HOME | DD

#anthro #furry #wolf #referencesheet #styleexperiment
Published: 2017-03-12 17:11:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 381; Favourites: 9; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
So, lately i've been feeling like I have not been improving much, or at least not fast enough. I decided to revisit my style a bit, not changing anything too major. On the left, my old style, and on the right is my experiment.Related content
Comments: 3
Shaidz [2017-03-14 00:30:17 +0000 UTC]
Very nice! I like how fluffy he looks. There is something charming about how he looks clean-cut like in your usual style, though.
I think it's important to remember, though, that there's a lot more to style than just the lineart. The only significant differences between these drawings is your method of drawing the fur, which is certainly a good practice. It's good to learn different ways of drawing curves. Style also involves proportion (relative size and exaggeration), shading method (cell vs. soft), and detail density (realism vs. cartoony). Shading is of course a bit simpler than the others, but isn't a necessity with something simple like this. Proportion and detail on the other hand are typically more noticeable. Think of several characters that are intended to be the same species. Tails the Fox, Fox McCloud, Nick Wilde, and Disney's Robinhood are all supposed to be fox characters, but each have very different stylizations. What's different about them is mainly their proportions. Tails has the most exaggeration, with large eyes and tails the size of his body. Fox McCloud is (usually) the most anthropomorphic, with a fully upright posture and plantigrade feet. Nick Wilde is arguably the most fox-like, with a bit of a hunch to his posture, but mostly realistically proportioned features, except perhaps his face. Robinhood is somewhere in the middle of all of these. Additionally, Tails and Robinhood are 2D, so they have simpler detail and shading. Fox McCloud and Nick are 3D, so they have on average more detail and shading.
I hope this made sense. Style is a finicky thing, and it's really hard to establish one. What I think is most important, however, is having something recognizable. I can't quite remember who I mentioned this to, but I personally think that if you can paint very well, but don't have something recognizable and interesting, you aren't a good artist. You are a good painter. There's a big difference. I must say, you've got a recognizable style. I can take one look at a notification and know its from you without having to look at the username beneath it. The same isn't true of even other more technically proficient artists I watch. So I just want you to know you have that going for you whether you think so or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dracino In reply to Shaidz [2017-03-15 01:31:20 +0000 UTC]
Hmm, I see what you mean. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that I'm playing around with the aesthetics of the characters rather than the drawing style? I also get that the fur drawing is the most significant change; really the only other things were slightly bigger eyes, fluidity in the ear shape, pads under the feet and experimentation with the lineart's color itself. In essence, I wanted to move my aesthetic more towards the cartoony end of that spectrum you mentioned.
And thank you for the kind words while I understand what you say (since I've not seen anything that really resembles how I draw), I still feel very... Intermediate? It's like I feel I'm no longer a rookie, but nothing I'm doing has that wow factor either, it's quite puzzling. That might be why I am feeling bogged down a bit and want to try new, more ambitious things. It's usually my reaction when I feel beaten up: fight to get back up!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shaidz In reply to Dracino [2017-03-17 19:38:12 +0000 UTC]
That's a great mentality to have! I think you're a bit better off than intermediate, but it's better to think you can improve a lot than think you have nothing else to improve, haha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0