I done one like this in Photo Impact a while back. I am now doing a set in Xara. I think they turn out much better.
Printable View
I done one like this in Photo Impact a while back. I am now doing a set in Xara. I think they turn out much better.
I like your style. :)
It’s a nice drawing Derek, and will be a great drawing when you tweak the lighting.
You can fix lights and shadows in five minutes, but to describe those changes in words takes a lot longer. So if this seems pedantic, it's because I'm not in your studio to show you with the sweep of a hand and a few strokes of a pencil. ;)
The cat has a strong shadow cast by a strong rear light, indicating a sunrise or sunset behind it. That’s backed up by the colour of the sky. I’m not sure if a full moon should be next to the rising or setting sun. Maybe, but I would pick one or the other. Considering the strong shadow the cat is casting, the body and head would have shade on their front side away from the sunrise. If the nose and collar have shadows, then the body would too. The nose has a bright reflection on its front side, away from the sunrise, indicating strong light also from the front. Yet there is no shadow from this strong front light cast by either the cat or the bumps on the footpath. The trees in the background are being lit from the left, which doesn’t match the sun behind them, or this other light source from the front. This applies to the bumps on the footpath, which have a different light source again, since their light source seems to be coming from the right. The cat has a black shadow falling on the footpath, while the bumps have none.
Sometimes people shrug all this off as not mattering, because it’s ‘only a cartoon’, but the reverse is true. It's because cartoons are simple that they often depend on light and shadow to make them believable. Some cartoons use no lights and shadows, so it’s not an issue with them, but when shadows and light are used, it’s vital they are used correctly.
Generally light from the front or above is most popular. Back lighting makes characters darker, and is good for gloomy, suspenseful or scary themes. Pick your theme and your source of light, and then line up all the shadows and reflections so they match.
Hi Derek
Like Bill, I like your work - I like it a lot, I always have, and it's good to see you featured again in this months Outsider
Since I know cats don't have feet like that, or noses like that, or whiskers or mouths or bodies anything like that, it bothers me not a jot about the lighting because the effect you have created is just right for the mood and I see in it the real knowledge about the art of cartooning and its distortions of realism to get style
and the only thing vital in cartooning is style
:cool:
I love it. The whole thing. And I love your avatar as well.
It's a cartoon James. You can make the lighting do anything you want it to. It is called willing suspension of disbelief. :)
The last time I criticised the lighting in an image on here I was machine gunned to death by the clique. You used to have to take your life in your hands if you dared to criticise the top table. I'm glad to say things have changed for the better, sooooooo much better.
I love the cartoon, derek. There are quite possibly a bunch of lighting errors which I didn't spot the first time I looked at it because for me the focal point was the pussy cat. The drawing is full of humour and atmosphere :)
PS, James : the trees IMO, like Princess Diana's skirt, are lit from behind, not the left.
Thanks for your comments, Steve, Gary.
Some cartoonists abandon light and shadows altogether, with simple black and white newspaper gags, or deliberately childish animations like South Park, which can be a lot of fun. They abandon all normal rules, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I think that when cartoonists do decide to use a more realistic approach, employing the machinery of lights, shadows and reflections, the viewing public will pick on mistakes made. Ten year old kids will be writing letters saying, “Hey mister, even I know that if a guy is standing in front of a search light, his shadow will be going in the opposite direction, not toward the light!”
Animators using the more realistic approach (as opposed to ‘no rules South Park’) are constrained by various requirements of real life. Imagine a realistically animated man and a woman talking to each other face to face, but unfortunately the cartoonist gets their eye directions out of synch, so they seem to gaze past each other, and it’s clear this is not intentional. Their words don’t synch with their mouths either, and their sentences overlap. He says, “I love you very much, my dearest Elizabeth,” but when he gets to, “very much,” she is already saying, “Elizabeth? Who said my name is Elizabeth?” It’s almost impossible to understand the dialogue. They decide to go for a jog, but their leg speeds don’t match. One is running twice as fast as the other, while moving at the same speed. People are starting to leave the cinema.
So while it’s absolutely true you can do anything in cartoons, I don't think you should do just anything.
But then, who am I? Just an old varmint not worth spit. :D
I agree, having suffered a few bullet wounds and grenades myself. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by beretgascon
Whether it was Walt Disney Studios or a French Cafeteria in the days of the Impressionists, artists have always gathered to constructively criticize each other’s work. Praise is nice, but constructive criticism is not only more helpful, but more interesting to read, IMO.
Heh heh. You’re right, beret, the big tree on the left is lit from behind. I should have said I meant the trees in the background.Quote:
PS, James : the trees IMO, like Princess Diana's skirt, are lit from behind, not the left.
Attachment 79648Quote:
Originally Posted by James Allen
To my eyes, they too are lit from behind :)
You’re right, beret. I think there is also light coming from the left.
When looking again I saw a couple of other things. The tops of the fence are also lit up from the front, as is the hole in the fence. :)
Okay, enough lighting inspections from me for today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Allen
Gary Larson [Far Side] once drew a cartoon where the husband mosquito came home to his wife washing dishes at the kitchen sink and said he had had a really hard day spreading malaria across half of Africa. He [Mr Larson] observed that he got a sack full of comments that it is the female mosquito that spreads malaria not the male, but zero comments about mosquitos not wearing aprons and not doing washing up...
This is a perfect benchmark of what [non-artistic] readers think :D
Like Beret I look at the cartoon for the effect - and the effect is spot-on
Larson is indeed great. :D
Effects are very important in cartoons, and Gary Larson knows that well. This is why, when he does use light and shadows, he usually puts a lot of work into making sure they are correct.
Some more shadows from Larson. Sometimes he includes none at all, but when he does include them he works very hard to make them as accurate as he can. And this is from one of the zaniest cartoonists out there. ;))
let us hope GL does not catch you posting up his work without permission, he really does not like that sort of thing [and permission he does not give lightly]
Yeah, like I'm really trying to sell these. :rolleyes:
Personally I think Larson would be happy to see a couple of his cartoons being used to show how good he is with shadows and light.
Hi Derek
sorry about the digression :D
'keep on truckin' as Robert Crumb used to say..... a picture is worth a thousand words - let 'em roll
and thanks for posting
Time to man up Steve. Feedback can be more than fluff posts. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
Good job Derek, my grandaughter loves cats in any shape or form. At least you don't have to clean up the kitty litter. Keep them coming.
Thank you all again for your wonderful comments... I tried to find a book I have on drawing cartoons, but I think my son's pinched it. It says words to the effect '' The great thing about drawing cartoons is that you can draw anything you like no matter how silly it looks....Because it's a cartoon!! '' However I take on bored James comments, and I'll put them into practice when I do a realistic painting... Thanks again!
Was this a freudian slip? LOL :DQuote:
Originally Posted by derek.d
That’s great Derek. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by derek.d
Tell me when you find a book that says there are no rules regarding the use of light, shadows and reflections, in cartoons.
no rules in art - plenty of methodologies for creating an effect, should you choose to want it, but no rules - and methodologies are flexible too.... course you have to
actually be an artist to understand that, like as not ;):D
You’ve managed to confuse rules of light and shadow with laws of the land. :D =D>Quote:
Originally Posted by handrawn
James, I think what people are trying to say and you don't accept is that the rules of physics do not and don't have to apply in cartoons. You only have to watch Tom and Jerry to appreciate the validity of that. The pussy cat drawn by the OP is a cartoon. In a cartoon you can have a thousand different light sources, real or imagined. Just because some cartoonists adhere to the rules of lighting, it doesn't make it a crime to ignore them. I don't have a problem with the OP's cartoon. If it was a still life I would certainly have a problem with the lighting.
The rules of physics don’t have to apply in cartoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by beretgascon
Among published cartoonists who use strong light, shadows and reflections, to provide the illusion of three dimensions, the vast majority abide by the aforementioned rules. Like Larson, they put great effort into this.Quote:
Just because some cartoonists adhere to the rules of lighting,
It doesn’t make it a crime to ignore them.Quote:
it doesn't make it a crime to ignore them.
