MONSTERWORK SHOP - FINAL VERSION DUE TONIGHT (MONDAY)

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Aha!  I finally got the waves to show up reasonably without sacrificing some of the spookiness of the darker image.  I also added some more highlight to the gun barrel so it showed up better, fixed the angle of his trigger hand and did some touch up on the boats and the lead cultist.  I'm calling this MISSION: COMPLETE.



Full size version:

http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr218/ProgZmax/deadlydepths7_zps17a4c9b0.png

[dactylopus]

OK, hope I can still post this:



I'll consider this final as far as the workshop goes, but I may continue to work on this on my own.  There are a few areas I think I could improve.  It was great to have something to work on, but the deadline was difficult to meet.

Thanks for the opportunity, and all of the kind comments and helpful criticism.  I'm pretty happy with this piece, considering it's my first real attempt at real digital art.

Everyone's work looks fantastic!  I'm going to have a hard time deciding who gets my vote.

[Kasander]

Great results, people.  Some of these would look great on the wall.
Kasander, yours would look excellent on a T-shirt!

Thanks!

All in all, I think everyone in this workshop did great and should give himself/herself a well-deserved pat in the back! I'm glad I could be helpful and give few ounces of advice to you guys. I wish all those who had to drop out could have more time to finish their pieces. Some of these monsters looked very promising, to say the least. 


@ selmiak
Now I wonder why you were asking about coloring before. You did some splendid work with on that piece. The progress between 'penisosaurus' and your last painting is huge. It seems to me you don't really need any special tips. You already know the 'how to do it's of digital painting very well. At this point you don't really need much advice... except maybe looking more at the references, like pictures of nature (I've noticed your tendency to do similar, oval-shaped rocks) . You can steadily improve on you own. Great idea with introducing warm source of light (torch) as opposite to the cold blue light on the left. Great lighting and shading overall. I'm really impressed.

@ Cerno
You've done great! It's looking much more polished now. I love the details and the light that comes from wizard's orb. You seem to have a good eye for picking colors, Cerno. Perhaps you should consider old-school 'acrylics/oils on canvas' painting as a hobby? As Stupot says, your painting would look great on the wall!
----




-----
Back to my monster.
It's the same picture, I've only marked some major mistakes or things which could be improved upon. It would benefit from couple hours of polishing.


1. The right arm of a warrior needs a proper, real life reference or enlisting help of some humanoid (model). I didn't have time for this, so I've only googled for javelin throwers - and it turned out there are no pics of them photographed from this very angle. An artists' anatomy book could do the trick, too.   
2. The light on parts of the warrior is too bright. It could be ok if she was closer to the monster but she's quite far actually.
3. I could introduce a third character to the scene. It would fill an empty corner of the painting and also could bring along some source of light -a torch or lantern.
4. The hanging roots were a late addition and were supposed to be an early stage of carniparas (the plant that 'grows' from monsters' hands). I think they draw a bit too much attention, so darkening should  solve the problem.
Any suggestions about these or other issues are of course most welcomed.

[Snarky]

I'm very impressed with the finished pieces here. Selmiak, Cerno and ProgZmax in particular handily outdid my expectations based on the initial sketches.

As a general comment, I think in almost all cases, introducing people into the picture has detracted from the impact of the monster.

First, humans draw a lot of attention, which means drawing it away from the monster (Andail's picture is perhaps the clearest example of this). Second, the heroic poses chosen by e.g. Kasander and Selmiak tend to change the tone from nightmarish to "video game boss battle"-ish. The only case where I think it really works is SookieSock's sketch, which successfully captures the drama of D&D art.

[selmiak]

@ selmiak
Now I wonder why you were asking about coloring before. You did some splendid work with on that piece. The progress between 'penisosaurus' and your last painting is huge. It seems to me you don't really need any special tips. You already know the 'how to do it's of digital painting very well. At this point you don't really need much advice... except maybe looking more at the references, like pictures of nature (I've noticed your tendency to do similar, oval-shaped rocks) . You can steadily improve on you own. Great idea with introducing warm source of light (torch) as opposite to the cold blue light on the left. Great lighting and shading overall. I'm really impressed.

thanks. I didn't use any b/w colorvolume at all, just painted where I felt it is right
So I wondered if there is maybe some hidden magic to these lightvolumes I don't see. But then I think for 2 lightsources it gets really hard to read in b/w.
I didn't use any references at all except for the pose of the character but this reference was not spot on and had to be improved, but you are right, nearly all stones look alike. Only the stones in the foreground look different, there I was creative somehow, the rest was just mere filler stuff or so.

