[Naeem]

Hi guys,

I keep disappearing; but it's because i've been working hard with traditional media. Nothing to show in that area though (no camera, or scanner ).

In any case; this was a big experiment that I started tonight. I'd post this in the speedie thread (it took around 5 hours or so), but I just wanted to get some crits and have a bit of a discussion. I added a bunch of stuff in the painting, as i understand it's crowded, but it was basically to just test out brushes for different effects.

My question to you all is; could you shed some light on how you guys go about painting city scapes both in daylight and night time. It's a matter of technique, and basic ideas on value that I'm looking for.



P.S. Do you guys think my stuff has started to look more stiff then usual these past few months (due to lots of Industrial Design, mostly transportation design exercises)? Someone told me that a few days ago; and i've begun to wonder...

[FallDamage]

Strong basic compositional shapes that are cleanly sectioned are in order for cityscapes. If the major faces are well sectioned and separated, it becomes easier to establish a believable value and saturation hierarchy in the image as buildings move into the distance (best established by first working up the comp with perspective in mind, and then sectioning off the buildings into descending layers as they recede).

I think it's probably also helpful to work in extremely low saturation for the basic underlying value spread, and then work your selective saturation choices into the detailing after a strong foundation has been established. The layering mentioned above is also useful for quickly adding intervening atmosphere where required.

Depending on how you feel about integrating 3d packages, I would advise using a something basic to establish comp. Not so much because it's laborious to do it the traditional way, but rather because you can play with the comp and perspective so easily, it allows you more freedom in selecting that perfect shot. I don't even bother rendering, just throw a few shapes together that interest you, hit print screen, grab some atmospheric ref and go to it in your painting program of choice.

[Affected]

The composition here leads my eye to the top left corner of the image, and there's nothing really there...

[Naeem]

Falldamage> thanks for the input! Yeah; i guess I just have to stop being lazy, and lay down perspective guidelines, and layer everything properly instead of just painting straight through. I appreciate you taking the time to answer .

Affected> Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I was so used to the piece since I painted it straight through, that I ignored that issue. Now that I look at it; you're right.

[octavian]

Good questions Annis. I have been thinking a lot along these lines lately. I don't have concrete answers as of yet, but I'm starting to realize many new things. so lemme see if I can have a productive conversations with you and share my thoughts:

I like what FallDamage has said... and mostly I agree. Lemme see if I can add to it.

Lets consider those who have gone before us and made very convincing, yet "loose" cityscape images... ok, so mullins has the ability to paint a scene so convincing, yet loose and "sloppy", it boggles the mind. "streetpatrol" is the one that kills me every time I see it.

http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/bird_sniper.jpg
http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/wet_street.jpg
http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/dozer.jpg
http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/darkcity.jpg
http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/streetpatrol.jpg
http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/street_scene.jpg

It's not to say Mullins can't paint highly detailed works. We've all seen his concepts for Final Fantasy. But I think the most important thing to realize about all these images, is precisely what Affected critiqued you on. All of these works draw a focus to something within the image that allows the rest of the city to be really, really loose and suggested. This image is a great example of what I mean:

http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/spidertank.jpg

I mean, what the hell? where is the beef? well the beef is all in that tiny little area of high contrast by the gunners head where he focused our attention and kept just enough detail to suspend disbelief. but if you look for details in what you believe to be surrounding buildings you'll find... nothing. that's the genius in his works, imho.

Paperblue has an uncanny knack for the same sort of creative freedom in his works:

http://paperblue.net/bbs/data/paint_com/city_w_l.jpg
http://paperblue.net/bbs/data/paint_com/city_ruin_aaa.jpg
http://paperblue.net/bbs/data/paint_com/castle_city_sea.jpg

And many more. So i've been starting to think more about composition and focusing the viewer rather than "painting a city". I have begun to think less of "subject" and detail, and more about abstraction. How can I get the viewer to like what he or she see's and believe it with as little "perceived" effort as possible. I say "perceived" because it's not always as simple as it may appear. But rather the artist understood that the most important aspect was composition and viewer focus vs detail. So they may have actually spent quite a bit of time on getting "mood" and "value" placed properly to aid or perfect their composition. But that follows my personal taste because all my favorite artists are able to minimize detail and create the most refreshing visuals imho.

Artists like Cicinimo, Khang le and M@ have this great ability as well. But now that I "see it" I'm starting to think "better" about painting whatever it is I paint. the work I've been doing for my job has been forcing this all out of me because they want "functional work" over "detailed work" atm. So in my search for creating compelling compositions, with little detail, this is where I've come to so far. I may be blathering away atm, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at. if you want to find how to make your images "read" better, and feel loose and fresh, then maybe start looking at some of these artists and asking yourself how they do it? what is more important in there works than the program used, or tools, or technique.

If you really wanna know about light and real world application, I'd suggest also buying the new color and light DVD from Gnomon. The beginning is very basic, but the later chapters have some very good info on how light behaves on ALL objects whether it be a piece of fruit or a very tall building. That might be a good place to start.

