On Courses + Tools use code BLACK20
@steady
@steady
Earth
Activity Feed
@steady
Two things: Any tips on accurate head shapes? If I make the head too skinny or wide early on, the rest of the body will have the wrong width. Second, we seem to be missing the part for the legs. This was very helpful and the top half of the body is definitely the most complicated, but I feel like it's still important to have the rough lengths of the legs included here. It looks like some folks may have already known these proportions or got the rest of this from the book?
Michael Hampton
The head shape should determine the rest of the build. In the proportion lecture I begin with the head and build everything out from that measurement. The torso width, in other words, is directly related to my starting proportion. I only give the rough proportion here for the legs as this isn't intended to be a skeleton lecture, just something to support construction. Otherwise, I always put the knee 1/2 between the bottom of pelvis and foot.
@steady
I tried to keep my shapes as simple as I could. I think it made these kinda look like drawings done by a child but that’s okay. It was a fun simplification exercise!
loes roos
1yr
They do not look like done by a child because the line quality is way better than a child can do. Making things simple is not necesarily childlike. Note that it seems you focused more on the lines and outlines than on the shapes. The idea of blocks of simple shapes is that you can play with them to change the position or character.
@steady
After Glen Keane. Mine is much more stiff and geometric looking vs Glens organic energy. Much to learn!
@creasofie
1yr
For the wavy lines of the hair it could help to look for bigger shapes. Glen shaded the hear in 3 parts. 1 part is blank (in front) the upper part is shaded light with lots of space inbetween the shading lines and the 3rd part is underneed with lines closer to each other. If you start with those 3 shapes and than make your wavy lines follow those shapes it makes it less complex. The head is done very well.
@steady
I forgot to do the outside-in on a different layer so the red is still visible. I think I like the look of doing lights and darks more - though I did combine the two on that one and used thicker lines on the outer edges and thinner on the inner.
@steady
I think the penguin turned out good but the other two look like, real bad haha. Had fun though so I guess that’s what mattered here.
@steady
I don’t think my boots turned out very good. Got impatient with it and decided to stop before attempting the laces. Will have to try again soon. Made in Procreate
@steady
All three done in procreate. I did them before watching the demo
@steady
2yr
After watching the critique I redid the first pear
Alexis Riviere
To set the tone directly: this post is gonna be a negative critique of this course. I don't want to slander it or anything, as the content does have value and I like it. But I think it hardly matches what is being promised, which got me a bit disappointed. Anyway, Let me explain. The course includes an ebook and a bunch of videos. The videos are real-time demos of 4 different artists using Reilly rhythms to get some pieces done. And apart from Brian Knox - who takes the time to explain how he prepares his pencils, how to draw clean lines, perspective and such, before going into the usage of the Reilly method to construct the figure - they're not really teaching you how to do the same. You'd think each specific rhythm would be explained, from how they relate to the actual anatomy down to how they look like in many different poses, but nah. Doesn't happen. After Brian's done showing the big idea for the torso, no one does the same for the arms/legs, or break down things any further. It just becomes... commented demos, really, with Jeff Watts even stating that he doesn't expect us to really follow what he's doing because it's extremely advanced, or Ben Young not even using the Reilly rhythms at all to focus on tonal rendering instead. As for the ebook, it does contains different diagrams for the Reilly rhythms, which makes for 3 pages. And the rest is made of commented pictures of the drawings that we're already seeing in the videos. In the end, it's almost entirely up to us to figure out how these rhythms really work. I understand that students should learn some things by themselves, but a course should break some things down to make it easy for them. If it's just merely about giving clues, it breaks the whole purpose of a course: teaching. Again, don't get me wrong. I don't want to roast this completely, nor to offend anyone! These are genuinely great demos, and the ebook is good material to work from. I'm really happy to have them. But frankly, after coming from Stan's awesome courses (which include real lessons with explanations, exercises, critiques, etc.) this can only come as a disappointment. And for all I know, maybe the team behind this is made of extremely good instructors. But in that case, I suspect that the good stuff is kept away in the main Watts atelier program, making this just a pricey teaser... Anyway, feel free to express any counter-opinion. I'm open for discussion, and would actually be really happy if someone were to change my mind about this. ^^ I'm also curious to see if anyone else shares my point of view.
@steady
2yr
I personally think you hit the nail on the head. I was really hoping for more of a class structure, and after the first video it does seem to only be demos moving forward.
Help!
Browse the FAQs or our more detailed Documentation. If you still need help or to contact us for any reason, drop us a line and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible!