 |
| ||||||||||||
She is really not bad! Not bad at all.
I would like to understand one day how did you do that effect of transparency...
It's generally good, but she seems a bit haggard looking. Although I do like the phrase you used.
I'm not so sure about the lighting on her left lower leg and the overall shape of said part. I suck at explaining things in English so here's a quick and sloppy overpaint to show you what I mean (http://i.imgur.com/iN3gObS.png?1). But please bear in mind I'm far from an expert on this.
Other than that, a kick ass piece. Well done!
I think maybe you drew her... too... well? The technique is impressive, I only wonder if applying it here is character-appropriate.
Part of Jessica Rabbit's character is that she is sexualized to a ridiculous degree; she is a "toon" and therefore she's just as silly and unrealistic as the slapstick talking rabbit she married. She couldn't possibly exist as a real woman because she thrusts her hips out so far they would dislocate and her tiny spine would instantly snap under the weight of her tremendous breasts. She's such an an archetypal "escher girl" that she is a self-aware parody of the trope. She's sexy, but she's also funny.
Here Jessica's anatomy is far less distorted than it was in the original movie. You've made her look plausible, which I find more sexy, but less funny. In my interpretation of her character, her sexiness is a joke, not something to be taken seriously and, in toon fashion, she wouldn't want it any other way. I don't see the joke here.
Imagine a "realistic" rendering of her husband Roger Rabit; imagine him drawn as if a giant, hyperactive talking rabbit wearing clothes existed in reality. He wouldn't retain his characteristic silliness. Instead he'd be uncanny, grotesque and off-putting. I worry a similar character shift happened here with Jessica.
... So as criticism goes, "it's too good" isn't very useful is it? Like I said, nothing's wrong with the pixels, only with the guiding interpretation and theme.
I have doubts about is the hair highlights, and isn't the hair a bit dull compared to the awesomeness of the dress?
Also, I am confused about why it should be 18+, is it just because it is well drawn? looks more like max 13+ to me (feel free to ignore), and I see nothing wrong with the crotch. Maybe the upper ribcage looks strangely hollow. The leg seems to lack the same orange midtone as elsewhere between the yellowish highlight and the gray.
Fantastic. I was also very perturbed by the details in the crotchal region. Oh yes, definitely.
Now, at the risk of propagating a negative stereotype of the female body... her ankles seem a bit thick to me, and her shins shorter than I would expect from Jessica Rabbit.
Hey thanks for the usefull critique Adarias, I learned a lot by making this and hope to improve on my next try, definitely have to work on my legs and feet some more as well as other areas.
Also on a personal note: Love your latest Mia sprite, it's so cool :)
as a digital painting, I think you're preserving a few too many details, at least in the crotchal region and other recesses that ought to be obscured as the light diffuses. I also worry that her far thigh is a bit inflated compared to her near one, and that leg ends in a bit of a canklemess.
now the fact that I can critique this as a digital painting means you've succeeded in all other terms. that the pattern feels like it conforms to the body rather than scanlines is stunning.
excellent job.
The transparency is actually just a shaded dither pattern ;p