*Disclaimer* I'm not super proficient in applying all these things to my work yet, but I'm getting there. If any of you have suggestions on refining my thoughts, or things to add, PLEASE join the conversation.

[Naeem]

Thanks so much, Octavian, for that detailed response. I really appreciate it.
I definitely see what you're saying. Nothing beats a good drawing, or better yet, a good composition. I do appreciate you taking the time to point me to all those links. I suppose I've still got some way to go before I actually get anywhere remotely close to something presentable.
On another note- my aim was at finishing pieces lately. I've been struggling to find an appealing method, and style, which doesn't take forever. For example: look at
http://www.paperblue.net/bbs/data/paint_gunster/1161495074/city_gray.jpg
http://www.paperblue.net/bbs/data/paint_com/city_sea_a_03c.jpg

or even,
http://www.paperblue.net/bbs/data/paint_com/castle_village_sea.jpg

The finished pieces don't interest me as much as the speedie, sketchy pieces (I do feel thats where the most confidence is shown). However, I do think that one needs to learn how to finish pieces as well, and I feel that I haven't done something like that at all.

my question,though, isn't "how to finish a piece", but rather, what methods do people employ for edges, buildings going into the distance, hue shift, value shift, being able to later modify shapes and forms easily, and from getting your layers all tangled up?, etc A fast, yet effective process, and also their understanding of value, and color regarding this. Night vs. Day. Overcast vs. Sunny. I know that there isn't one single answer- but it's always good to hear how people approach it; which in the end broadens and helps your understanding.

But, that brings us back to what you pointed out; which is- composition, and suggestive detailing. Knowing when to stop polishing an area, and how to pop out other areas.
I think I needed a wake-up call; to not get stuck on technique, and worry aobut composition and value- as its apparent I need work on them.

Thanks so much again. If anyone else has anything to add- PLEASE, feel free. It's always interesting to hear peoples' thoughts.

P.S. I hope work's going well for you. Hoping to catch you on AIM one of these days. Haven't talked in a while.

[notic]

this was a very nice read, thanks for taking the time everyone, especially you octavian. i'm afraid i don't have any further input right now, but it would be nice to keep discussions like these going!

nice pic annis!

edit:

one thing i would say is that i tend to do the same kind of enviroments over and over again.. which can be very frustrating. I would love to have some more artistic freedom.. what would you guys suggest for that? i suppose studying some spooge paintings would help me out in terms of thinking differently when it comes to composition.

[FallDamage]

"I've been struggling to find an appealing method, and style, which doesn't take forever."

Heh, make no mistake... those probably took him a good long while from conception to what you see there. I'm no senior voice of wisdom in matters of art, but while efficiency is important, when you focus on it to the exclusion of getting lost in what you're doing, it becomes debilitating.

Just get your comp down to something killer in the navigator view, bang out a 20 percent low res jpeg version of that to keep in another window, then get in there, clean up your shapes and stroke the short axis.

[notic]

[FallDamage]

It's simpler than you think.

On any given planar surface, stroke towards the vanishing point that the short axis is in line with. So, if you're painting the side of a tall building where it's shooting skyward, your strokes would be broadsiding it leading towards one of your horizon based side vanishing points in the same orientation as you might expect a row of windows to travel.

That's my understanding of it anyway. It's not a hard and fast rule, but check out how the brush strokes radiate from the center of the shield below. That's another example. It looks like he also chose to treat the wall generally as a singular plane, and stroked vertically there, but it's still the relatively short axis, as the long axis would be stroking into the distance, which would not make practical sense in this instance.

Also notice how the vertical stroking is contrasted which multi directional patches of strokes along the floor plane to try and indicate the chaos of the sand. Maybe not his best example, but the principle is there.

http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/displayimage.php?album=4&pos=2

This also illustrates Octavian's ideal about a strong focus in speed painting, the shield is the focus here, it is the star of the image that maintains the eye's demand for detail while the surrounding looseness tells the story and fills in the world. It has that sharp saturation hit along the top rim, the bounce from his orange sash and the strongest value contrast of the image that proceeds to a single point meant to leap out at the viewer.

[Affected]

Hey, what's this, a thought-out discussion?
Good going guys, more good talk, less big guns please!

(and with the meta-critique done, carry on...)

[notic]

falldamage, hey thanks man.. that's interesting! i've thought about strokes going certain directions before, but now it makes it even more interesting to look for.

[FallDamage]

NP...again, all necessary disclaimers aside... another element you might consider is color.

This is all very general and obviously does not apply in all or perhaps even most cases but here's my thoughts. I think a good low sat base for your images will look something like this where you decrease saturation subtly as you increase your value, but along a curve. I don't think a linear relationship provides the best results.





You'll want to shift your color spectrum towards yellow or whatever is your target high value source as you proceed higher up the value scale. ALso, it sometimes helps to punch up the saturation just before your lightest light and your darkest dark, more so in the lower value range than higher. Also, you'll probably want the rate of hue change to decrease exponentially as you proceed up your value chain. Then you can work with relatively higher sat compliments which can also follow a similar curve on a more limited scale

You've got a lot of room for hue shift in the low saturation base, but once your saturation increases, you need tighter control and play with what works given your lighting situation. You'll also have to play with the nature of the curves given what you're trying to depict.

