Constructive criticism on image

I drew this image and would like constructive criticism on it. This is my second attempt at a females face and first attempt at capturing emotion. Trying to get ready by this spring to create sprite sheets. I'm a freshman in college.

 

I would suggest an art forum

 

This. Otherwise you'll get programmers like me asking if anyone else feels her eyes are looking in different directions.

 

I didn't notice that about her eyes. And I will request an art forum or a off the topic forum like UE4 forum.

 

Pupils are not at center of eyes, she is suffering from strabismus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabismus ).
The eyes are of different size and at different offsets from the nose. That does not happen in live people to this extent
When drawing, flip image horizontally and look at it. You'll spot a lot of errors:

Spoiler

Proportions are off.
Here are normal human proportions:

Spoiler

Head is 5 eyes wide. Distance between eyes is one eye. Eyes are located in vertical middle of the head.
Corners of the mouths are pretty much below irises of eyes.

Before you start drawing details, establish sketch/scaffolding that will mark where individual features are located. If you skip doing that (that's obviously what you did), your drawing will "melt" and lose form. You should find plenty of examples from youtube.

Spoiler

That's not touching the part where the neck is probably too thick, the shoulders are probably too narrow, that you'll need to sketch the figure even if you only draw head, etc.

In short, keep practicing. You have a long way to go.

 

Here's what it could look like.

Spoiler

It is a quick sketch, it is still quite bad and has bitchy expression, but this is done by drawing over your artwork, applying proportions (or trying to apply them), etc.

Should be enough to get you started.

 

Thanks for the posts. Now I know what I need to work on.

 

Loomis to the rescue!

http://www.alexhays.com/loomis/
Drawing The Head & Hands

Or buy the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Head-Hands-Andrew-Loomis/dp/0857680978

 

Was about to mention it. The reference images I posted are from that book. It is not the simplest approximation of proportions, but his drawing method is easy to follow and is very logical.

 

Hogarth FTW!

 

Are you talking about Dynamic Anatomy/Dynamic Figure Drawing?

 

Indeed I am. (and Dynamic Hands)

 

Well unless you are going to be drawing for a police department or something like that I wouldn't worry too much about being accurate but about whatever it is you are drawing. I like your drawing better than the more technically accurate ones that follow it.

 

Be creative within the laws of nature, and sometimes bend those rules.
Just look at any 6.5 foot tall comic female super hero.

 

Alternately, you can take the Liefeld approach, and completely ignore all the rules and just focus on scratchy lines and boobs.

 

Googled the name, found a HUGE essay solely dedicated to badmouthing Liefeld. :-\

Anyway. Is there a reason why you recommended Hogarth over Loomis? Just curious...

 

What's bizzare is the boobs only approach seems to be his go to for male figures too. It seems pretty clear that accurate anatomy is not the most important feature of art. If you want accuracy, just take a photo.

It's worth noting this is true of most forms of entertainment. Movies don't reflect real life. Game physics are ridiculous. Even my 'historically accurate' LARP group stops short of half the charcters dying of dysentery before swords are drawn.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperrealism_(visual_arts)

The problem is it still takes plenty of time to learn enough to get to the level of the guy who messes up boob proportions in every drawing. The main issue is when you draw from imagination, you don't have a photo.

So you need to cheat. Anatomy knowledge helps with scaffolding of the figure. So you know, you won't need to waste net 20 years getting the shape right. It is roughly equivalent to algorithm/data structures/recommended practice knowledge in programming. Oh, you can draw/program without those.It is just you really don't want to.

 

Over? No not at all. It was meant to read as Loomis and Hogarth FTW. Their collected works are complementary and probably cornerstone works for many if not most illustrators/comic/character artists. There are many other great works/materials out there, (Edwards, McCloud, Buscema, ect..) but Loomis and Hogarth seem to be at the center or oldest in folks libraries.

I would say they are pretty close to equal, usefulness being weighted more depending how you learn. Loomis is more robust overall for illustration, and technique. Hogarth is less words and more pictures, and heavily focused on the human form in a slightly stylized manner. (Hands is very useful, if no other reason than tons of reference). I discovered Hogarth first (in terms of books on technique), and it was very engaging. Later I found Loomis, but probably learned more from those than the Hogarth books.

 

Totally acknowledge this. In pretty much every field you need to learn the rules properly, then once you know them you can break them.

 

Absolutely. And dramatic stylization is part of comics. The issue (I believe), that a lot of folks have with Liefeld, isn't specifically the anatomy problems, more the inconsistency and perceived laziness. He hides hands and feet, and covers challenging areas with clutter like belts and such. However, if you look at his work (beyond the massive collections of "worst of"), it is clear that does have the skill, but for whatever reason, doesn't always put in the effort. His work is rarely consistent. I mean... really:

On the flip side you have an artist like McFarlane, who uses over the top crazy anatomy all the time, and has been known to make continuity errors and such, but his work is very self consistent, and uses exaggeration in a way that enhances rather than detracts:

Clearly both images are anatomically... impossible, wrong, whatever. Both are meant to tell a story. One does it by conveying agility with an exaggerated sense of motion, the other conveys strength... with a big chest.



Sorry... I think my comic nerd slipped out.

 

Truth.

Though... given your career path, coming from you this takes on a slightly ominous tone.

Also, this is something that you see here related to development all the time. Long "suggestion" posts on the topics of how engines or rendering or events or asset management or coding or whatever, "should" work or can be "improved". Usually from folks who don't grasp the core concepts at play in the first place. Not that there isn't room for improvement in these areas, but usually the shortest path to improvement is in ones own knowledge.

 

I haven't killed anyone yet. I have come closer then I would like though.

 

Please don't waste people's time asking for criticism until it's your 100th attempt. What I am saying is it's kind of insulting asking for people to give time and feedback when you've done it twice.

 

I get where you're coming from, but I think that's somewhat of an overreaction. Plenty of posts put in less effort and ask bigger questions and don't get called "kind of insulting".

Plus, I think that soliciting feedback early and often is a good thing. We only have to give it if we feel like it, nobody's forcing us.

 

I said it's kind of insulting. I didn't say "it's insulting".

 

I stand corrected and have edited accordingly.

 

Well they do get told - by me.

 

Alright, thanks for the info. ^_^