How do you render like this?
>>7929004Soft and hard shadows, anatomy, ambient occlusion and a little bit of love
>>7929004airbrush + lasso tool + varied color palette overlays
>>7929004sometimes the artists replies go ask him/her
>>7929004This looks like they traced over a 3D model.
>>7929004better question how dont i render like this saar? whenever i render it look exactly like dis.
>you can actually see the aliasing from the laso tool because of the lazy rendering>that fucked up arm>that nose and ear>entire thread made over a generic anime girl on white backgroundThis fucking board man.
>>7929051redline it begtrash
>>7929008Pretty much this.Look up some tutorials OP, lots of artist do this type of rendering these days.
>>7929051There are two good reasons why the flaws you pointed out don't matter at all to how the work will be received. We should mull on that.
>>7929051Tits though. Automatic twitter likes
>>7929004i've always wondered what's the point of the white sparkles. on the breasts, the nipples, and the tummy
>>7929139sweat
>>7929004This is the easiest way that I've found to do it, to demonstrate I turned the drawing into black and white. It would have been easier to demonstrate if the artist kept the lines for the abs but it'll have to do.Okay the arms and face are just flat colors, nothing to interesting, but for the rest this is what you do
>>7929238Flats
>>7929239Oh shit forgot pic, anyways Flats
>>7929240Then a layer for Darks
>>7929242You duplicate the Dark Layer(and optionally do shit like add a Multiply effect to it or whatever), turn off/hide the original one, and then enable a Mask Layer
>>7929244And then on the layer where you enabled the mask, select the mask(the pure white shit that just popped out) and use a soft eraser and block out where you dont want the shadows/where the light should be hitting. And use a BIG eraser too, like that really helps with shit like rendering big tiddies to make em look soft, you kind of want to erase in one stroke and not constantly erase, it helps keep the edge of shadows more crisp
>>7929249And then after that you can just keep building on top of that normally on another layer. If you want to keep crisp lines you lay a good swatch of color down and blend in the middle but not at the edges to keep the lines
>>7929250Like even the titty light rings can be done with just a soft eraser. Look, just a blob of white on a separate layer
>>7929255Soft Eraser
>>7929258Then further refinment, esoft eraser when you can, etc.Also if you use CSP I can not recommend their default Flat Marker Brush enough. Shit with an edge is great for getting crisper shadows, and they can change the angle of it to get a wider swatch of color.
>>7929004Being able to make smooth gradients.Good color picking. Adding highlights.Also anatomy knowledge of course.
>>7929260The only thing that seems hard for me to figure out is the way the artist renders the nipples, there is a slight texture to the pink so they may be using a textured brush for that. Its either that or it may be because I'm using a mouse to render this so I dont have the pressure sensitivity to pull it off.But yeah the techniques themselves are simple, the rest is just refinement from there.
>>7929238>>7929240>>7929242>>7929249>>7929250>>7929255>>7929258>>7929260>>7929281just want to say this is a good process breakdown, and more people should do this when showing work, although i know how much of a pain in the ass it isthanks anon
>>7929291Seconding, you’re a Good Samaritan for taking the time to do this for others anon
>>7929151It's not sweat. If you look very closely skin is actually bumpy like that. I'm pretty sure that those are pores, and when you shine light on skin in a certain way you can actually see them like that. perhaps it is easier to see if the skin is wet or moist.
>>7929006>>7929004Texture slop + Perspective + Anatomy.
>>7929004Maybe try copying artists who can actually draw anatomyHER WRIST IS FUCKIN BROKEN
>>7929004By learning how light and shadows work. Also color theory if you want to color stuff.Not that it will help you in any way, since you are a lazy idiot and thus incapable of learning and/or applying any of this shit.
>>7929051it's amazing how desperately you want to be good at drawing, but all you can do is scream your frustrations into a void kek
>>7929281it's a shame you don't have the skills to back up your claims
>>7931902fat ameritard spotted
>>7932951Feel free to post your own examples, show us your skill, my bitter little anon.
>>7933016>replying to an obvious shit stirrercmon nigga if he had any he would've posted it as the replydon't feed it (you)'s, retard
>>7933016not gonna happen, as I don't want to out myselfI can fix your shitty "render" though if time will permit.also, don't be too butthurt. at least you tried, which is commendable.