Also, when working with limited color (only the bottom curve indicated above) you may want to hyper extend your hue range for specular treatment to enhance the apparent brilliance of the light source relative to the environment.

Since Mullins is the example of choice around here, we'll go with another of his pieces to illustrate the above. Check out the teal hits on the window elements.
IE: http://www.goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/finished_sketches/window.jpg

As another note on detailing, you'll want most of your texture and detail to coincide with the two indicated spikes in saturation for maximum effect.

This is just an idea I'm playing with, so any thoughts anyone has to add are welcome.

[Mikko K]

As I can't understand what FallDamage is saying there, I'll quote Richard Schmidt when he was asked a complex question about color temperatures:
"Paint it how it looks like, and it'll look right"

Good discussion here, but be careful not over complicate the simplest things

[SubJodge]

Being a novice i can't add to this discussion, i would however like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone taking part in this discussion, its very helpful:)

[FallDamage]

Heh, maybe because I always confuse chroma with hue and vice versa... I'll need to edit that one :p

[Mikko K]

FD> My comment about not understanding wasn't serious

My point was to state that sometimes no matter how much I try to rationalize things, the best lessons can often be learnt when painting from life. Think about what you're looking at, and how it works, and use that information in your next painting from imagination.

I recommend Nintendo DS and the Colors app. Very useful training when it comes to color picking and palettes.

[Affected]

regarding colours, I've been experimenting every now and then with surrounding the hottest highlights with full-saturation (or close) colours, and also with outlining strong-contrast profiles with complementary colours. (meaning that if, for example, you have a shadowed object with somewhat greenish tones, and it is profiled against a very bright light, giving it a subtle red outline can be quite interesting.)

The former usually just looks weird, not necessarely useful unless very skillfully (read: better than I can do it) used, but the latter actually sometimes works quite nicely in my opinion.

[Naeem]

Guys, all i've got to say is- THANK YOU! This is quite a discussion, and it's exactly what I was looking for. It's got my brain crunching on things, and many things have started to click. these have been beautiful responses.

falldamage> those were extremely insightful tips. I thoroughly appreciate it
Affected> for some reason, that last comment of yours had me on a lead. I couldn't resist but attempt it on two of my paintings. Very helpful, and fun. Greatly appreciated.

I do have one more thing I'm going to throw out there. I've noticed many artists, somewhat 'merge' parts of their painting into shadows, with very little value/color variation. I've always thought it interesting, and seem to be adopting it myself subconsciously. I think it takes skill to pull it off nicely- as its a great tool to suggest detail.
I'll use Jaime Jones for this example:
http://artpad.org/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/digital-paintings/acj.jpg
http://artpad.org/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/digital-paintings/Copy%20of%20Tannek%20mountain%20passlr.jpg

I'm not exactly asking a question, but simply an observation i'm throwing out there. It's definitely a very appealing look.

Anyhow, everyone's thoughts are welcome. if you want to add something, please do.

[FallDamage]

I love that look too annis. As I see it, it tends to be a compositional agent and a way to to tell a story within the piece, either through focusing on certain areas, or as a device for creating a visual path. Really, there's no end to the number of off camera oddities that might provide interesting shadow shapes to drape across your picture elements. Another tool in the box, along with saturation, detailing, sharp edges and other such differentiating factors used to lead the eye.

It helps to give some in frame indication of what it is that might be casting the shadow, either by indicating in the distance an analogous form casting the same sort of shadow, or by havening a piece of the shadow casting object on cam and trailing off- though this certainly isn't necessary, and will often appear appear contrived if too blatantly executed.

God rays are probably the most common example, though I love em everywhere I see em. They're instantly recognizable, and I'd imagine that in the grand scheme of things, are probably comparable to dodge burning in that if you use em too much, it gets stupid.

Also, if you do any figure drawing, try to think of the way the light tends to cut in and out of the human form, and mimic the general undulating/wedging effect in landscapes.

http://www.henryyanart.com/index.php?board=drawing&action=show&page=1164264240

Check out the way the knees are constructed as well as the figure that's always up in the upper left corner of yan's page.

[daryl]

interesting reads people.

speaking of which, does anyone know of tutorials working with cities / architecture showing a good workflow while keeping a rather loose style? (working with selections etc).. or give a tip or 2?

I'm so much for freehand painting but it just doesn't work with cities or detailed angular shapes and I can't avoid painting that anymore. seen a few dvds on the topic but they turn out very soft digital looking.

cheers
_________________
homepage:blog

[dodds]

nice work! I love the colurs and texture.

I'm not sure about the perspective on the two elevated 'rails', but maybe they're not supposed to be parallel.

Again - I love the colour! Well done.
_________________
Rowan Dodds
Inksplat Studios

Real-ink™ Digital Brushes Project