He's leagues above anyone else. His attention to detail is insane and his art style is masterful.
I wouldn't hesitate to put him on the same level as Michelangelo and Da Vinci.
'He' is actually a small group of pro artists and digital photo manipulators
>>2453568
DELETE THIS
trick question, he never got good.
>>2453586
was he born good?
>>2453563
Every day until you diea
>>2453563
look for David leffel, download his videos, study him, hes basically the traditional ruan master.
>>2453604
oh wow it's actually strikingly ruanjiaish.
>>2453604
great comment thanks for illuminating me
Dude's a human. You're doing a huge favor by showing an image of his compressed to that resolution, because when you look at the original, uncompressed images you can see completely pedestrian elements all the time. Paul Bonner is doing just about everything Jia is doing, and with traditional media too, and even he doesn't have some unattainable level of godliness. Just work your ass off, nigga.
>>2453563
> get inspired by your favorite artist.
> start immitating it.
> fail
> repeat but learn from mistakes.
> study where you went wrong and learn from it.
> read alot of books and expand the visual library.
> do it again.
> Fail again.
> repeat unti you make one good art until you die.
Sounds like prettty much the same mindset as the other successfull artists I know.
>>2453563
Where can I download pack of his drawings in good resolution?
>>2453651
>You're doing a huge favor by showing an image of his compressed to that resolution, because when you look at the original, uncompressed images you can see completely pedestrian elements all the time.
What does this even mean? Of course it's not going to look as tight at 100%, because it's not meant to be viewed like that. The same could be said of most realism in traditional oil painting, if you put your face right up to it of course the brushwork is going to start looking loose and random.
>>2453563
he is just using brushes who create complex surfaces aka dabs
then he place a layer to highligh them
PS is just the machinegunning of art no skill required
>>2454113
It's kinda sad that I'm inclined to believe you are genuinely this retarded and uneducated about art rather than this being bait.
>>2454177
I'm starting to believe the majority of /ic/ is just sunday painters and retarded weebs
You are a true idiot if you think anyone can equal Michelangelo or Da Vinci
>>2454181
you're an idiot if you think someone can't
>>2454181
wtf do you know? do you even draw? all I've ever seen you do is this masturbatory abstract shit that takes no skill whatsoever.
>>2454181
Da Vinci was a polymath, made everything from art to vehicles, made his own paints and shit and had broad knowledge but he couldn't even draw faces to the right proportion.
He's great and I have a great book of all his stuff but he was limited by the time period, they didn't even have the color wheel back then let alone the range of actual paints.
it's definitly possible to match his technique, he draws everything with woll smoth mouths for cryin out loud. Dont let the name cloud what you see.
>>2454181
lol
>>2453563
digital art is not impressive
>>2456230
how is that not impressive you codger
>>2453563
is this what /ic/ thinks is the peak of art? it looks like shit and it's the most generic crap imaginable
>>2456230
you don't even know how to draw, chumbum
>>2456537
>talent
here's somebody who has the spark
>>2456503
Can you tell us specifically what makes it look like shit and what you in particular would change to make it look better? Maybe do a quick paintover? Keep in mind, we are talking mostly about the technical execution here, we do not care if you prefer dog portraits in watercolor over commercial fantasy illustrations.
Analyse the image in terms of drawing, values, edge control, colors, composition and tell us what you would do differently to improve it. Without using adjectives to describe your feelings towards it. Saying "it's shit" really only makes you look like you have no clue what you are talking about and just want to have your irrelevant voice heard.
Is this a meme now or has this thread just not been deleted yet from last time
>>2456734
Not that anon. I'll bite. There is a light source coming from the sword and hitting the side of the jaw and the chest, but only the top part of the arm. Source lighting (e.g. fires) tapers off very quickly, but the chest and the jaw are receiving the same amount of light as the top of the gauntlet - much closer to the source(s). Are those pauldrons made of steel? Why isn't the metal reddish? Incandescence or at least making the steel and the fire interact through highlights would've made things more believable. At the same time there's a large accent on the top edge of the pauldron, and not dark enough a value right beyond it despite the fact it's covering most of the lighting on the neck. Look at that edge and it'll look like the head is pasted on. The painter probably used a lasso and painted inside without caring about the elements as a whole.
The fact that he needed to introduce a third light source (top right to lower left) to drive attention to the head is very poor from a compositional standpoint. A good illustrator like Frazetta would've used the sword as the light source and the back fires as a frame. Maybe put the whole bottom of the creature in darkness. The top light source is also a higher value than fires whose source you can see IN the picture (not wrong but puzzling?). Overall a lighting / compositional mess because the guy painted over a patchwork of photos (or at least had that mindset).
