, and a cool blue filter over the blurry trees in order to put more atmosphere between them and the stump- They were blurry and out of focus, but still felt too close.

Another thing is the perspective on one of the root tendrils just completely was wrong. I've gone in and after fifteen minutes of swearing like a sailor (i.e. NormalSpeak for me). I figured out how to rotate the thing after selecting the thing out.

Ok, I've made those changes, as well as lifting the fuzzy trees up on the canvas, thereby giving more actual foreground. Even with no detail still in the front, it feels a little better, yes?

It's a mythologycal / Anthro image. It doesn't need to be visually realistic. Just realistic enough to give food to the brain. Imagination can do the rest.

I would say that if the faun ends up being colored with the same technique as the trunk, then it will be ok. But I would say that the ground needs to be as defined as the tree. And the light needs to be consistent. Add a little shadow close to the base of the trunk, or put plenty of dark grass around the trunk and the faun's feet.

The background seems good. Blurry, like the background is when you focus on somebody's face. Some dude painted a famous picture like that and now he is famous and is in the Louvre. Then again, it was in the renaissance, so it may be a thing of evolution of technology.

I dunno, for some reason I think that you can do whatever you want with background. It's the girl that needs to look good. You can always "take her" to another background.

/layman opinion

Scribble-drawing = life.

Sorry, I've been busy for a while, projects, family, etc.
Interesting....I've never seen greco-mythology merged with WW2 era illustrative style.

But with that said, let's get to the practical aesthetics. *puts on obnoxious artsy cap with lights up a cig.*

First of all....*beats Fury over the head with paintbrush* to save yourself time and effort, paint the model with the object she is interacting with! That way, you can best judge how the lighting and shadows of both forms will play with each other! Don't forget reflection of color, if any!

Secondly....shadows on the ground will of course go to great lengths to establishing three-dimensionality to the object, but ignoring that... Your light source is inconsistent. While at first glance, it APPEARS to be top down and a bit to the back, please notice the fork in the main branches and the shadows on top of the left one. ...Not that it should matter, mind you, since the satyr should be covering it up with her body.

Thirdly, like many others, filters annoy me. But if I can't tell it's a filter, then you have done well.

Fourth: Yes, gradation of detail will be extremely useful. Particularly pay close attention when establishing the roundness of the tree stump.

Finally, your outlines are too harsh and probably contain too much blue, especially on the left side. Subtle transitions are key!

That's my two cents. I sleep now...

Man, you have no idea how many verbal beatings I've gotten about the "paint the model with what she's interacting with" deal. I'm *horrible* about that. As you will see when I get the new images posted up.

Light sources have usually made me their bitch, too. Difficult one to master, that is, yessss..... (at least for me. I'm really random about that, but in this instance I decided to really not sweat that and just see if I could get it going on in Painter. The beauty of it is that I've got practically every step saved, and it's so very easy to actually go in and correct things! I am aghast! My obcure light sources have meant more than a few totally ruined pieces. However, digital does feed my desire to do things in steps rather than in wholes waaaay too much).

I'm still debating the outlines on the tree stump being too harsh- I agree with too much blue. I'm still working on trying to get that neutral that comes from blending blue and brown, and I haven't quite gotten there. But I'm not sure that I want to go with the subtle transistions so much- As you said, there is a taste of WWII pin-up in this, and that's a more illustrative style.

We'll see if you are more agreeable after you sleep....
*cracks knuckles*

This is the background "complete enough for me to move on with this crap". Which means there are a number of tweaks that will need to be made once Faun is firmly planted her fuzzy butt-cheeks on that stump (Yes, Sandy. I *know*). Image sprays are cheating in a big way when it comes to these programs, hence I did *not* utilize the leaf spray for the tree- instead I used the splattery airbrush setting. I liked it better for giving a spring-time feel. I also used the air brush for spattering my little clover flowers, etc. But yes, I did break bad and use the image spray for some of the grass and the ragweed, then decreased it's opacity so it wasn't so obvious. I hope it worked >.<


Finally, I started blocking in my solid colors on Faun. Currently I've got the drawing opacity turned way down, and I'm using it as an overlay here.


And on that note, I too must sleep.

The spray is highly effective for the leaves and flowers....but the weeds themselves are too jarring against the ground. Again, you'll need to transition it a little better. Easily fixable though.

Nice, pink flesh and white hair.

Could I suggest some sort of transitional elements to better draw together her top half and her bottom half? It just seems kind of abrupt, like "from here up she's all hot nekkid babe", and "from here down she's all critter." Or kind of like a model (who just happens to have antlers) sporting an extremely hairy pair of pants.

I realize you're shooting for more of a faun (mythical being/nature spirit) than an anthropomorphized doe, and that fauns were literally half goat and half man, but even in those cases the man half was pretty damn hirsute.

But no one likes to look at hirsute breasts.

Seriously- look at the subject matter. Look at the style of the background.

Realism is not my goal here. What I'm letting it evolve into here (because I'm not strictly trying to guide anything- my entire point with this was wholly centered on "I'm gonna make myself comfortable using the wacom") is pretty much what sandy said- Greco-Mythology meets pin-up nose art, and Walt Disney drew it in one of his naughtier moments.

Also, you're just seeing the base painting, where colors are blocked in. Many of the transitions you are wanting to see will be handled later.

But she will NOT have (no matter how much it reminds you of home in West By-God Virginia) hairy nipples.

So, by extension of this theme, she shaves the 'pits, but leaves her legs alone?

(not dissin', just checkin')

Might be a minor point but the tail seems wrong. I realize it isn't definitive but this faun didn't have the short tail like the babe in your drawing.



Looks great to me otherwise.

Best,

Yeah, but I remember that character of C.S. Lewis' - he's a guy.

One could justify that the male faun and female faun have markedly different appearances.

Or one could state that the cover artist for the novel was thinking of Pan and did a goat-man instead; leg hair is much darker, and they've got the 'proper' jack-leg of a quadruped, whereas Fury's faun has a more bipedal appearance, with the backwards 'knee' appearing more to be a heel that's just not pressed to the ground.

Or one could argue that that's not goat-boy's tail; it's a hula-hoop lashed to his hip he's carrying along with the umbrella and the boxes (gifts for others? How would you wrap that, anyway?)

So, she's from Boulder...

Huh, wondered if this ever developed. Cool Zombie thread though.

No doubt. Is it finished, Fury?