>rolls up to the 90s comics scene with every unskilled retard trying to copy Jim Lee and Todd McFarlane>mogs everyone with the power of Loomis>leavesDid anyone else get further into art because of this nigga?
fug I wish I had rendering skills even a tenth of good as this man
>>8005680I actually really dislike this.In none of these are the eyes visible, the most important part of the character. This kind of art doesn't belong in storytelling. It's like if you tried to write a book from the pov of buster keaton, you would have nothing to write. And this art has nothing to say.
>>8005683SHIT image didn't upload>>8005696it's concept sketches man, not a full piece
>>8005699What use is a concept that shows no meaningful concepts?And the picture you use has the eyes obscured in almost all the characters. It's obvious he doesn't want to draw eyes because he doen't want his characters to have any personality because in reality his characters are just soulless mannequins and look better as just that and not as attempts to create living breathing characvters.They make for somewhat interesting illustrations but what kind of stories can you tell about them? Nothing at all. Comics are about stories, not posters.
>>8005714>guys why aren't cover pages illustrated the same as a comicReally nigga
>>8005680the virgin renderfag alex ross vs the chad drawcel mcfarlane
i did, op. i love him to death. bought physical copies of all of his books when they came out and kept one in the small stack of my fav’s for years. seeing his work whenever, in whatever context, still always makes me happy.
>>8005696I like it more than you do but yeah it's a little sus, I thought the big head on the far right was a skull at first
I heard in a podcast from a cartoonist who knows Alex Ross that apparently he's also really good at other comic styles. He could pull out Bruce Timm and Jack Kirby styles whenever he wanted
>>8005714you really need to read ross’s story. it’s exactly the opposite of what you guessed. i can’t even explain. basically in the end he’s the most deeply fatigued godlike being in existence and after a lifetime of cyclical struggle, tries to erase his presence in their lives, moving too far away from what it means to be human to relate to them as they do to each other. he’s more of a force of nature, and it should appear impossible to fully read/understand what he represents by just looking at the man for the human viewers, he should appear almost unnatural, like he’s not quite fixed to our dimension, and maybe wavers in and out of our perception of how we see him, or how much we can see of him. clark the retired farmer, a hero persona known to humanity, an incomprehensible alien, or yeah. in the pic we read the outline of a man and a suggestion of human features, but he’s not fathomable, or human, and we can’t see any deeper than that. like subtle cool scifi play with physics. this is thought when i see this pic, but it takes way too long to articulate. there’s a lot, but i dunno. read the comics ross painted, if you’re interested. but don’t listen to me, i grew up with his art, so am really just a fan. i wrote too much.
>>8005696Its aphantasic turbofaggots like you who larp as cultured art critiques that just hammer the last nail on the coffin that is /ic/. Im already regretting giving your retarded babble bait a (you) but here you go, take it, ram it up your ass then mcfuckenkill yourself you cock gobbling retard. Imagine disliking the absolute chad that is Alex Ross because ' i no le cant see the le eyes, le shadow bad booohooo', you are so fucking worthless and pathetic.
>>8005699>RTX
>>8005721The Toddfather always wins baby
>>8005696you should honestly be killed and i'm not joking.
I like the hidden eyes. It feels heroic.
>>8006270People have eyes and they are generally visible when you are looking at their face yes. Sorry if that offends you.
>>8006237His comics look fucking awful. They look like photobashed.
>>8006524I wonder if the repulsion I feel when I look at this is what some other people feel when they look at anime
>>8006517its called utilization of shadows you incurious retard
>>8006524Post the page where Captain Marvel arrives
>>8006530Not likely. This look bad because it is bad. There fundamental flaws with it. The lighting is not consistant across the scene, nor is the field of view. The expressions are awkward and it's very obvious that the artist just copied from photos and pasted them into the scene.The speech bubbles are clearly an afterthought. I've done comics before and can see this blunder a mile away. They're awkwardly position in any free space they have, and in most of them they do infact block the view. They're in the way because space for them was not pre-planned.But again, the eys, you can't see them in any of the shots here. To have interaction with a person, to have insight into their thoughts and personality, you must be close to them. If you are more than a few meters away, you cannot do this. You can see them, but they become figures in the distance, you are not interacting with them.As a necessary part of their design, the figures in a comic are small. Pages feature an average of 5-6 panels squeezed into a standard size piece of paper. There is a limit to how zoomed in each panel can be, you can do a closeup shot here and there, but at some point you're going to have to show the environment, show the pose, etc. It is necessary that the vast majority of the heads in a comic will be incredibly small. So small infact, that if you opt for realistic proportions, you will be effectively too far away from them to be able to see their emotions.The only reasonable solution is to make the faces more easily read, by enlarging and exaggerating the features. This is the reason masked theatre masks look the way they do. This is the reason manga looks the way it does. It is a solution to a problem inherent with the medium.
