What can I improve on in this scene?
>>520686
Tone the glow the fuck down
We're not on a boat, I'm getting dizzy just looking at it
No composition , pose is meh
Flat lighting everywhere, no shadows
>>520688
There is a direct shadow pointing to the left of the image. you can see shadow on his chest and on the pathway behind him.
>>520686
Lose them BS proportions currently they are blizzard-tier. Enhance the design by making him look more like a warrior and less like an homoerotic laser-disco mecha by removing all the glowing crystals.
Instead provide his helmet with slits so he can do useful combat tasks like for example see things and breathe.
Lose the nuclear lolipop typ device and give him a dangerous looking weapon like a sharp axe of a size that make it look actually usefull as a weapon.
Isolate him from the background and improve the depth of the render by deepening occlusion type shadows on his armor and provide some rimlights.
Also work on the contrast of the whole render.
I would tweak the pose some too, but at least correct that foot penetrating the floor.
I suggest tilting the camera, the dramatic lean seems a bit too much. Basically De-Blizz the whole image.
>>520710
Congratulations, you managed to make it worse
>>520710
De-Blizz....but it IS blizz.
Heres one thats a little changed.
>>520686
from the point of an amateur, the glow on the wings is too much, pose is quite strange, looks like his feet are entering the ground, the glows are awesome, really feels like a dreanei pally
Where did you get the textures, or you followed any tutorial?
>>520719
See my above image^
>Wings were scrapped
>Feet ajusted
>>520719
I just extracted the textures from wow model viewer.
>>520716
Try to pose him so that the glowing tip is 1/3 the way down the bottom left, and his head 1/3 the way in the top right. His leg/feet should be in the bottom right.
Also, try to frame him with nothing behind him, so his silhouette can be clearly seen
>>520722
This guy knows his spielberg. Do as he says
>>520710
this is worse
>>520716
I like how the background is washed out beacuse it brings out the character, but remember that if blacks are lifted it has to be for a reason. because of this, it's weird how even in the mid-foreground everything feels washed out as well. The lighting is also quite flat. try getting a stronger directional lighting from t he right side and less ambience... t his will create more mood and shaping, especially because the key will light his right side while his flowing staff will act as a rim/kicker.
>>520774
not everything has to be high contrast, kid
>>520710
>currently they are blizzard-tier.
It's almost as if his image is WoW based.
>>520686
delete all? y/n y
>>520686
Use fewer ripped assets.
>>520781
yeah but I agree with him. More extreme lighting, even a little bit, would really make the scene pop.
>>520781
I'm not saying to make it high contrast... try to read what I said again and understand. it's about shaping the scene and composition and getting a logical dynamic range, and this doesn't necessarily mean extreme crushed blacks and blown out highlights.
usually, if something has really lifted blacks in a scene, it has a cause. atmospheric perspective, haze, smoke, mist. yeah there are exceptions like in certain grades used in music videos but I'm sure you'd agree this hardly brings that kind of mood to mind. because there isn't any source for the lifted blacks in the fg it just looks like bad color correction / weird gamma.
>>520781
The problem is the scene's contrast range is flat, and it makes initial reads harder. Contrast is used to separate your fore/mid/background, as a general rule you'll have the highest value variations in the foreground, and stick with mid-range tones the farther back you go. In OP's scene, the range of values is fairly small all over, even in the foreground.
See pic related for comparison. Expanding the foreground values helps with the initial read a lot. It's much easier to tell what's going on and where the focal point of the picture should be.
>>521100
>initial reads meme
>separate fg and bg meme
>>521101
how would you fix it then michelangelo
>>521103
theres nothing "2" fix. Just now when I was looking out my window, saw a small rabbit, munching away. He was hard to see, blending into the surroundings. I wouldnt change him to SEPARATE THE FG AND BG or POP.
>>521104
>the fantasy warrior should gracefully blend in with his surroundings, much like a plant or a small animal
>>521107
>everything should be candy colored and neon because raisns.