The creature's mouth is stiff. No bare teeth, no spit / saliva, no exaggeration (symptom of mindlessly painting over photos). The neck could have been pushed much further down to make it more menacing. There's no story. Who's that creature growling at? There is no reference for scale so you don't know if the creature is 100ft high or human height. The creature can't move its head sideways because its horns would hit the pauldrons.
Feels like a picture that isn't more of a mindless sum of its parts, and I honestly agree it's 100% generic WoW fantasy.
>>2454181
Countless artists have surpassed Leonardo and Michelangelo in terms of skill.
>>2456802
lol this is pure comedy
>>2456802
Son, do you have autism?
>>2456808
I probably do, 'cause I posted anyway knowing exactly what the replies would be.
>>2454181
>they're the most famous so they must be the best
I love Michelangelo's sculpture but his paintings have been surpassed time and time again.
Hell, in my opinion I think there are dozens and dozens of 19th century painters leagues better than the best renaissance painters. As far as I see it, a lot of the renaissance aritsts were pioneers, but they just laid the foundation for superior artists in the future.
>>2456833
you also gotta consider that modern things are going to appeal to you more so you can't be 100% objective on quality, and the physical paintings have degraded considerably over time
>>2456811
Your critques are valid and I'm the stubborn guy from the DA thread.
>>2456802
It's a very basic 3 stage lighting setup, you idiot. Main light source from top down, secondary warm light from bottom left and cool fill light from top right. You don't seem to understand even the simplest, most basic things you try to talk about.
The fact that you actually think Ruanjia paints over photos proves just how little you know. Obviously that image isn't perfect and you can nitpick lots of random shit, but to say it looks like shit proves that you are no artist yourself and will never be one.
>>2456912
Can you elaborate more on this? It's interesting
>>2456912
> It's a 3 point lighting setup, so it's automatically good
>>2456912
Right, suppose you can tell me how the light from the sword is arcing around his arm and not casting any shadow ?
>>2456802
Can you critique this image Anon?
>>2457208
Not that anon but I'll do it for you.
First of all, it's profoundly sexist. That woman literally has a boob window just there so men can sexualise her and view her as a sex object. This is further emphacised by her impossible proportions pushed by our patriarchal society onto women.
Not only is it sexist, but it's racist too. You can see a white person in a position of power, from below, suggestion that other races are inferior. Moreover, there are tools of white oppression, like books and objects of science, further showing white dominance dominance. The time period also isn't random, it was specifically picked to represent the time period during which white people went around killing off the rest of the world and imposing themselves and their culture.
Oh and her tits look flat by the way.
>>2457281
>First of all, it's profoundly sexist.
Stopped there.
>>2457281
But she's a white AND black creature. How can it be racist?
>>2457208
I feel like I shouldn't
This pic says something unlike the first one. You're in a very high tower in this alchemist / wizard's lab. Everything in the image says something, so I don't even feel like looking for shit to nitpick.
First picture was made by someone who could render individual elements well, but wasn't making any choices or failed to get a point across. All you can look at in that case is execution.
>>2457292
Black people can't be racist, therefore only the fact that she's white counts.
>>2457297
>>2457281
Post your work.
>>2454085
If the brushstrokes look crappy up close then it's a crappy painting. It's the difference between looking hot in person and looking hot on an Instagram photo with a dozen filters slapped on. Compressed to a postage stamp, yeah, Jia's stuff will look cool, but blown up to its original dimensions and you can see where he got lazy. Even at the resolution it's at now that figure's right arm looks lazy as shit. Compare that to some traditional realism. Ain't no fuckin scraggly brushstrokes on that shit, and I've seen it in person too.
>>2453563
always use refs
>>2457293
Well you have to admit, Ruan's spotlight highlighting the doggy's face makes more sense than the spotlight highlighting the girl's tits. Image 1: Doge Worriar! Image 2: Sorceress Tits!
>>2457595
I think that spot lighting in the second picture is there to blow up the value of the boob window and bring it closer to the value of the girl's robes. Without that you'd probably look straight at the tits.
>>2453598
Should be good, lovely things happening.
>>2457344
>If the brushstrokes look crappy up close then it's a crappy painting
Pls go
>>2457286
>>2457292
>>2457342
>Responding to this flagrant bait
>>2457026
his chest material could be more reflective than his gauntlets or at the right angle to catch more reflection - so the chest catches more light from the fire, which then reflects on the opposite side onto the gauntlet and gives it a softer appearance.
the front gauntlet likely could have some more lighting from the fire but you're nitpicking. overall the values cohese really well to bring out the focal region of the piece.
Keeping the pauldrons a cool temperature helps to balance out the fire compositionally. Ruan also tends to lift his shadow values a bit, it's not "technically" correct because there isn't as much ambient occlusion between objects as you'd expect (which you pointed out) but he sacrifices some technical correctness for atmosphere because it implies an extra amount of haze.
