[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   
File: 258 KB, 820x490, example.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168510 No.4168510 [Reply] [Original]

Should one included realism to the point no normal person would care? Example is the fact when your palm is downward your bicep isn't flexed, but when it's upward it is. Keeping not of that detail is anatomically accurate, but no one really cares. Another example is how windows have reflections, but they are rarely drawn in.

>> No.4168513

there are beginner threads for people like you
use them

>> No.4168519

>>4168510
>Should one included realism to the point no normal person would care
It is completely up to you. Any deviation from absolute photorealism is stylization and an abstraction of reality. It's deeply personal how far from that 1:1 depiction of reality you want to stray. It's all about your style and what you enjoy doing. Pretty much everyone stylizes and simplifies the world to some degree.

In this particular instance - absolutely no one will ever notice this muscle movement. It can be correctly or incorrectly drawn and no one will ever notice or care.

>> No.4168521

>>4168510
That’s the difference between a photograph and art.

>> No.4168529

>i don't know how much detail my art should have, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
lol, just do loomis

>> No.4168532

>>4168529
Loomis unironically will kill you when you reach the same question of how much detail to put. He does answer it for the most part, but Loomis skims hair like crazy. Also he just tells you to figure it out intuitively with faces.

>> No.4168586

>>4168510
Damn that's kinda cool, I would say in animation this would matter it's a nice little detail and standard shit not so much but overall people should be this accurate even if stylized, "Art imitates life" after all.

>> No.4168688

>>4168510
It mostly comes down to two things, what looks right and what looks cool. When you study life drawing, anatomy and drawing from imagination for a couple of years you start to develop a intuitive sense of what looks rights. You don't have to learn rules for every position of the body but rather internalize some basic logic to how the form changes with movement.

tldr; study more, worry less

>> No.4168956

>>4168510
It's always a pet peeve of mine when artist will draw a character lifting their arms up, but their chest muscles don't stretch up as well. Something like is way more noticable than what you described, I really don't think any one cares about that.

>> No.4168971

>>4168510
Depends on what sort of economy of detail you want you retard.

>> No.4169034

>>4168510
I don't even notice that shit when I watch movies or see irl people, so I doubt it would matter much if an artist didn't include it. Although that could just be my autism showing.

>> No.4169175

>>4168532
You must’ve read Andrew Dobson, not Andrew Loomis. EITHER THAT OR YOURE A DUMVLB FUCKING CUNT WHO COMPLETELY MISSED THE FUCKING POINT OF lOOMIS
You’re not even worth fixing the caps lock

>> No.4169189

>>4168510
People don't consciously see this kind of detail but it adds to a subconscious perception of quality. This doesn't even have to do with realism, what gives character to your art is a all the little things you like about what you're representing or you think are important enough to include.

>> No.4169943

>>4168510
When it comes to these "peak" type things, the amount of change you see is very dependent on the person in question. People with really long muscle bellies don't exhibit such pronounced changes.

I wouldn't focus on that because it's too negligible. It's better to focus on say, the appropriate placement of scapula when the arm is rotated in a particular way, and how that affects the rest of the back.

Just my 2c.