/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4060021]

Oh shit

[Anonymous No.4060022]

https://twitter.com/EfflamMercier/status/1160004378138333184?s=19

[Anonymous No.4060025]

Loomis BTFO

[Anonymous No.4060029]

>>4060021
validate methods before you use them

[Anonymous No.4060038]

you can put the specular almost anywhere in the light and it will look ok

[Anonymous No.4060044]

>>4060029
where can you validate methods

[Anonymous No.4060056]

Prokopenko knew this ages ago.

[Anonymous No.4060062]

>>4060044
study reality instead of assuming something is 100% correct because someone said so

[Anonymous No.4060105]

>>4060021
>Le epik gaymers blow the fuck out!!!

Because of the way Twitter works, I felt like I had to scroll through a hundred pics of bullshit before I found any actual pics of his art. If an artist is not using their Twitter as a account just to dump art in, they should really add a link to their Twitter to an external portfolio/gallery site like DeviantArt or artstation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EfflamMercier/status/1148677138234560512

[Anonymous No.4060137]

>>4060105
>Unironically uses "we live in a society"
Is he a gamer?

[Anonymous No.4060141]

This twitter post tries to make it sound like this guy has just discovered something that's going to completely change art forever but he really hasn't

While it's true that many people don't understand that the highlight you draw isn't actually the part of the object that has recieved the most light, it's so insiginificant and most artists would have moved the highlight anyway to put it in a more appealing place whether they knew they were correcting it or not

Andrew loomis and amatauer grey ball tutorials aren't the only resources out there, many books about lighting will explain this distinction.
How can these people call themselves artists when they have clearly put no effort into studying?

[Anonymous No.4060160]

>>4060021
I saw this earlier and I'm not buying his explanation. Specifically
>But that never explained why specular highlights are different from the color of the diffuse!

Specular highlights are literally a mirror reflection of their source. That's it! The physical phenomenon that lets you see a light in a mirror (specular reflection) is the same that lets you see that light in an apple. Mirrors are just really good at specular reflection and apples are slightly shitty at it, but not as shitty as tree bark. If the source light is white, the sun for example, the specular will be relatively white. "Relatively" because, as light reflects or bounces off objects, it loses some of its original strength each time.

Intense light, which is usually white light in our reality, sort of just "overpowers" many objects that it reflects onto--it's easily visible. But a red laser pointer will reflect red on most objects, try it. Color doesn't "come from" subsurface scattering per se. Rather, it comes from our brain's perception of different wavelengths of light. It isn't actually real. Certain materials, due to their atomic structure or whatever, preferentially reflect certain wavelengths of the visible spectrum which we perceive as a certain color. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Ts7CsJDpg

Being surprised that a specular is a different color from the object it's reflected on is like being surprised that a mirror accurately reflects all the colors in its environment, or that bounced light from the ocean is blue-ish. It's all just light bouncing around and mixing up and shit.

This guy is right that you SHOULD do your own research and learn from the nature and science, not just the art world. But his explanation is kinda lacking/meandering and he comes to some oddly specific conclusions about specular highlights when the true implications are deeper and richer. If I'm wrong, correct me, but his hasty Twitter explanation just doesn't sit right with me.

[Anonymous No.4060165]

>>4060105
SEETHING

[Anonymous No.4060181]

loomis was wrong about tons of shit
his skulls get redlined by scott eaton for example

[Anonymous No.4060236]

>>4060181
Oh, is the way Loomis teaches their construction bad?
Genuine question, I don't want to spend weeks on a book, only to find out later it's bad.

[Anonymous No.4060239]

>>4060236
no his underlying construction is fantastic. for anatomy and details id look for another more modern and detailed source

[Anonymous No.4060300]

>>4060021
I don't see why he has to bring up Loomis at all. Loomis is a starting point for your studies, his books are not at all law but simply a standard to begin with. I guess his main point is something like that, anyway? It's something that should be obvious to anybody with serious investment in getting better at anything, not just drawing.

[Anonymous No.4060317]

>>4060021
How the fuck does some random get 23k likes on twitter posting shit like this? I honestly dont get it desu. Why do twitter normies even care about any of this?

[Anonymous No.4060320]

>>4060317
because he framed it as a mindblowing revelation
also twitter normies will retweet something they think "helps artists" but won't retweet work by artists which might actually help them

[Anonymous No.4060323]

>>4060317
>>4060320
Wondering same thing. I wouldnt assume there even is 23 thousand people in total in the world even vaguely in the concept art photobashy industry to be even following that guy in the first place.

This probably just got picked up randomly as some "trending" tweet or something and hence all the random attention from normies that have no clue what this is even about, but its "artsy" therefore gotta like/retweet.

