HOME | DD
e1n — Stylization Tips
Published: 2012-04-05 00:29:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 26989; Favourites: 1206; Downloads: 280
Redirect to original
Description
Someone on Tumblr asked about how I manage to switch between styles so easily, so I thought I'd make this little tips/tutorial thing.Of course this doesn't encompass everything there is about style / inventing a style , but it might help you better than the Chihuahua picture.
Related content
Comments: 59
As with all great snippets of knowledge, this feels so obvious, so natural now that you've pointed it out. A great many thanks for doing so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks! This really helped explain why some proportions are the way they are in comics!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is great insight. I'm currently working on figuring out my natural drawing style and this definitely puts some different ways to approach this. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This will be a big help in my quest for better sketching/drawing. Thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is the first time I've seen an analysis on why Oda's and Kubo's style's look the way they are. I always knew Bleach has something really mesmerising with their eyes, but I never really thought that deep about it. Fascinating!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wow.. the tutorial on the OP, Bleach, and GL styles really makes sense now... huh. very cool
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow. This is... wow, thank you. I'll be sure to keep this in mind while I draw. Thanks again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think this should be interpreted as just tips, a little push, Different than a tutorial.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
really good. brings to light on topics that i would never have thought of. well done!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Stylization is a very hard thing to make a good tutorial about as it closely relates to an artists ability to skew certain proportions and of course the personal touch it always has. Good job on pulling it off.
You might've wanted to place each of those anime heads next to their own piece of text because now I just see three heads followed by a wall of words where my eyes glaze over. (and I'm sure I'm not the only one)
Still a very good tutorial, simply explained and well worth sharing around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very streamlined information, quite useful. I just wish I could loosen up enough to get out of my comfort zone lol.
(btw thank you for demonstrating that the supposed "anime" style uses the same techniques as any american animation caricature art, that bit made me especially happy lol)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well-done analysis! It's true that facial proportions has lots to do with how the artist plans to use emotions. Similarly, bodily proportions will help with actions. Chibi proportions are generally no good to move with, yet attempts were made...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Th-thank you for this insight! *w*
I must go practice now...
whow whow! thats a really good tips! I enjoyed specially the OP/B/GL style descriptions, it was exactly what I wanted to read
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks! I'm trying to work with a new less anime-ish style so this will really help ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like LeSean Thomas's style the most jus something about it but this is really cool and makes a lot of sense glad you did this
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is really useful. It makes it ewasy to see how easy it is to make up your own style or see how other people do their style. I love it! Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for this, mate. I kinda knew it in the back of my head but it's always good to have the info clearly set out like this. (:
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good advice! Understanding why certain things look the way they do will definitely help. I really enjoyed your reasoning behind the moe and "teary eyes" - made me laugh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Mm, I often wish this business of calling things "anime" style could be done away with. It's not a particular annoyance, it's like calling something "American comics style". It's not incorrect to say so, and people generally understand what one means by it, but when one is talking to fellow artists who should know a little more about these things, one expects to be able to keep such generalisations to a minimum to avoid being made to appear ignorant.
For instance, I'm an historian in training, and so if I were talking to someone not familiar with history, then I might say "oh I'm looking at this from an historian perspective", but if I'm talking to a fellow historian, I'd say something like "Oh, I'm looking at this from a Marxist/feminist/Annals/Rankian/economic/reformist/etc. perspective".
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Nah, Its called anime style for a reason, it makes sense. Anime uses that style, so its anime style.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's like saying mickey mouse and the incredible hulk are the same style, American comic style to be specific. At least specify a studio! Like Ghibli or CoMix Wave for crying out loud! (or Disney and Marvel in the above example)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thing is, while studio's have their own type of anime style, its still anime. Disney is animation, and Mahvel is comics, big difference.
Anime is a broad term, but it fits.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're right about Marvel, what studio is it that's doing their animated cartoons? I don't know that one, hmm... I agree that people generally know what you mean when you use the term, however anime is just a chunk of the word animation. It refers to any animated cartoon of Asian (or french strangely enough) origin. Manga refers to any comic of Asian (or french, not sure why) origin. Neither is a drawing style any more than "oils" is a painting style.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Oils" may not be a painting style, but it's still a word describing the art in question, and is appropriate to mention when saying what sort of art it is. Generally, if you're in a museum, and you look at the description tag, it's very likely to tell you what is used in a painting, whether it's oils, acrylics, or watercolor. So by comparing it to 'oil painting', you are still indirectly making the point that anime is still an appropriate term to use when describing a particular style.
"Anime" is a concept that is understood. People understand that there is a vast variety of styles within the 'anime' genre, but there are just certain common threads (such as certain stock expressions) shared between the styles which make up the collective 'anime' style of art. It's a category which has subcategories.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I say this from the perspective of having been asked by people to draw their characters in "anime" style and then having them hate the result because it wasn't in the style they wanted. Demonstrating that for the purposes of functional art the term "anime" is not specific enough to be used to describe a drawing style.
Really I should have said "Neither is a drawing style any more than mediterranean is a painting style." but I couldn't think of the word I wanted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Anime is still just as legitimate a style as asking someone to draw something in a cartoony style. If you want or need to have it be more a specific description than that, you ask for one. "When you say cartoons, do you mean like Daria, or Invader Zim, or like classic Disney?"
Really, when someone asks you to draw something, you should ask for as may details as possible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True. Asking questions helps. But I would still argue that "cartoony" is the genre and that Daria, Invader Zim, and Disney are the styles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No argument here. I agree that "anime" is perfectly appropriate label for the genre but that still doesn't make it a drawing style. And I'm sorry but I see absolutely nothing in common between the styles of Astro Boy and Blade of the Immortal and both are "anime". It's Mickey Mouse and the Incredible Hulk all over again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mickey mouse and the incredible Hulk are not the same genre at all. One is american comics and the other is a disney cartoon. They're not even part of the same media. It's like you're comparing Pokemon and Godzilla when you say that. Are they both Japanese? Yeah, sure. But they're not the same medium. Hell, they're not even from the same time period.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm referring to the animated version of the Hulk done by Marvel Studios in 1996 not the print version. Blade of the immortal is primarily print as well but it too has an animated version. So no it's not like comparing Pokemon with Godzilla. Do your research, I did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When you don't specify which one you mean, how am I to know. I was referring to the original 1928 version of Mickey, and the original print of Hulk from the 60's. I did my research. The fault lies with you for presenting a comparison without specifying what you mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Um... because we were talking about animations not comics????? I figured that the media we were discussing was already well established...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now there's irony for you! Marvel Studios (the animation section of Marvel Entertainment) is part of Disney technically!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
people will call things whatever they want, there's no stopping that. to me it's not about what things are called and whether it's proper, it's more whether as an artist you know what to do with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seeing this, I got to ask have u ever read "Fun with a Pencil" by Andrew Loomis?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes i have. andrew loomis' books are a must-have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When i saw this, totally reminded me of those early parts dealing with the divided ball and plane method, thanks for the reply!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>