>>7929281My good friend, how do you keep the skin from looking muddy while choosing which colors to apply? My stuff tends to get a little messy after anything more than 2 or 3 picks.
>>7929281Very good attempt at emulating their process. I'd say for the most part you aren't far off in their rendering process. The biggest thing missing is your ambient occlusion pass as that's what's going to give it the feeling of form yours is missing. Your shadow values are also too light and cool, they're making the skin look more dull and flat than ref. Overall it's a good job of a process breakdown.
>>7933199Well theres two answers for that. The obvious one is just taking existing color palletes that are out there and just use the color picking tool cause its not like human skin is the most unique thing to render, but I assume you mean if you already have a pallete but decide later on the colors aint looking rightFor that, thats where the original point of the masking layer comes into play. You see the point of editing with the mask layer is that you do all the rendering techniques on the mask itself, but the original layer remains untouched. That way, you can still keep all the rendering that you know for sure works, but if you dont like the colors later on you can select the original part of the layer to edit and change colors as much as you want until you feel you settled on something good
>>7933215Like here in this pic I selected the masking layer, but I didnt edit the mask itself where I did all the erasing for my rendering. What I did instead was select the original flat color that I had, selected a different value, and just used the basic bucket fill tool to change the value. And if you dont like it just undo and keep changing to you hearts content(you can do it with the original flat color layer too for all I care cause in my breakdown you never actually edit the flat color layer once you lay it down)However I would say this is the stage where you decide what colors you will want to use moving forward. Like in my file I had those steps where I indicated the abs but with this change to the darker more orange value those colors I used dont look good anymore.Honestly though when you get to this point in the rendering it should be obvious what works and what doesnt, from a color perspective at least
>>7933232Like just to make it REAL obvious I changed the skin to shades of blue, and again didnt have to touch the actual erasing I did for the rendering. Just selected the actual color part of the layer and changed it to blue. Same for the flats. And thats it. From there it should be easy to decide what additional colors you might want to add like a highlight color or a third more darker value that has some color to it to add variation to your shadows or whatever
>>7933248Yeah I guess I should just stick to a few palettes and color picking from other sources for now. I was under the impression that I should be able to tell and pick the correct colors from the color wheel right off the bat, but maybe I should ease myself into it a bit more first. Thanks man.
>>7933215>>7933232>Holy mudded pillow shading.my fucking sides.
>>7929004>>7929051so what is it? AI, tracing of a 3d body? It looks fucking disgusting.Just watch porn instead of pretending to make art.
>>7933364still better than anything you've drawn, begoid
>>7933366Nah will never be.
>>7933369And you're delusional too? Sad!
>>7933370Even a shitty drawing is better than using 3D Bodies or using AI. This is not controversial.
>>7933304crabs like you should always post your work with your insults or you lack of work speaks for you.
>>7933371True, but if you think guy in the OP used 3d models or AI (lmao) you're just a retarded begoid. Stop coping for your lack of skill. It's quite pathetic.
>>7933384Beyond obvious that OP is cheating in a way or another. Coloring and Artline is not art, you are not creating art by copying AI or copying a 3D model. Pretty simple to understand no?
>>7929244wtf is a mask
>>7929238>>7929281>>7929291process in image
>>7933389>Beyond obvious>in a way or anotherSo you're not even sure? Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this?
>>7933382I don't post my work for beglet dunning krugers that don't know their place.
>>7933371it's literally the same shitonly accomplished artists can brag about anything
>>7933402the blind leading the blind
>>7929008>varied color palette overlaysWhat does this mean? Subsurface scattering, like a bright red on an overlay layer above the shadow layer?
>>7933441>The blind critiquing the blind leading the blind
>>7933438Lmfao. Yeah that's what I thought. Sit down bitch.