The root in the upper right don't distract at all, they look good and I like pictures where I can find even more interesting things after seeing the main theme of the image. I'd even add them to the lower right too, it fits the theme really good. The 2nd character is also a good idea I'd like to see but time is up, I'd also like to add some more stuff to my picture



and I think this might be useful for interested people, so here is a little shading progress

[Kasander]

As a general comment, I think in almost all cases, introducing people into the picture has detracted from the impact of the monster.

First, humans draw a lot of attention, which means drawing it away from the monster (Andail's picture is perhaps the clearest example of this). Second, the heroic poses chosen by e.g. Kasander and Selmiak tend to change the tone from nightmarish to "video game boss battle"-ish. The only case where I think it really works is SookieSock's sketch, which successfully captures the drama of D&D art.

Well, as far as things go for me, that "video game boss battle" look was pretty much what I was aiming for. Quote from my monster thread:

"My main goal: to paint a monster that I could put in my concept art/illustration portfolio.
It has to be a monster that could be used in a video game. I'm thinking about a big, high-leveled, 'boss' type creature that player's character could encounter at the end of some maze, at the bottom of the cave or...well, at the end of the level "

As for the other people's works, I think that what you perceive as being either video game or DnD look is highly subjective. IMHO, Selmiak's picture has a very DnD feel. The whole scene is set in a dungeon, and there's that classical hero in a cape, with a torch. The earlier version of it reminded me about a scene from certain DnD book from Endless Quest series. That's because selmiak's monster was a bit frog-like to me and the setting was similar to the one pictured in the book (Dungeon of Dread, page 30). Even more so, there's waheela's picture, which as I was saying from the start, remind me of those CYOA and Endless Quest books by its first person perspective... and it's has VERY little (if any) video game feel. Shane's picture could easily fit into any CoC RPG article from rpg mag I used to read in the last millenium... On the other hand, Cerno's picture with its powerful colors remind me of expressionistic paintings and posters from 1920s-1930s. And so on...       

So I'd say, monstrosity is in the eye of beholder

PS As for me and human in my picture, you could also put the blame on Andail who posted link to Frazetta's works. Those were really inspiring. Looking at them convinced me to bring monster's opponent in    

The root in the upper right don't distract at all, they look good and I like pictures where I can find even more interesting things after seeing the main theme of the image. I'd even add them to the lower right too, it fits the theme really good. The 2nd character is also a good idea I'd like to see but time is up, I'd also like to add some more stuff to my picture

Thanks for the feedback. I'll finish this as soon as I have more time. It would be cool to have some 'monster after party' with the 'definitive' versions of the monsters . It's just that most of the folks didn't have enough time on their hands to finish their pieces and dropped out of the workshop at one point or the other.

I'd really want to encourage others to finish their works... Pursuing and finishing one thing gives you so much more than having dozen WIP on the board (I wish I knew that obvious truth much earlier).

[Andail]

PS As for me and human in my picture, you could also put the blame on Andail who posted link to Frazetta's works. Those were really inspiring. Looking at them convinced me to bring monster's opponent in    

Hey! Snarky already explained I was guilty of the biggest attention-diverting crime here, and now you to tell him to blame me even more?

I personally find the human figures in most of these paintings really fitting, if not downright necessary. Especially Selmiak's monster didn't even strike me as more than insect-sized before the man showed up, and it was also impossible to understand what he was doing there. Now there's a context, a story to be read - he's gigantic and he's guarding the cave there. Or something.

[Cerno]

@ Cerno
You've done great! It's looking much more polished now. I love the details and the light that comes from wizard's orb. You seem to have a good eye for picking colors, Cerno. Perhaps you should consider old-school 'acrylics/oils on canvas' painting as a hobby? As Stupot says, your painting would look great on the wall!