>>8006270>>8006472This>>8006517Retard
>>8006546Thanks, that’s a pretty good breakdown. I agree that the faces are the weakest part, although I don’t want to excuse the rest of it either, the whole thing just feels claustrophobic and doesn’t read well.
>>8005696Dude's on /ic/ making laws for art like he's Hammurabi :D Who are you to say Alex Ross has no place in art LMAO :D The most authoritative of statements from the smoothest of brains and most likely a giga /beg/ lol> this art has nothing to sayyou're looking at exploratory sketches and not a page of storytelling or cover, or even a pin-up. You have no pointbtw there are endless reasons to obsucre a characer's eyes in visual storytelling you dumb shit. Comics especially are filled with characters who obsucre their faces with MASKS you absolute retard you LOL. This tard watches Star Wars and shits his pants when he can't see Darth Vader's or the Emperor's eyes LMAO :Dhttps://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HiddenEyes>It's like if you tried to write a book from the pov of buster keaton, you would have nothing to writeIt's not like :D These two things are not alike. What did he even mean by this? Because Buster Keaton made silent films a book told from his pov would be blank pages? Does he know that printed books are also silent? Does he know that Buster Keaton does speak in his films? And how many mystery novels have a chapter told from the POV of a killer with no spoken dialogue? Has this shit for brains tard ever read a book in his life I wonder?
>>8006524It looks like the speech bubbles don't belong to the illustrations themselves, makes it ugly.
>>8006546>the eys, you can't see them in any of the shots hereMaybe the probelm is your eyes because you can't see with them? I see multiple pairs of eyes on this page. Do you go to the sistine chapel and complain that Michelangelo didn't draw big anime eyes you autist?>I've done comics beforePost them, let's see you mog Alex Ross right now
>>8006633When Alex Ross takes a shit, your chin hurts.
>>8006641can you make the bulge bigger?
>>8006517>ZOMG where are his eyes I literally can't even!!!11
>>8005680He's still around, he dropped his Fantastic Four comic a couple years ago which is probably his best work
>>8006634I agree. I've edited out the text here, and I'm pretty sure that Alex Ross drew this without any intention of there being text. Or at the very least, he didn't care about the text. This whole page works far better without text. Of course, it's barely comic anymore, but it goes to show just how disconnected the various artistic roles in the comics industry are, with everyone just working by themselves and not communicating to make a cohesive product.
>>8006662In a panel like pic related, the drawing is drawn with the expectation of text covering the top half of the panel. Infact actually it's more likely that the text was written first and room was left for the drawing to be done afterwards. The result is the same either way, the text and the drawings are a cohesive product.but in >>8006524 the text actively obstructs what is otherwise an harmonious composition, as you can see in >>8006662, the story is told visually. You have enough background to understand where the characters are in the room, the eye is drawn to the right places and with the right tone.Infact it makes me wonder how this whole page was assembled at all. Was Ross given the full script with the dialogue already planned out? Or was he just given a brief?>the main characters sit in a superhero themed restaurant, they are noticeably uncomfortable with the theming of the restaurant, they are casually chatting to eachother. A waiter directs them through the menu.The "steak. Well-done" line seems out of place in the context of the drawing to me. The wiater doesn't look confused or uncomfortable, rather he looks like he's accepting their order and taking the menu away. Batman doesn't even appear to be speaking.I wouldn't be surprised if whoever added the speechbubbles was not Ross, but instead some poor hapless fellow given a difficult page and told to add several paragraphs of text to it, and they did the best they could.
>>8006662All the panels are just so.............. garish looking.
Can i get some either or both replication of what craig mullins does for reflection but then applied to all realism like refraction, translucency, and also reflection gain of an object? no numbers needed just practical applications,Also animating with control theory, not calculation, just the applied theories like on a scene, subject, or the entire compositions. again, like craig mullins'maybe.>also drawing upside down, but with techniques or method>Also making things 600k, step by step, or,... Anything idc
>>8005696Phenomenally retarded post.