>>7933206Nah yeah Im aware, like I didnt talk about how your supposed to lock the transparent pixels in your line art layer so you can paint the lines under her boobs that dark brown red easily. That one I should have mentioned cause it be useful. But my point wasnt to recreate this shit one to one the point was to show the process, cause the most complicated part of this piece is the actual underlying drawing itself cause you do need to know where the abs are and where to indicate the ribs from this angle, but the actual rendering of the piece is easy. Like those white pores for instance are just repeated dots that the artist probably had to tap away at on their tablet, and while I recognize I could have gone further its not my drawing(and doing this shit with a mouse fucking hurts) so I didnt feel like going beyond a first pass. Like Im sure anons who see the progress can understand how to get to the final OP image result with just actual refinement.
>>7933539>non defined belly area, because he doesn't understand how lighting works and can only copy boobaStop posting this crap jfc. You are so oblivious about your own shortcomings that I feel bad for you.
>>7933391This white shit right there. Enable it and you can manipulate the shit in your layer without actually effecting the layer
>>7933402wait, can someone tell me what the multiply thing does? ive seen an uncountable number of artist do it but i dont know whyyy they do it
>>7933559just google "multiply layer"
>>7933546Still hasn't posted their work btw
>>7933559Multiply layers are used to create a consistent shadow value that is affected by the local color. It's a very fast and cheap way to get your and base colors. Also makes tweaking for things like mood very simple. Since many professional digital artists use this routinely in a workspace that requires fast tweaks or iterations, it trickled down to laymen. My advice is use multiply layers, but don't let it substitute color theory. Selecting colors specific to material or mood is sort of the refinement process after you use multiply layers.
>>7933565I see... thanks a ton for the thorough response!
>>7933549why wouldn't you just duplicate the layer and manipulate that with the original as a backup
>>7929281you're a god i wonder though can i do all this with hard round on one layer
>>7933605I mean thats basically how I view masking layers anon. I can edit shit without ever touching the OG layer. But the added benefit is that I can manipulate two things at the same time like I showed in this post>>7933248I changed the color to blue without having to touch the edits I made on the mask. If I had just did everything in one layer I couldnt just change the color in a simple click cause I would lose the gradient effect I had going on. Like changing the values was easy with masking but here without the mask if I just do a simple paint bucket I lose the effect I had going on with the soft gradient. It just becomes solid color and doesnt even apply to all of them cause technically the pixels at the edges had a different value cause of the soft erase.Like Im sure you could change the colors some other way and keep the effect, but for my monkey brain its easier with masking and I can see changes faster
>>7933612i wanna see if i can do it as well lmao. for the meme.
>>7933402you’re a boss, thank you for everything you posted here
>>7929004you put a blindfold on and forget that bounce light exists, thus make values way too dark, but also imaginary shadows on the abs, nice HONK HONKERS but i cant be polluting my images collection like that...
>>7929021+1 to this
shit since it doesnt seem anybody mentioned it, those ab lines should be fleshed out with hue shift + like 1 darker value (see 10/11 value scale) tfw when you post a comment for people who know what you are talking about to agree with but for people who dont know to just scroll by, effectively meaningless...
>>7933441bait + retarded
>>7932992Wow good job finding an image from a completely different perspective drooling retardNow instead try taking a picture of OPs pose and watch your wrist snap in half
>>7933565>>7933586to add to this for completeness, multiply is literally RGB multiplication: given a pixel in the top layer (A = (Ra, Ga, Ba)), multiply the corresponding pixel with the visible image/layer (B) below -where C is the final pixel, and the RBG value range of 0-255 is normalized to 0.0-1.0:C = (((Ra * Rb) / 255), ((Ga * Gb) / 255), ((Ba * Bb) / 255))outside of math, the practical applications are this:1. you can use any color, not just black and white, with multiply layers, and pure black and white - pure white on the top layer is effectively 0 for all channels (eg nothing about the layer/image below the multiply layer is changed) and pure black is effectively 1 for all channels (eg the bottom layer is covered in pure black). other colors do not have these properties since at least one channel (eg R, G, or B) will be between 0 and 12. multiply can be a bit of "fishing with a shotgun" tool - it can be easily abused if you aren't consciously considering your values, and can make your shadows look "off" if you choose a poor color. you can adjust the opacity and soft erase the layer just like any other layer to shape it as well, which can be useful in getting the right color blend you want. since alpha channels aren't considered on a multiply layer, adjusting the opacity on a pure black layer *will make the layer/image below it visible*. pure black is still not recommended despite this, since a semi-transparent pure black multiply layer *is functionally the same as a semi-transparent normal layer*, and a semi-transparent pure black shadow almost universally gives poor results - it almost always lacks color harmony and just makes your shadows look muddy. tldr - don't use pure black, consider warm/color relationships when picking your multiply layer color, and opacity can be useful for dialing what you want when you have a good color picked
>>7933902Kill yourself retarded amerilard begtrash. Idiot begoids like you shouldn't be allowed to post here.