[Anonymous No.4060331]

>>4060317
because artists are retarded. i was talking to some that were confused/blown away by this when it's fairly basic stuff. any observation from life would show you it's the case. anyone with 3d or games knows this but artists live in their own world secluded from physics and light.

[Anonymous No.4060335]

>>4060021
I met Efflam a few years ago. Nice dude.

[Anonymous No.4060343]

>>4060317
>some random
That guy seems pretty alright actually, as much as a person unironically using twitter can be

[Anonymous No.4060346]

>>4060343
he's a shitty concept artist who has no message lol

[Anonymous No.4060403]

>>4060021
So....you learn this when you study perspective.

It took him this fucking long to get around to that?

[Anonymous No.4060414]

>>4060236
Learn the mannequin and drop the rest of his books. Every single other thing he teaches somebody else teaches better.
Hamm teaches better portraiture abstractions.
Bridgman teaches better constructive anatomy.
Rogers teaches better detailed anatomy.
Norling teaches better perspective.
McCloud teaches better composition and narrative.
Vilppu teaches better gesturing and posing.
etc.

[Anonymous No.4060416]

My friend sent this to me last night because they thought it would be useful info.
It’s literally basic info that he’s managed to overthink and overexplain in to such a degree that people can’t even understand the point he’s trying to make (most of the comments on that thread were akin to “can you please simplify this in a manner that I can make sense of what it is you’re trying to say”).
It wouldn’t have bothered me so much if he didn’t frame this as revolutionary and made out we should now... change curriculum and common knowledge(?) for something this small that you will just naturally learn from studying life.
I also checked out his skill level just out of curiousity because he seemed so mind blown by this and he’s pretty good, I’m genuinely confused as to how he’s only now just realising this at his skill level? This is fairly basic knowledge, I’m not sure how he’s gotten to the point he’s at without knowing this.

Also it got attention like most tutorials do. People who don’t get it or follow it will retweet it for “later use” or to share with their friends who they think might appreciate it. Despite having 25k likes you will notice it has very few comments in comparison, and easily half of them are just confused or disagreeing.

[Anonymous No.4060426]

>>4060021
I checked out his twitter timeline and he seems pretty woke, so it's safe to assume he's wrong here.

[Anonymous No.4060454]

>>4060403
I think a lot of artists on Twitter don't really take the time to study perspective that much unless they're taking formal classes that forces them to learn perspective.

The self taught artists who I notice are the best with perspective are the ones that draw backgrounds a lot.

>>4060416
>I also checked out his skill level just out of curiousity because he seemed so mind blown by this and he’s pretty good, I’m genuinely confused as to how he’s only now just realising this at his skill level?

Maybe it's because he's mainly a 3D artist? Since a lot of his pieces are rendered with blender (and then maybe overpaints over them?) he didn't have to study light/shadow/perspective as much since the software renders all of that for you?

But I heard using 3d software does help you understand forms better and to help you think of shapes in 3d compare to 2d more.

[Anonymous No.4060480]

>>4060346
the mind of a spiteful teenage girl

[Anonymous No.4060496]

>>4060021
I don't get it, I haven't seen Loomis about light but the "grey ball" tutorials say exactly what I see on the right.

[Anonymous No.4060547]

>>4060416
Saddly shit like this is the usual in the art community. Half the tutorials you can find are just rip off Loomis or Scott Robertson since most people who use Twitter/insta tutorials like this are /begs/ who never read books. Because of the audience I've seen the most simple advice come off as revolutinary to the art community. Ive seen 'construct your forms first' be seen as revolutinary ideas to these people.

[Anonymous No.4060556]

Yea this is like basic understanding of how light works. Good for him for getting it though.

[Anonymous No.4060567]

>>4060038
/thread

[Anonymous No.4060573]

>>4060021
I knew Loomis was a meme

So glad I never invested any time into it

[Anonymous No.4060669]

>>4060105
>we
>live
>in
>a
>S O C I E T Y

[Anonymous No.4061004]

>>4060021
>wow I've read a book on 3D graphics rendering!!!

[Anonymous No.4061029]

>>4060343
He sounds like fucking Volen. It's actually sad how so many artists nowadays try to pretend they think something is great just to sound cultured then they just go back to drawing generic sci fi fantasy shit.

[Anonymous No.4061043]

>>4060021
>Concept Artist in bio
>Scroll down through "media" to see his artwork
>literally all shitty political takes or normie memes.
Why do people do this?

[Anonymous No.4061046]

>>4060105
>there's nothing wrong with having gamer as your identity.

[Anonymous No.4061058]

>>4060105
Imagine unironically taking that meme seriously, a 15 year old kid probably made it, and he pissed his pants over that.

