I think the vehicle is great EXCEPT the brush strokes near the middle (White ones). You could have defined that part more to complete the whole thing. Example: [link] Every part of the machine is defined, yours is MOSTLY defined, and the parts that are, are really awesome. But lots of the time you leave stuff as general strokes, which disappoint me because I know you can detail it, because you detail most of it well alerady.
I like the background I think it would be more awesome if it was snowing with the guys on the right with flashlights or something trying to make their way through it. Seeing the amount of fog in the background makes it look like a blizzard to me, but it's not snowing so lol. It looks quite plain without snow, I think if you gave more life to the characters on the right, with a nice snow dropping it would increase the impact by ALOT.
One more thing, you could define the edges of the background more, PERSONALLY myself, I don't like to do it because making it fade out means less mistakes haha. But defining it is an integral part in making a finished product.
An overview of everything I'm trying to say. Example: [link]
As you can see, the image is very involved, where as here, it is quite empty. Furthermore his characters are well defined where as yours are, half-defined. His background is also well defined, where as yours is kind of faded. (Specifically the left side of the background "closest" to the viewer).
I hope this all helps!! Just some stuff I personally think could be improved.
"Do it this way, coz I like it more that way" is not a way artist should talk to another artist. Which part of the painting is defined and which is not is a choice artist makes for himself, based on a goal to drive his audience towards direction or another. Claiming you know better than the artist which part should be more or less defined is a claim YOU know better than the artist what he is trying to say with his work. And unless you are trying to be perceived as an arrogant asshole, it's something that should be evaded.
Actually, he is inspired by Feng Zhu, and I'm comparing his work to it to help him get some aspects of his work in correlation with it. We both agreed that it's better to first copy the pros in how they do things, and once we have a grasp of that we can create our own style. Thus in this case "Do it this way, coz I like it more that way", IS essentially what I am trying to do. You see, I'm trying to help him achieve his goal by pointing out things in comparison to Feng Zhu's works. I've been critiquing him for sometime now to try help him, y'know?
I guess I will let you calling me an "arrogant asshole", pass this time. Maybe next time you should try look up the context before instantly assuming and insulting unless you want to be perceived as ignorant. I guess my above post did sound a little harsh. I can assure you I mean no harm.
You hit the nail right on the head with this one. I'm concerned for you, coz that's the way your comments will be perceived by everyone who is not familiar with your silent agreement. I will give you this, if you are trying to copy another artists work your points are valid, as long as there is understanding behind what you are doing. For example, general strokes are not always to be detailed despite your possible disappointment on the matter. Maximum amount of detail per object is something everyone should stay away from. Reduction of the "noise" detail is what your friend here achieved very well with his painting. The second example you are giving is a good way to illustrate the mood or the atmosphere of a painting. Zakforeman knows (and I can tell this is not fluke) how to utilize "empty" space in his work, matter a fact - I liked the harsh contrast between the war machine and the calmness of scene so much I instantly faved. Just for the record, though I love me dynamic scene as much as the next guy, I woulnd't fave your mentors dragon killers in the mood I was in. Mood.
Yeah, thanks . I understand haha. I don't mind general strokes in concept art, so it's fine, just trying to "copy" what makes other artists so good.
As for maximum detail, personally I guess it depends on the artist, I know someone who wants to be hyperrealistic, so he puts as much detail as he can. Of course trying to detail too much has the opposite affect of detailing itself.
Yeah, I see his other works and he has got composition mostly in the bag. PERSONALLY I didn't like the contrast, but I didn't interpret it as a war machine either. I guess everyone has their own interpretation. I like the calmness too, but the space looks weird to ME, maybe I'm just weird haha.
Mm yes I love dynamic scenes too . I understand , I guess comments worded slightly differently have a large effect on mood as well :d.
On detail. I can give you only my opinion on the matter backed up by allot of theory I red over the last few years. I look at detail as "extinction" of form. In that context detail is only needed when it serves a purpose. Detailing with the endgame to make it "detailed" is wrong in my opinion. It can be used as a tool as well, to focus the viewers attention towards a focal point in your work, that being said over-detailing can "drown" your viewers. If you look carefully the hyper realistic images you will notice even there the artist (if its a good one) used less detail on the unnecessary parts, but doing so he controlled your eye over the painting and you may never notice those rogue strokes. Example that pops in my head right away [link] It literary took me years until I noticed the ground and the undefined rocks there. Which leads me to the signal to noise ratio in every step of the painting/drawing, recognizing one from the other and removing the noise... Understanding behind what we do is the most important thing, thus blindly copying works can often lead to dead end street in your development.