Heres a free PROTIP: observe the real world. Camouflage is a thing - a big thing. Postprocessing like filmic tonemapping and crushing blacks doesnt happen, either.
>>521109
I don't think the OP is trying to copy a picture.
If you have reasonable artistic knowledge you should understand that art isn't trying to copy real life, if anything art tricks the brain into thinking it's like real life by distorting and exaggerating some aspects of it. Even "realistic" art does that.
Sure, some people dislike some of the techniques in use, but if this is an entertainment/videogame piece you can't tell me having a fantasy warrior that's /coming at you weapon drawn/ get lost within with his surroundings is a good thing.
If you're the OP, I dunno what to say, keep doing your own thing I guess.
>>521110
>I don't think the OP is trying to copy a picture.
obviously hes not because this kind of armor and weapons dont exist
>If you have reasonable artistic knowledge you should understand that art isn't trying to copy real life,
>defining what "ART" is and is not
>>521112
>muh style
By what logic what makes any of the shit you've said any more valid than mine?
>>521113
I observe the real world and dont just post memes like muh pop and muh tonemapping and muh bitcrush
>>521115
If you want to do your own thing instead of following basic design precepts, that's cool, but it doesn't mean these precepts are garbage or something no one should use.
>>521117
>If you want to do your own thing instead of following basic design precepts, that's cool
>doing my own thing is following literally billions of years of evolution
You're desperately trying to justify some "concepts" you got from gay old Walt disney in 1930 and then written about in "the Illusion"
>>521119
So is everybody that works in the entertainment industry, then.
Have you found a job yet, anon?
>>521120
>So is everybody that works in the entertainment industry, then.
what? Not everybodys interested in talking dogs and birds dancing because of gay old walt's principles.
Of course I've found a job. You'd have to suck not to.
>>521121
Can we see some art, then? I'm genuinely curious about these unseparated fore/background pieces, not trolling.
>>521123
fat chance bub
>>521125
>the most commonly used modern design techniques are garbage, I have, however, developed a unique style inspired by !real life! by looking out of my window, fucked if I gotta prove or explain anything on a crit thread, I'm just gonna call others' opinions trash
W-we're just having this conversation for fun though, right?
>>521126
>design as biblicized by waltar disney aka gay old walt
>dancing and talking animals is his #1 tool. Also, magic.
>fuck nature, fuck realism, fuck everything else
>>520686
bloom/10
>>521127
disney makes shit for kids. kids don't give a fuck about realism. or did you watch documentaries all day long as a kid because muh realism? everything doesn't have to be real. fantasy has its own place and so does realism. OP clearly isn't going for realism so artistic principles apply here.
fucking /3/ autists stuck in their one dimensional mindset, i swear. and when asked to show the work done with their "superior tactics", nothing is ever to be seen. i wonder why.
>>521161
> kids don't give a fuck about realism. or did you watch documentaries all day long as a kid because muh realism?
I remember when I was a kid and my mom forced me and my little bro to watch all that gay disney musical shit and mary poppins type shit. I hated it. What I did like was playing and watching sports (muh realism). I also liked so called minimal animation which was 80s/90s simpsons. Really, walt disney and his band of animators have forced this attitude down our throats like "this is your only choice. Get with musicals with dancing / talking birds or get lost". Its just not what most people are into on a daily basis.
>>521162
jeez dude, were you raped by disney or something?
your obsession with him is kinda funny desu
>>521173
have any actual points to address or ?
>>521177
you first
>>521181
I have, multiple times itt. Gb2 /g/
>>521187
the fact you're still managing to come up with comebacks even when presented with so little material to work with is impressive
it's obvious we're taking the piss at this point, but your genuine dedication to proving whatever it is you're trying to prove while simultaneously managing to completely avoid backing your arguments with any form of substance should be an inspiration to us all
>>521190
>typical non reply
ive never seen someone so butthurt over a low contrast render before
Really the character should be flipped though because everything flows to the left in this but the hammer clashes in a bad way
Let me jump on this bandwagon.
Forgive the liquify, that pose is horrible and the composition is uninteresting, and that can't be fixed by photoshop.