Also Proko did it first
https://youtu.be/V3WmrWUEIJo

[Anonymous No.4061059]

>>4061029
I don't know why he couldn't just take the compliment the guy gave him instead of having to smell his own farts.

[Anonymous No.4061214]

>>4060021
What a fucking retard
Loomis' tutorials on lighting aren't supposed to be scientifically accurate. He emphasized doing whatever it takes to turn out a great illustration in a short amount of time. The lighting setups are simplified because illustration in his time was a rapid business. Unless you were a big name like Rockwell you didn't have the time to go out and do advanced life-based studies because the editors and creative directors demanded short turnarounds. The point is to make the lighting look believable enough to the untrained viewers who aren't artists.

[Anonymous No.4061218]

>>4061214

Eh that's kind of a weird argument, placing the highlight in a more accurate doesn't take more time and looks better. Loomis was just wrong about it. It doesn't have anything to do with mid century illustration.

[Anonymous No.4061244]

>>4060346
Do you imagine every artwork had to have a message? What's the message on most of (Hate to use this example) Kim Jun Gi drawings? some of his drawings are worthless on that sense, look! a samurai pig eating rice! what the fuck is the message on that? still he's a master, because of his skills, go do an abstract painting expressing your stupidity smacking a brush with shit on a $3 chinese canvas faggot

[Anonymous No.4061368]

>>4060021
his art is pretty alright, how the fuck does he not know speculars are just reflections?

[Anonymous No.4061693]

>>4061214
>Loomis' tutorials aren't supposed to be accurate.
Fixed.
You were so close to the truth.

[Anonymous No.4061712]

>>4061244
Storytelling is what gives artwork power. The most memorable and iconic images typically that effectively tell a story and evoke emotion. This is part of what I think separates "art" from "craft".

[Anonymous No.4061714]

>>4061244
Storytelling is what gives artwork power. The most memorable and iconic images have historically been those that effectively tell a story and evoke emotion. I think this is part of what separates "art" from "craft".

[Anonymous No.4061744]

>>4061046
>as PART of your identity

You fucking casual. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.4061841]

>Also think about microfacets in the
>context of retroreflection
>And learn about dielectric / conductive.
>dielectric / conductive.
I don't understand, why physic? can someone explain this?

[Anonymous No.4062014]

>>4061841
NGMI, brain too smol

[Anonymous No.4062020]

>>4060021
HOW WILL LOOMIS EVER RECOVER?

[Anonymous No.4062043]

>>4062020
So thats what happens when you rely on 3D to do everything for you instead of learning to draw?

[Anonymous No.4062115]

>>4062020
he blames loomis for this trash?

[Anonymous No.4062140]

>>4062020
is that digital?

[Anonymous No.4062143]

>>4062020
wtf is this shit

[Anonymous No.4062223]

>>4060141
Next these artists discover fresnel reflections.

[Anonymous No.4062286]

>>4062020
Meanwhile in Taiwan...

[Anonymous No.4062307]

>>4060105
I don't even remember which part of Loomis dealt with specular highlights....

Just basic lighting setup. Maybe it's a misunderstanding with how some people use things like centerlight/highlight/halftone interchangeably

[Anonymous No.4062788]

>>4061841
metalness or dielectric versus metallic objects. concerning the rendering of materials, objects are either metal or not metal (dielectric). that determines factors in how they're shaded.
https://www.substance3d.com/system/files/software/download/build/PBR_Guide_Vol.1.pdf

[Anonymous No.4062815]

>>4060021
>>4060105
So let me get this straight. This retard artist (who barely posts his own art), is freaking out over '''discovering''' something you're supposed to figure out by doing basic observational drawing exercises? And he's using his '''discovery''' to dismiss Loomis?

Sounds like we got another egomaniac here.

[Anonymous No.4063331]

>>4062788
Thanks mate.

[Anonymous No.4065934]

wait did this idiot not know that you place specular at a half angle , did he think , before this , that specular is cast parallel to the lightsource ?? How did this motherfucker ever think that a sphere made of reflective material reflects whats behind them on its sides , if he thought that specular is parallel to the light source and not at 45 degrees of it. Motherfucker never read How to render from Scott Robertson or ever watched a Sam Nielson paintover ? All this motherfucker had to do , was open any 3d program , put a reflective sphere and object on a side behind it , to see how the angle of reflection halves and thus it reflects whats behind it instead of only reflecting whats at 90 degrees of it

[Anonymous No.4065962]

>>4060343
Meh, it faced more severe attack by modernists than it did by the drunk angry about the arguable historical inaccuracy.

[Anonymous No.4065983]

This is some nerdy ass shit right here.

[Anonymous No.4066016]

>>4065934
And the thing though is that the guy is primarily a 3d artist too.