But really, being pessimistic me, I'll attribute this to beginner's luck until I'll be able to reproduce it.
Thanks for all the help and encouragement, to everyone here. Wouldn't have been able to pull it off otherwise.

Looking at the picture again today, it's kinda hard to believe I did this.

[Snarky]

Well, as far as things go for me, that "video game boss battle" look was pretty much what I was aiming for. Quote from my monster thread:

"My main goal: to paint a monster that I could put in my concept art/illustration portfolio.
It has to be a monster that could be used in a video game. I'm thinking about a big, high-leveled, 'boss' type creature that player's character could encounter at the end of some maze, at the bottom of the cave or...well, at the end of the level "

OK, then I guess you achieved what you were going for! I still think it's a bit of a shame, though, since it tends to "safen" what's arguably the scariest monster in the whole contest.

As for the other people's works, I think that what you perceive as being either video game or DnD look is highly subjective.
...
So I'd say, monstrosity is in the eye of beholder

I probably didn't express that quite right. SookieSock's battle has a kind of serenity of drama, a grandeur that reminded me of a certain kind of D&D art. Maybe Shadow of the Colossus would have been a more appropriate reference. My point was that I think the human (and horse) in that picture is essential to its effectiveness, which in my view isn't the case in the other examples (not counting waheela's, in which we don't really see the person apart from the hands). They certainly have other qualities, but I would argue that they would generally be better without the people in them.

Hey! Snarky already explained I was guilty of the biggest attention-diverting crime here

Well, you did talk about how you expected to spend the last half of the contest mainly working on the characters, so my impression is that this is true for the artist as well as for the viewer.

I personally find the human figures in most of these paintings really fitting, if not downright necessary. Especially Selmiak's monster didn't even strike me as more than insect-sized before the man showed up, and it was also impossible to understand what he was doing there. Now there's a context, a story to be read - he's gigantic and he's guarding the cave there. Or something.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. 

Selmiak's entry certainly improved greatly in the final edit, but I think he could have achieved what you were missing without adding a human character to the scene.

[Kasander]

OK, then I guess you achieved what you were going for! I still think it's a bit of a shame, though, since it tends to "safen" what's arguably the scariest monster in the whole contest.

Oh, there would be no problem with removing the human warrior if there was need. It's PS after all and she's on a separate layer   I wanted it to function not only as a piece of concept art but also as a painting that could feature on a book or game cover. A lonely monster is just a piece of concept art, not much more. A video game concept art or DnD concept art, it's pretty much the same case to me. It can be more scary since all the focus is on it (+1), but it lacks the story (-1) and can't be seen as a painting per se  (-1)

I probably didn't express that quite right. SookieSock's battle has a kind of serenity of drama, a grandeur that reminded me of a certain kind of D&D art. Maybe Shadow of the Colossus would have been a more appropriate reference. My point was that I think the human (and horse) in that picture is essential to its effectiveness, which in my view isn't the case in the other examples (not counting waheela's, in which we don't really see the person apart from the hands). They certainly have other qualities, but I would argue that they would generally be better without the people in them.

Well, I disagree. In most cases these other qualities greatly outweight the 'negatives'. Qualities like background story and drama that comes with it. I could only agree with you to some extent in Andail's case - and that's because the monster occupies relatively small part of the picture. Having said that, I still think Andail's decision was a 100% valid one. Pushing the moster to the background made his painting quite original and refreshing. It's one of the most creative and ambitious paintings here.

Perhaps works like Andail's or mine fit the theme of 'monster workshop' less, but thanks to introducing humans, as well as other elements (like Andail's hoverbike) we all could learn so much more. And that's what workshops are about in the end, aren't they?    

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. 
Selmiak's entry certainly improved greatly in the final edit, but I think he could have achieved what you were missing without adding a human character to the scene.

Like how? Elaborate, please.

Introducing the story in this kind of art is easiest when it's being built on tension. And the tension is easiest to build between two opposites. Between circle and triangle, between big monster and small human, etc.