>no exaggeration
>could have been pushed
I always hear this and often I don't believe it's a valid critique. Yeah, he could have pushed it more than he did. But he didn't. Where do you define how much a piece should have been pushed? When does it become too cartoony? I think he executed the piece with the amount of exaggeration that he desired, and it's not a flaw that it isn't as pushed as say, a LoL splash.
I don't know why you think having an upper key source is a lighting mess. It's a common technique and here allows for the face to be well lit. The sword is farther back in space and wouldn't logically allow for enough light. He could introduce another weak fill and then have the fire backlight the character, but does that make it a superior piece? No, that would just be different but equally valid lighting.
>>2457026
>>2457944
cont.
>story
The spec he got was probably to create a splash with just this character and create the necessary feeling/mood. Not everything has to feel like a narrative story for it to be successful.
I agree about the horns. And I don't think this is one of his better pieces anyway.
Ruan has flaws like anyone else but whoever thinks it's "shit and the most generic crap imaginable" is pretty delusional.
>>2457344
No, it's the difference between looking hot at a normal distance and looking hot when you get so close you can see the pores on their face.
>>2457945
>>has flaws
like those catgirls
>>2457988
what a weeb, actually the holy trinity are all weebs.
>>2457944
>>2457945
Hey! I'm the poster. I thought about this and don't agree, I think lighting should be used as a tool to convey mood and frame the composition rather than just illustrating volumes, and there needs to be at least a hint of storytelling in the image. The pose isn't super stiff or anything, but a little bit of pushing would've made it look much more powerful.
I was probably too personal with the criticism and I went too far with the hyperbole for the sake of being contrarian. It is generic but it's not like Ruan Jia is a hack.
I love this kind of discussion btw, so thanks for being civil and making an argument.
>>2457281
So basically, you want to be walked on by halfnaked, dominant women with huge tits.
>>2458091
Personally, I think the lighting has enough mood cause the key is supplemented by the flame, reflections etc which give it that sense of "heat." The key then helps the composition by focusing the lighter values on his face. I feel like splash art especially in the LoL style way overuses a rim lighting approach nowadays, and I prefer softer lighting. But that's taste, so you bringing it up was a fair point.
I do agree that the teeth could've been pushed more. I like Ruan because I think his technique/style is able to elevate generic subject matter. It stands out. >>2457208 looks like it has less technical errors than Ruan's guild wars image, but to me it's an inferior piece because the way it is handled feels generic. Like there isn't much of a mark left by the artist, and a variety of digital painters could have achieved the same result. It doesn't diminish the quality of the piece though, and the story aspect helps of course. As a non 2D example take Marcin Klicki's sculpts vs. the sea of similarly-executed zbrush monsters.
>>2458101
Only if she isn't white, and preferably non-cis gender.
All you retards arguing about semantics of lighting on the piece when the only thing that matters is that it looks good.
So much autism on this board.
>>2458951
Yes.. except if you had been reading the thread:
1) He was compared to the legends.
2) ffs, it does matter since your brain subconsciously interprets patterns.
>>2457208
fantasyshit/10
>>2456537
At least I'm not wasting money on bottles of liquid every month
>>2459037
>>2456537
I mostly do traditional work 'cause I can't stand drawing on a tablet and I use no shortcuts so I actually work faster that way, but digital at this point has become so good there's very little reason to stick to traditional, even more so if you're aiming to be a professional in a field where being fast matters more than having a specific footprint.
>>2459475
>there's very little reason to stick to traditional
so having an actual skill isn't valid enough now? :^)
>>2459477
I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Most people who are great digitally can pick up a pencil and draw, so it's not like your get an exclusive skill.
Yes it feels great that I can use actual watercolors and control the water and use all the techniques I've learned, but it's not like digital artists can't get extremely close to that with a little thinking.
Digital artists are dependent on the omni-present technology that permeates every single aspect of your lives... well big deal, I depend on ever more expensive paints and paper, brushes and nibs that may or may not be shitty out of the box, and so on.
At this point I would actively discourage a newbie from pursuing traditional art. It's pretty much like arguing in favor of analog photography.
>>2459485
>Most people who are great digitally can pick up a pencil and draw
there are no great pure digitalfags, people who are great at digital are the ones that are already skilled and came from traditional mediums that decided to own the weak impotent digitalfags :^)
The big strong traditional man will always win against the little weak digital man.
>>2459475
>there's very little reason to stick to traditional
lol
>>2459493
this
>>2459496
There is literally nothing wrong with digital.
Any retards who thinks traditional is superior is just being pointlessly pretentious. Art is art, both take skill, if it looks good, it's good.
