HOME | DD
Published: 2012-04-05 00:29:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 29914; Favourites: 1202; Downloads: 280
Redirect to original
Description
Someone on Tumblr asked about how I manage to switch between styles so easily, so I thought I'd make this little tips/tutorial thing.Of course this doesn't encompass everything there is about style / inventing a style , but it might help you better than the Chihuahua picture.
Related content
Comments: 59
prechoco [2012-11-19 00:18:27 +0000 UTC]
Thanks! This really helped explain why some proportions are the way they are in comics!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
penholdr [2012-08-26 22:59:59 +0000 UTC]
This is great insight. I'm currently working on figuring out my natural drawing style and this definitely puts some different ways to approach this. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Amanda-StG [2012-06-09 16:34:00 +0000 UTC]
This will be a big help in my quest for better sketching/drawing. Thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cardinal4 [2012-04-06 14:25:26 +0000 UTC]
This is the first time I've seen an analysis on why Oda's and Kubo's style's look the way they are. I always knew Bleach has something really mesmerising with their eyes, but I never really thought that deep about it. Fascinating!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ixDenial In reply to Zanarke [2012-04-06 00:19:48 +0000 UTC]
I think this should be interpreted as just tips, a little push, Different than a tutorial.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AluraRB [2012-04-05 22:35:48 +0000 UTC]
really good. brings to light on topics that i would never have thought of. well done!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
bernoully [2012-04-05 06:35:22 +0000 UTC]
Well-done analysis! It's true that facial proportions has lots to do with how the artist plans to use emotions. Similarly, bodily proportions will help with actions. Chibi proportions are generally no good to move with, yet attempts were made...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Shiro-Jinja [2012-04-05 04:46:17 +0000 UTC]
Th-thank you for this insight! *w*
I must go practice now...
nedoiko [2012-04-05 04:01:09 +0000 UTC]
whow whow! thats a really good tips! I enjoyed specially the OP/B/GL style descriptions, it was exactly what I wanted to read
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
iMoushi [2012-04-05 03:43:30 +0000 UTC]
Thanks! I'm trying to work with a new less anime-ish style so this will really help ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LOSTSCOUT [2012-04-05 03:37:05 +0000 UTC]
I like LeSean Thomas's style the most jus something about it but this is really cool and makes a lot of sense glad you did this
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Junsei-san [2012-04-05 03:30:08 +0000 UTC]
This is really useful. It makes it ewasy to see how easy it is to make up your own style or see how other people do their style. I love it! Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Veleven [2012-04-05 03:22:18 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for this, mate. I kinda knew it in the back of my head but it's always good to have the info clearly set out like this. (:
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
JDillius [2012-04-05 03:19:52 +0000 UTC]
Good advice! Understanding why certain things look the way they do will definitely help. I really enjoyed your reasoning behind the moe and "teary eyes" - made me laugh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Daniel-Gleebits [2012-04-05 02:48:15 +0000 UTC]
Mm, I often wish this business of calling things "anime" style could be done away with. It's not a particular annoyance, it's like calling something "American comics style". It's not incorrect to say so, and people generally understand what one means by it, but when one is talking to fellow artists who should know a little more about these things, one expects to be able to keep such generalisations to a minimum to avoid being made to appear ignorant.
For instance, I'm an historian in training, and so if I were talking to someone not familiar with history, then I might say "oh I'm looking at this from an historian perspective", but if I'm talking to a fellow historian, I'd say something like "Oh, I'm looking at this from a Marxist/feminist/Annals/Rankian/economic/reformist/etc. perspective".
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Sjcodan In reply to Daniel-Gleebits [2012-04-05 02:57:47 +0000 UTC]
Nah, Its called anime style for a reason, it makes sense. Anime uses that style, so its anime style.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sjcodan In reply to arcnova [2012-04-05 06:55:20 +0000 UTC]
Thing is, while studio's have their own type of anime style, its still anime. Disney is animation, and Mahvel is comics, big difference.
Anime is a broad term, but it fits.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hearts-Are-Cold In reply to arcnova [2012-04-05 08:09:10 +0000 UTC]
"Oils" may not be a painting style, but it's still a word describing the art in question, and is appropriate to mention when saying what sort of art it is. Generally, if you're in a museum, and you look at the description tag, it's very likely to tell you what is used in a painting, whether it's oils, acrylics, or watercolor. So by comparing it to 'oil painting', you are still indirectly making the point that anime is still an appropriate term to use when describing a particular style.
"Anime" is a concept that is understood. People understand that there is a vast variety of styles within the 'anime' genre, but there are just certain common threads (such as certain stock expressions) shared between the styles which make up the collective 'anime' style of art. It's a category which has subcategories.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hearts-Are-Cold In reply to arcnova [2012-04-05 18:02:26 +0000 UTC]
Anime is still just as legitimate a style as asking someone to draw something in a cartoony style. If you want or need to have it be more a specific description than that, you ask for one. "When you say cartoons, do you mean like Daria, or Invader Zim, or like classic Disney?"
Really, when someone asks you to draw something, you should ask for as may details as possible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hearts-Are-Cold In reply to arcnova [2012-04-05 17:54:25 +0000 UTC]
Mickey mouse and the incredible Hulk are not the same genre at all. One is american comics and the other is a disney cartoon. They're not even part of the same media. It's like you're comparing Pokemon and Godzilla when you say that. Are they both Japanese? Yeah, sure. But they're not the same medium. Hell, they're not even from the same time period.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hearts-Are-Cold In reply to arcnova [2012-04-05 18:09:30 +0000 UTC]
When you don't specify which one you mean, how am I to know. I was referring to the original 1928 version of Mickey, and the original print of Hulk from the 60's. I did my research. The fault lies with you for presenting a comparison without specifying what you mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
e1n In reply to Daniel-Gleebits [2012-04-05 02:56:54 +0000 UTC]
people will call things whatever they want, there's no stopping that. to me it's not about what things are called and whether it's proper, it's more whether as an artist you know what to do with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FLOWone In reply to e1n [2012-04-06 08:19:07 +0000 UTC]
Seeing this, I got to ask have u ever read "Fun with a Pencil" by Andrew Loomis?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
e1n In reply to FLOWone [2012-04-06 08:54:57 +0000 UTC]
yes i have. andrew loomis' books are a must-have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FLOWone In reply to e1n [2012-04-06 16:58:06 +0000 UTC]
When i saw this, totally reminded me of those early parts dealing with the divided ball and plane method, thanks for the reply!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>





















