Tocky on 25/4/2021 at 21:59
Quote Posted by Pyrian
:erm: I don't see
any artwork in this thread that seems to know where their light sources are. :confused:
In Wrightson's work it is upper right. One can almost feel the scant warmth of an out of frame window or lamp high in a castle. Also there could be light on the right, though not as bright, from a window there.
In Druillet's it is right and forward diagonally though not well defined so therefore a sun that is around five O'clock.
With Giraud the whole scene is washed out and not nearly his best work. It was unfair of me to post that one. However there could be two light sources both, behind the subject and high overhead, if those are shadows and not reflections.
Here is a more representative work of his better efforts-
Inline Image:
https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld6onplroe1qf0aafo1_1280.jpgI'm sorry I could not find a smaller one but in this one the two light sources and the reflected light are most obvious.
Tocky on 25/4/2021 at 23:31
I'm the opposite obviously. The more detail and nuance the better. You don't want to know what I think of cubism. I once heard Wrightson's art described as "ragged" and that suited his depiction of Swamp thing quite well. There was a golden period in the mid seventies when story and art were often good though the stories were by medium much restricted.
Inline Image:
https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/profilesinhistory/81/590481/H3257-L97632676.jpgPyrian on 26/4/2021 at 00:40
Quote Posted by Tocky
In Wrightson's work it is upper right.
It wasn't a question. It's not that I don't know where the light is coming from. Each object has a clear lighting situation attached to it, they're just inconsistent, even when adjacent. One gross offender is the vertical beam and rope-hung flask, touching each other in the open middle of the scene, lit from opposite directions. And wtf is lighting up the chin of the corpse? I could go on. There's a lot of detail and the clear priority was highlighting said detail.
Now look at the face/ufos piece. Try and reconcile the lighting with the shadows of the ufos. No matter how you try to figure it, they don't remotely match.
The bubble ship is better. I'd give it an A for effort. It breaks down if you examine the reflectivity, but it's not egregious like Wrightson's stuff, it's clear Giraud cares here.
I wouldn't normally be this critical, but you jumped into an unrelated thread to post THIS guy's work as the unchallengeable epitome of awesome artwork that doesn't even get made anymore and it's... Not that.
Tocky on 26/4/2021 at 01:17
Quote Posted by Pyrian
It wasn't a question. It's not that I don't know where the light is coming from. Each object has a clear lighting situation attached to it, they're just inconsistent, even when adjacent. One gross offender is the vertical beam and rope-hung flask, touching each other in the open middle of the scene, lit from opposite directions. And wtf is lighting up the chin of the corpse? I could go on. There's a lot of detail and the clear priority was highlighting said detail.
I guess you didn't notice the piece of window on the left. Notice the shadows on the chair? That would go with a light source from that direction like another window farther along the wall more in line with the other window as well. Maybe one more in line with a setting sun. Multiple light sources are tricky. The UFO one looks fine to me. It is emerging out of shadow into light with that light being filtered through globe glass and also the source of light from the instrument panel. Also there is reflected light on the rear of it. There is a lot going on. I suppose one could avoid all that with just flat images with no definition and if you like that better then fine. To each his own.
Mostly I saw this as a way to show my favorites and keep the thread from dying.
One thing to remember is that glass is reflective and the flask could well be taking up the chin light which is from the left window on it's underside whereas the beam is non reflective and showing the light from the hanging light on the upper right. Often when an artwork is done, even by illustrators, they use objects as models for this sort of thing and observe how the multiple light sources light each thing. Crystal balls are an interesting thing to recreate on paper. When there is no light source on them the thing behind them is seen as it is. If it is at the top then that is where it shows. But when there is a strong light source and a measure of distance to the next object they show upside down. And of course when it is an empty glass globe then the refection does not do that. At any rate, it's difficult when one goes for realism as far as right goes and having a model is often the best way.
Also I didn't mean it as a crack to say art like that is just not done these days. Art like that takes time and nobody pays for the sort of time it takes these days. There are few mags like Creeps which do still. It must be difficult to do in pixels though and they are not online comics which are often done for the story rather than the art. For instance Cat and girl has some interesting concepts and thought provoking ones but the artwork is not there for anything but as an assist to conveying the story.
Of course this- (
http://rezq.space/) is an interesting one to keep up with.
Kolya on 26/4/2021 at 18:01
THAT IS SOME HIGHFALUTIN CONCEPTS
I like it.
Aja on 26/4/2021 at 23:39
Somehow I figured you'd like it, Kolya :)
Tocky on 27/4/2021 at 00:51
I was kind of hoping this would turn into a comic art SHOWING page. Or just art in general. Maybe I'll start one of those. Anyway, since I mentioned Frazetta, and for many he is the epitome of comic art, I would be remiss if I didn't show his work. This one has been used on a few covers including Creepy 92.
Inline Image:
https://www.liveauctioneers.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Frank.jpg