I don't have a problem with the OP's cartoon. Expressing a view is not ‘having a problem’. ;)Quote:
I don't have a problem with the OP's cartoon.
I think your problem is you can't tell really good art, from art that needs to be licked into shapeQuote:
Originally Posted by James Allen
go back to post #3 and re-read it:
"It’s a nice drawing Derek, and will be a great drawing when you tweak the lighting"
I'm sorry but what a load of patronising arrogant bu****it that is :-O
I wouldn't care to try to show Derek any thing with "the sweep of a hand and a few strokes of a pencil" I'd be too afraid he'd wipe the floor with me ;) :D
Standing in front of a drawing, a hand gesture and a few words is all you need to convey an opinion about light and shade. The artist understands immediately. Conveying the same opinion in writing takes much longer, and may not be as easily understood. This also applies to music, dance, sculpture, etc.
Not that the volleys between Handrawn and James Allen aren't fun to read, but the ultimate question IS whether more "physics-correct" lighting would improve the cartoon in question...
The answer to this question is subjective. (ie. we all could each form our own opinion with no one being specifically right or wrong)
(Personally)...the trees in this image look fine (to me). They could be ground illuminated from the neighbor's yard. (the edges are strongly highlighted and are lighter at the bottom than at the top) This could go either way. As for the fence, my opinion is closer to James Allen's in that everything is more shadowed towards the front of the picture. For that strongly defined shadow on the cat, there can NOT be a light source of any strength in the foreground. Because of this, the side of the fence rails being very white appears wrong. The argument (but why?) could be made that there is a light source on the other side of the fence that is in fact illuminating the tops. It wouldn't affect the cat area of the picture because of the fence...HOWEVER, if we look at the side of the fence and the hole, we can see that it does appear to be front-illuminated while everything else shows in great detail that the light is from behind the cat. This appears to be a simple error.
While reading these comments and thinking about it, I am reminded of Bob Ross. (famous American painter who had a popular TV show for over a decade showing people how to paint breathtaking scenes by following his relatively easy instructions, which he demonstrated in real time 30-minute "masterpieces") On one of the shows, he mentions that he received a letter from a quite upset viewer stating that the picture Bob made on the show was perfect UNTIL Bob decided to put a big tree in the picture. Bob handled this problem in his normal grace and style and commented that in HIS world there is a great big tree there and that perhaps in the viewer's world there is no such tree. (ie. all views are valid and personal)
Because of this, I can't really make a firm opinion one way or another. The Pussycat picture is a great image just as it is. In the artist's (Derek's) image, the lights do NOT have to follow the laws of physics or appeal to anyone except Derek as it his dramatization, a product of his imagination. That being said, I did just as James Allen did and saw the front-lit fence as a simple "error" that distracts from what is otherwise pretty much perfect.
Is it a great image? Yes.
Are there some "problems" with the lighting? Probably.
Is James Allen nit-picking? I don't think so. Though dryly delivered, it was constructive criticism from seasoned eyes.
Should Derek "fix" it? Only Derek could know. ;)
Should we move on now, anticipating the next great image from Derek? Undoubtedly.
Peace
James
constructive criticism would first have looked at the body of work that the OP has here, and determined his style
constructive criticism would then have asked the question as to whether or not the effect was intentional - not just assumed it was bad workmanship
constructive criticism can only come from those who understand what is being done, it does not come from those who think they can turn others art into 'great art', 'just like that' because they know better
back pedal all you like - but that is where it began
[thanks for the backhanded compliment by the way anyway :D]
I enjoyed reading your response James – you shone some light on the subject, if you’ll pardon the pun. :-bd
It is probably time to move on now... ;))
I agree, beret. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by beretgascon
A great looking cartoon, Derek.
A great looking cartoon Pussycat. I think what ever effects you have used are just right. ;)
May I echo all the points brilliantly made by James in Post #27.
May I also say that the drawing is beautiful.=D>