In selmiak's case, the improvement over the early version seems to me quite stunning. What was initially a picture of a cartoony, lonely creature (it wasn't even a 'monster', until selmiak painted the human in, showing the true scale of it), turned out to be one of the best paintings of the workshop. Removing a human (together with the source of warm light) would cut down it's impact by half. 

There are also pictures in which introducing human could make a painting more effective, because it would show the monster's scale, add a story and tension, like for example in cat's picture (she didn't want to paint human in because it could destroy the composition).

On a side note, Miguel had a clever idea with the dungeon door, which helped to show the real scale of his monster and he found a way (chains, blood) to introduce a story without introducing a human.

I mean it. What I've said before about beginners being afraid of using colors (in art classes even), I spoke from experience. Man, I've seen people who are so afraid of 'those disturbing colors' they hide in the cellar developing b/w photography all of their life. It's like they were looking at the world throuh their noble b/w lenses, color blind! When they see a raibow they almost faint And some of them are academic-level professors ! So yeah, it's refreshing to see a beginner who isn't afraid of colors.

[miguel]

Regarding the monster effect mentioned by Snarky I think that in no circumstances was I detracted from the notion of monstrosity (when human figures were added). In fact, like said before, it gave those paintings some story, drama and a notion of scale in most cases.
This is all obvious and a technique used very frequently. The use of human figures enhanced the monstrosity of the beast portrayed.

[Misj']

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. 

I also want to agree that I disagree with you

The original rule-set clearly stated:

This workshop isn't exactly game-oriented, since I'm asking you to make a full-sized, hi-res illustration. This time your artwork should feature any kind of monster of your own design. It can be a portrait, or a whole scene. It can be cartoony or horrifically realistic, any genre, style or execution.

...

* We're talking illustration here, so it's not a sprite, and it's not a background. While it may be a portrait, it's a portrait with some sort of backdrop (not just a floating face). Preferably, there's something going on, or at least something being expressed.

It never demands monsters to be nightmarish, evil, etc., and I personally think that a focusing solely on 'scary' is way to limiting and one-dimensional (character-wise). I actually applaud putting the monster's behaviour into context; and that includes an antagonist (the humans). Take for example Mordalles' monster, with the city in the background he give me the impression of a guardian rather than a monster in the 'evil' sense...and that would actually make him a good guy. That doesn't make him less of a monster though.

[Snarky]

Unlike a lot of you, apparently, I was always more interested in this workshop as being about portraying a monster than "paint a nice picture and stick a monster in there somewhere." Perhaps it's just because I do tend to look at all of these activities as ultimately being about informing game creation (at least in theory), so in my mind this workshop was "really" about making monster concept art.

Oh, there would be no problem with removing the human warrior if there was need. It's PS after all and she's on a separate layer   I wanted it to function not only as a piece of concept art but also as a painting that could feature on a book or game cover. A lonely monster is just a piece of concept art, not much more. A video game concept art or DnD concept art, it's pretty much the same case to me. It can be more scary since all the focus is on it (+1), but it lacks the story (-1) and can't be seen as a painting per se  (-1)

Regarding the monster effect mentioned by Snarky I think that in no circumstances was I detracted from the notion of monstrosity (when human figures were added). In fact, like said before, it gave those paintings some story, drama and a notion of scale in most cases.
This is all obvious and a technique used very frequently. The use of human figures enhanced the monstrosity of the beast portrayed.

No doubt adding humans can solve certain problems, and I don't mean to say it's always the wrong choice (I liked Mordalles tiny soldier figures, for examples). But I don't agree with the implication that it's the only way to solve them, or the best way. Ben304 did it using props and dramatic lighting. Mordalles and miguel used the setting, primarily (as did I in my sketch). Waheela put the person almost entirely out of frame.

Like how? Elaborate, please.

Introducing the story in this kind of art is easiest when it's being built on tension. And the tension is easiest to build between two opposites. Between circle and triangle, between big monster and small human, etc.

Well, for example, one of selmiak's original reference images was Gollum sitting on a rock, which I think accomplishes a lot of storytelling very simply.