[Anonymous No.4066056]

>>4066016
mainly 3d guy not realising this is ....impressive

[Anonymous No.4066072]

>>4060137
>Ironically use "We live in a society"
> Get made fun of by anon for unironically using we live in a society

[Anonymous No.4066100]

>>4060021
This nigger is literally wrong. Loomis simply doesnt talk about reflective highlight at all and everything he says about matte highlight is correct. Matte highlight on a sphere is the point which receives the most light since its at 90 degrees angle to the lightsource (which also means its the closest to the lightsource, exactly like Loomis says), therefore is the brightest.

For a guy that does mostly 3d this dude seems very confused about reflective vs. matte materials and how they behave.

Pic related from Robertson that properly illustrates that on reflective sphere theres 2 highlights. The image with the sphere in the OP is pretty confusing for the purposes of illustrating this phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.4066237]

>>4066100
This is how I had learned it. I'm definitely no physicist but seems right.

[Anonymous No.4066461]

>>4060105

so what comes first

become sjw cucked > make it

or

make it > become sjw cuck

???

[Anonymous No.4066477]

>>4066100
>Passive
>Active
What garbage names are those

[Anonymous No.4066491]

wait, what exactly does he claim where loomis was wrong? loomis is wrong on lots of shit, but i don't really get it from his tweets.

Diffuse reflection is dependent of the angle of the light-source, the reflective highlight is dependent on the looking-angle of the viewer. yes, that's one of the first things you learn about light lol, what a revelation.

i learned everything about color&light from huevaluechroma.com. the SSS "theory" about how diffuse reflection works sounds legit, doesn't matter if its "CORRECT", it makes sense.

I don't get how he could make so much tweets about this as if its some kind of big revelation or something.

[Anonymous No.4066494]

ikr, it's called diffuse reflection and specular highlight. reflective highlight is fine as well. w/e

[Anonymous No.4066523]

>>4066461
>be born well off
>make it because of your parents' money
>become a commie
It's never people who had to work for their shit who become subversives.

[Anonymous No.4066531]

>>4066477
based general art retard. passive because it doesn't change based on camera angle. do you not see the lines on the cue ball?

[Anonymous No.4066534]

>>4066477

Lol those are terms used to describe if a gay man or transwoman is "giver" or a "taker"

[Anonymous No.4066555]

>>4066100
>>4066491

I went and grabbed the exact page this twitter tard is trying to refute, and it's here. Book is "Successful Drawing", page 79. When loomis is just introducing the idea of light hitting a sphere, he is saying that the point closest to the light is the brightest, and then moving towards the shadow there is less light hitting it, so it's darker, then it becomes a shadow.

On twitter, he says "So what does that mean in practice?

It means this Loomis plate is wrong because he assumed that the center of diffuse light is also the center of specular highlight."


Which is entirely wrong, because loomis never ever says the center of diffuse light is the center of a specular highlight at all, he just used his monkeybrain to pretend Loomis' introduction of how light hits a sphere mentioned the specular highlight. Fuck this makes me angry.

[Anonymous No.4066597]

>>4066555

Also in photography terminology "highlights" means just the brighest part of an image in general, it doesn't refer to refer to reflections per se.

[Anonymous No.4066609]

imagine his cringe when he realizes that all that fuzz he made up around this non-topic actually stems from being in a short-time craze. he seems to have that rather often.

[Anonymous No.4066615]

who cares about photography terminology, this is related to drawing and painting. and in that realm "highlight" means _one_ thing. don't be a smartass.

[Anonymous No.4066776]

>>4066609
he gives a strong impression of npc with no internal monologue and definitely low iq.

[Anonymous No.4066783]

>>4066615

Maybe, maybe not. Loomis books were written in what, the 40's? Unless you have a PhD in linguistics or something I wouldn't be so damn sure.

[Anonymous No.4066785]

>>4066783
not that anon, but I do, and linguistics is a bad science never go down that hellhole

[Anonymous No.4066786]

>>4066615
I love how close-minded so many artists are. They love to be infantilized and stay ignorant.

[Anonymous No.4066842]

>>4062020
Proko BTFO

[Anonymous No.4066845]

>>4066842

this is like some kind anti proko dog whistle

[Anonymous No.4067243]

>>4066100
>>4066555
>this twitter retard doesnt understand the difference between matte highlight and specular
>therefore thinks Loomis is wrong and proceeds to make clickbait tweets about it
>aS ArTiStS We hAvE A SoRt oF DuTy tO TeSt tHe kNoWlEdGe gIvEn tO Us bY ThE PrEvIoUs gEnErAtIoN
>30k likes
We live in a society, pls someone shoot me right now

[Anonymous No.4067369]

The very definition of overthinking. This guy must have a lot of free time.