>>7929051>butthurt coomers immediately jump to the defence of generic weeb shit whore in an empty white voidPathetic
>>7933982That's a really nice reference. The perspective, the flow of the limbs, the beautiful oranges tinting towards vibrant pinks contracted against the cools of sky with the blue swimsuit as a compliment and contrast. I wanna paint itt
>>7933992don't post your beg doodles on lined paper
>>7929051this sort of petty minutia would never be noticed by the work's intended audience>inb4 so im right thenim not saying you're right, but i am saying that zooming into an anime girl's sternum to pick out apparent flaws is missing the forest for the trees, especially when this work did half a million impressions on twitter
>>7934008It's actually a blackpill lmfao cause by all means it's pretty sloppily done. The close you look the more laziness you see. The fact that a 3d model was most likely used is just the cherry on top. I can't even blame the artist, to me it seems they're just being pragmatic about how they produce art since they've gotten to the stage where this is their job. Who isn't going to cut corner at work? Especially when the customer is willing to consume anything long as it gets their rocks off.
>>7934012you deeply overestimate the discernment of the average eye, and the willingness for the established and experienced artist to care about this sort of thing. whether it's 3d traced/bashed or rendered in a hurry is largely irrelevant.>It's actually a blackpillknowing your would-be fans aren't combing the pixelated details of your (lowered resolution) pieces, gladly enjoying it a healthy distance away from the screen as intended, is a "blackpill"?
>>7933902it's the same fucking pose, you moron>a dumbass that can't think in 3d calling others drooling retardspeak irony
>>7933895I can tell you are a bleglet tooif you think that shading on her stomach is anything but beglet tier, then you are just as bad or worse than OP
>>7933982>>7934079case in point
>>7934080OP image isn't his best work, but nobody on /ic/ is better than the guy in the op though
>>7933642ah, that wasn't me, i just did the easy part of compiling everything together
>>7934082>but nobody on /ic/ is better than the guy in the op though
>>7934082I wasn't talking about the original image. I was referring to the begtard trying to teach others how to shade.this guy has no idea what he's doing>>7933402Look at that stomach and the way he airbrushed the lighting. complete utter crap.
>>7934459Ah, I agree then.
>>7934031It's like you only read the first 4 words of what I wrote
>>7929281>>7929260>>7929258>>7929255>>7929250>>7929249>>7929242>>7929240>>7929238Unfathomably based, thank you art-teacher sama
>>7933304>>7933438>>7934080Ah, my bad anon, I forget to tell the anons in this thread the final step to the process which is draw the rest for yourself you worthless cunt my fucking god Im not a render monkey
>>7933539>Like those white pores for instance are just repeated dots that the artist probably had to tap away at on their tabletIt's a textured brush anon
>>7934585Eeeh but you can get the same effect. Again Im assuming most anons on here dont have whatever brush this artist had so why would I say "Use this artists brush" when I dont even have it
>>7934593I'm just clarifying your process breakdown anon since you claimed they just dotted the canvas. It isn't an affront to what you did so don't take it that way.
>>7934599Nah your good I get ya
Fuck might as well post the rest of the steps for the anons who arent fucking retarded.If anyone asks again its just fucking refinement. All I did for most of this was just lay down color and just use the fucking blend tool. Any sharp edges you see was just fucking using the line tool or flat marker and just soft erasing or again just blending
>>7934668
>>7934670
>>7934671
>>7934668>>7934670>>7934671>>7934672Random lurker in this thread but am I the only one that thinks rendering looks boring as fuck?I just wanna jam a pike in my throat every time I see people spend hours meticulously rendering something that someone will take a half-second glance at before moving onto the next picture in their feed.