>>8006662None of the main characters or important objects are obsucred by text. I believe he did pencil layouts for the whole book with consideration for text spaces before doing the painted pages. The actual style of the balloons clashes because it's basic DC house style lettering while the art is anything but. The balloons have thick black outlines and they're black and white while the art has less full blacks and whites because it's a very washy gouache painting style so the most contrast on the page is on the text balloons. it's less of a problem on the printed books than on a screen though. Then again comics are words and pictures and meant for reading
>>8006691define important objects.When it comes to creating a composition, the whole image is important. Background elements draw the eye. I wouldn't be surprised if the first panel in your pic there, on the table there are decorate shapes that form lines pointing towards the waiter. But these lines are broken by the speechbubbles. I can't be bothered to edit the text out of another page, but I bet that that first panel would be alot easier to read without the text.Speechbubbles draw the eye through the page. If you don't design them intelligently, then the eye gets lost and the page feels messy. If you draw the images without knowing where the text is going to go, you are preparing yourself for disaster.Every part of the comic must be harmonious. The art must fit the text, the text must fit the composion, the compositions must fit the panels, the art styles of the pencils, inks, colors, text, must all be harmonious. If even one part is out of place, the whole product collapses.
>>8006524His work is more suitable for illustration and covers
>>8006651It’s kinda wild how much this is getting to you
>>8006698Does the entire composition fall apart when future Batman's waistcoat buttons are obscured by text? Is the tablecloth so important it can't be partly obscured by a text balloon? Redline the page for important background objects which were hidden by the letterer on that page. I can read it just fine. Ideally in a comic page one places the text where it's easy to read. Simple as.
>>8006713It's kinda wild how you have no imagination whatsoever.
>>8006691ross comics miss the mark for me because of how heavily theyre referenced. just looks like a magazine ad or something, all i see is the photos he's copying. looks REALLY bad in bottom left of this one, good example of that. >>8006662the fixation on exactly copying photo reference with a realistic painting style just makes it look like a photobashed comic, for covers they look kinda epic and imposing, for comics its so lifeless it looks creepy
>>8006713Do not look at this image, it will inflict trauma upon you
>>8006662idk man, placement seems pretty deliberate.i think it's just much more realistically rendered than what you would expect which makes the bubbles seem off.
>>8006742>ross comics miss the mark for me because of how heavily theyre referenced. just looks like a magazine ad or somethingwell that was sort of the gimmick for the early comics he did before mainly doing covers and other illustrations, and it works for single images. When he made a comic himself with Fantastic 4 he adjusted to be more 'comic' like, and sculpted the characters himself instead of only using photos which is maybe a more artful way of doing it. It almost looks like puppet animation like X-Bomber or Thunderbirds. Richard Corben did something similar with sculpts for lighting reference
>>8006742dell otto comics (though there are like 2) show this well i think, more comic stylyzed while still being realistic paintings and they come off completely differently from ross comics (i like his covers better too though.)>>8006764this i prefer, though i still think it suffers from being to true to life. figures are stiff, poses are a little awkward and the faces and limbs arent really where they should be for the best composition. you can see he's good, but he fucks himself over with that i think
>>8006781makes a big difference
>>8006524Bruce Timm actually told Alex Ross that he should stop relying on photo reference. That its dragging down his comic work.
>>8006524You should read Batman: War on Crime
>>8006641should change his name to alex toss cause of how gay this is
>>8006990This isn't even a comic anymore
>>8005714>What use is a concept that shows no meaningful concepts?As if that page isn't showing the concept of lighting Superman's figure
>>8006684Hello 50k, I see you are still asking the same questions after all this years, huh?
>>8006672I've seen DC scripts before, they're usually panel-by-panel with descriptions and scriptHow tightly the artist adheres to the descriptions is up to him and the editor, but usually the dialogue and narration all needs to be kept in>>8007020I dislike that style of comic but that's a very closed-minded way to think of things
Comic Book Super heroes are a jewish concept of weak little jews. What a gay thread
>>8007207Ok, it’s a comic but it looks like shit, happy?
>>8005696It's actually really cool when you can't see the eyes. I love it when the shadows obscure the eye and give this air of mystery since we can't exactly tell what the character is thinking.