For storytelling and tension, there's a lot that can be done with posing/action, light, point of view and field of view, atmospheric perspective, and props/scenery. Or even some creature other than a human. (For a cheesy example, what if in your image, instead of the charging warrior with the spear, there was a terrified cat raising its back?) My personal opinion is that exploring some of these options could, in most of these examples, have led to more interesting solutions than just sticking a person in there (which starts to feel a bit like a cop-out once everyone starts doing it, and IMO blunts the effectiveness).

If it helps, maybe try to think about landscape photos and other pictures with no humans in the image. They can still have drama, conflict/contrast, and even tell a story. It might be more challenging, but that also means the solutions can be more interesting.

In selmiak's case, the improvement over the early version seems to me quite stunning. What was initially a picture of a cartoony, lonely creature (it wasn't even a 'monster', until selmiak painted the human in, showing the true scale of it), turned out to be one of the best paintings of the workshop. Removing a human (together with the source of warm light) would cut down it's impact by half.

I certainly wouldn't eliminate the light, no.

There are also pictures in which introducing human could make a painting more effective, because it would show the monster's scale, add a story and tension, like for example in cat's picture (she didn't want to paint human in because it could destroy the composition).

Again the thinking seems to be, "Hmm... there's a problem with some aspect of this image. What to do? Oh, just stick a person in there! Problem solved!"

How about adding some smaller fishes for scale instead? Or adjusting those underwater plants to give a greater sense of scale? Make the dragon trail bubbles? Increasing the use of atmospheric perspective/water haze, and adding some particles? Putting in some underwater cliffs, or a wreck in the distance, a sunken city or something? (I get the impression cat ran out of time, and maybe she would have tried some of these options if she were to work more on it.)

I actually applaud putting the monster's behaviour into context; and that includes an antagonist (the humans).

The assumption that a monster picture can't be interesting and dramatic without a human fighting it or fleeing from it (to exaggerate a bit) seems to me like a creative capitulation.

This is probably coming across more aggressively than I intend it. I'm just trying to convince you that there are drawbacks, and that it's worth trying to come up with alternatives.

[cat]

I get the impression cat ran out of time, and maybe she would have tried some of these options if she were to work more on it.

Actually, I ran out of ideas. I added atmospheric perspective, but maybe it was not enough. I wouldn't know how and what to add without looking out of place.

[dactylopus]

With my piece, I ran out of time.  I would have gone further with detail on the rocks, added more fur texture to the monster, and drawn a better human, among other tweaks.  I stupidly drew the light source before the character, and as a result the scale is a little off from what I was going for.

All of the criticisms helped, at least to understand what I was doing wrong.

I was inspired by the 'Frazetta Triangle' we had discussed early on, and I tried to give my piece a geometric feel.

Final criticisms:

I think that ProgZ's is still a little too dark for me, but it came out really nice overall.

I can see that time was an issue for others.  Miguel's as well as my own could have benefited from more attention.  Also, others were unable to complete and had to drop out.  It's unfortunate.

I am surprised with how well selmiak's piece turned out.  The second light source helped a lot.  The same can be said of Cerno's piece.

Kasander, cat, and waheela's pieces are all great, and show really nice progress throughout.

My top picks would have to be Mordalles, Andail, selmiak, 304, and SookieSock, but well done by all.

[Misj']

Unlike a lot of you, apparently, I was always more interested in this workshop as being about portraying a monster than "paint a nice picture and stick a monster in there somewhere." Perhaps it's just because I do tend to look at all of these activities as ultimately being about informing game creation (at least in theory), so in my mind this workshop was "really" about making monster concept art.

I would normally agree with you on this. However, the contest clearly stated that "this workshop isn't exactly game-oriented, since I'm asking you to make a full-sized, hi-res illustration". Still, as you could see from my posts, I still approached it largely as making a monster concept-art; working with character sheets, clothing concepts, etc. But that's largely the way I work. To me this was the main goal of the first week (and it could easily have lasted another two, three weeks (read: months)).

In the second half - the half that never got finished unfortunately - I tried to put that character into an environment to give her context and story; and actually show that she's the hero and not the villain.

I actually applaud putting the monster's behaviour into context; and that includes an antagonist (the humans).