>>7934672And there ya fucking go. Turn on the layers I had for the tits and you get this >>7934582>UUUhhh-erm, but the RIIBS~~~If I cant see every single break process breakdown I sperg out an a chinese basket weaving forum!!!Im sure you can figure out the fucking rest, the other anons here fucking did
>>7933982how fat does american have to be to think this posture will snap wrists in half
>>7934674No, you just think this specific slop rendering style is boring as fuck. There are many very unique and beautiful rendering styles but you don't see them until they become popular the imitated and oversaturated to the point of nausea. It's only exaggerated by the talentless jeets and kikes that frequently scan for new styles to rip and steal then spam the internet with.
>>7934674OP's image did not take hours to make nor was it meticulously rendered. It's a very sloppy drawing that passes because of the subject matter, I bet you if you asked them they'd say this was a lazy sketch because of how unpolished it is. Once you have a workflow worked out, you can shit drawings like this out within a couple hours. Really good artists can shit something like this out in an hour with an efficient workflow.
>>7934683less than desu especially since this is clearly a traced 3d model
>>7934674As the anon who was making this breakdown, nah I 100% agree it is. I mean the benefit is that you can zone out to some music or a podcast while doing it cause after you know how to do it its fucking mindless otherwise I wouldnt go any farther then like fucking manga/anime art for coloring. Painting backgrounds can be fun still though
>>7934676is this the new /beg/ meta? act like a retard in hopes you get spoonfed?
>>7934674... You do realize that hatching, half tones, stippling, etc are also rendering right? Like color isn't exclusive to Rendering. Rendering is just adding value and details to describe forms. Holy shit what even is this thread dude
>>7933441Cope.
>>7934714sry, I'll rephrasethe begs leading the begs
>>7934712i dont do any of that, I HATE RENDERING FUCK RENDERING I WILL NEVER RENDER ANYTHING I WILL BE A SKETCHLET FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE AND SPEND A MINIMUM OF 20 MINUTES PER DRAWING AND YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO STOP ME
>>7929004I wish I looked like this
>>7934674Most will take a half second glance at any art no matter how good, a few will sit down and appreciate it. You do it for them
>>7929004Could use more contrast...
>>7934570i didn't. the rest of your post hinders on a presupposition that a 3d model was "most likely" traced or extensively referenced. it doesn't need to be addressed because it's a flawed take, not that referencing 3d models matters anyway.
>>7937005Looks better what did you do?
>>7937178The rest of my comment is agreeing with what you're saying you fucking retard. If people want slop you give them slop it's not that complicated.
>>7937188Correction -> Tone Curve (layer)Set the correction layer mode to Soft LightSet the correction layer opacity to 38%Adjust the curves that the hit the most prominent peaks.You now have optimized your values (as far as they can be optimized without changing anything directly). Does not work cumulatively.
>>7937193>im agreeing with you>but only if you implicitly agree that this artist's audience is tasteless, his work is slop, and ignore the premise of my last post. im also still able to lie about what i said; that is, calling an artist "pragmatic" and lazy and a corner cutter for *allegedly* using 3d models that i alone was alleging, and that corner cutting is indicative in the work.>im going to call you a retard for good measurekill yourself
>t. retard
>>7929004you keep your hands out of your pants, and keep thinking of things that wont get you hard.its not easy, but its coomer work
>>7933402>>7933539>>7937005would/10giv gf that looks like dis pls saar
>>7933992>realizes he made a retarded remark>dodges>calls others patheticameritard confirmed
>it's amazing how desperately you want to be good at drawing, but all you can do is scream your frustrations into a void kek
>>7932948>projecting
>>7937229>artist's audience is tasteless and his work is slopCorrect, you having shit taste does not change that, you stupid nigger. If anything his work probably would have benefitted from tracing 3d, I mean fucking hell, just look at that arm.
>>7934008>likes on twitter is a good scale for qualityFucking kek.
>>7939608Shouldn't this be a good thing for a fag like you? normies have low standards and are the people that actually pays for art the vast majority of the time. if you don't care about normies then don't post your art anywhere except in some small group chat of your, dumbfuck.
>>7929004Turn the opacity down to 15-20% and build successive layers of airbrushed strokes.
>>7939608>likes on twitter is a good scale for qualitythis but unironically
