I guess it's a useful way of bridging the gap between traditional and digital processes, and makes for greater consideration of colour, shape, and arrangement. Thinking in action, innit?
I found this test to be fairly beneficial, even though I'm still a bit weary of this entire thing, I think I have a better understanding of how I could layer shapes. It also allowed me to see the muted colour scheme in practice, and identify areas that needed to be darker or lighter.
Notes on each:
1. Dark framing around edge works well, encloses the space. Varying shades of colours shows shows depth without the use of complex perspectives.
5 elements in total (4 witches, cauldron) - odd number, looks better aesthetically.
Could add subtle hints of broken lines to show the curved ceiling of cave.
2. Breaking the house up in to flat planes (front, side, roof) makes it easier to construct with shapes. However, elongated house in the original rough is better? Takes up more space, doesn't look as bare.
The addition of small details (window frames, chimney smoke, maybe even subtle lines for wood panelling) could improve this overall.
3. The placement of the elements isn't bad, however the overall image looks very empty. Maybe if I built up the landscape more, added more hills etc, it wouldn't look so sparse and flat.
Exploring opacity with the flames and smoke could be interesting though.
4. This example worked better as a pencil sketch. Because all of the components are pretty much the same size, nothing has impact. May have to readjust this one to create a more interesting image. Also, this one may be difficult to pull off digitally and may not translate well.
Notes on each:
1. Dark framing around edge works well, encloses the space. Varying shades of colours shows shows depth without the use of complex perspectives.
5 elements in total (4 witches, cauldron) - odd number, looks better aesthetically.
Could add subtle hints of broken lines to show the curved ceiling of cave.
2. Breaking the house up in to flat planes (front, side, roof) makes it easier to construct with shapes. However, elongated house in the original rough is better? Takes up more space, doesn't look as bare.
The addition of small details (window frames, chimney smoke, maybe even subtle lines for wood panelling) could improve this overall.
3. The placement of the elements isn't bad, however the overall image looks very empty. Maybe if I built up the landscape more, added more hills etc, it wouldn't look so sparse and flat.
Exploring opacity with the flames and smoke could be interesting though.
4. This example worked better as a pencil sketch. Because all of the components are pretty much the same size, nothing has impact. May have to readjust this one to create a more interesting image. Also, this one may be difficult to pull off digitally and may not translate well.
No comments:
Post a Comment