The assumption that a monster picture can't be interesting and dramatic without a human fighting it or fleeing from it (to exaggerate a bit) seems to me like a creative capitulation.

That's what I think about monsters having to be scary or nightmarish - Anyway, I don't think the monster can't be interesting without humans (or other monsters, or potato-chips) fighting or fleeing to/from it. Fighting and fleeing (antagonists) isn't the main context that makes a monster a monster (I would rather say that threat and misunderstanding are). But I also didn't make the assumption you pointed out: I just said that I applaud people putting the monster's behaviour into context (story). And that this context includes an antagonist; because without the antagonist the character would behave differently and probably not monster-like (like a lion protecting her children).

But I like context and I like story. And creating a (back)story and context is part of my process when designing a character. The difference is, that in this case we also got to show it.

ps. That's also why I don't like 304's piece. It's a great monster, great use of light, technique, composition, etc. (and I like his final stance)...but there is no context...there is no environment (just a background). Good concept-art, limited story.

pps. A similar activity focusing on (high-res) concept-art for a game, and a low(er)-res interpretation thereof for in-game use would be great though. Maybe focusing on warriors (or priests)...

[Snarky]

That's what I think about monsters having to be scary or nightmarish

I never said they did. Many entries were not, and that's fine. But I felt the strength of certain entries were their nightmarish monsters, and in those cases it seemed a shame not to push that aspect as much as possible.

- Anyway, I don't think the monster can't be interesting without humans (or other monsters, or potato-chips) fighting or fleeing to/from it. Fighting and fleeing (antagonists) isn't the main context that makes a monster a monster (I would rather say that threat and misunderstanding are). But I also didn't make the assumption you pointed out: I just said that I applaud people putting the monster's behaviour into context (story). And that this context includes an antagonist; because without the antagonist the character would behave differently and probably not monster-like (like a lion protecting her children).

I still don't think I agree that an "antagonist" (which doesn't sound very different from "someone fighting/fleeing from the monster") is a necessary part of the context. A dragon sleeping on its pile of treasure is clearly still a monster (and a scene that can tell a story and work as an illustration); a troll cowering under a rock, hiding from the sun, is a monster (I guess you could call the sun the antagonist in that scene, but that's getting a little abstract for my taste); a sentient fungus spreading its tentacles of rot over the ceiling of an empty living room is a monster; a flock of sky bison stampeding through the thunderclouds are monsters.

[Cerno]

I have to admit, I feel the monster-and-human-for-reference composition has been overdone a bit in general. I was thinking of whether I should go in that direction in the beginning but felt that I wasn't in a position to create something really unique. So I tried for something well-explored (my initial reference images had two such setups).

ps. That's also why I don't like 304's piece. It's a great monster, great use of light, technique, composition, etc. (and I like his final stance)...but there is no context...there is no environment (just a background). Good concept-art, limited story.

I have to disagree here (I sense a lot of disagreement lately).

First, for me, a great image does not have to have a story to work well, although it surely helps as it adds another layer to the piece.
Second, 304's piece has a lot of elements that raise questions which in turn build the story in the observer's mind (at least mine).

So there's this monster here in a destroyed and abandoned building. There is a summoning circle but nobody is around. What happened? The atmosphere is calm and serene, so obviously the house has not been destroyed by the incantation or the monster. There's a full moon, so maybe that triggered the portal in the summoners' absence. I think the image has a lot of tension between the calm and the aggressive. For me it marks the beginning of a story where a monster is called into an unsuspecting, sleeping world. Kind of disturbing really.

Great atmosphere and imagery here. Any further characters would completely destroy that. For me it's much more than a monster concept.
Damn, writing that makes me want to change my vote!

[Snarky]

Cerno, that's a better interpretation than mine, where the monster got drunk, smashed his glass and a hole in the wall, and is now standing around swaying and wondering what happened to his pants. (See, the real monster is alcohol!)

[Cerno]

Cerno, that's a better interpretation than mine, where the monster got drunk, smashed his glass and a hole in the wall, and is now standing around swaying and wondering what happened to his pants. (See, the real monster is alcohol!)

I was so wrong!