Lintire's art Reviews on Newgrounds

[Left Alone]

Will o the Wisp

This has a great atmosphere to it - one that literally reflects it's title, so I suppose you've pretty much gained the direction that you've gone for, and that's something worth saluting. I like the picture, and it's got some great stuff going for it - the muted colours, the enthralling focal points and even the juxtaposition between the human-looking central point and the two spiritual-looking things surrounding it.

However, there are a few bad points - the lack of detail outside of the focal point becomes horribly apparent upon closer observation and the brush strokes really start to blare out when one does try to closer inspect the focal point - it appears as if you've built the entire picture on a single painting concept, something that you don't want to achieve. But overall, it's a great picture and i like it.

3abden responds:

Thanks for the critique.

[Runk-A-Chunk]

I like big butts, that you can't deny...

A great birthday hug machine, even if one look at those tits would surely be enough to drive most when to swallow their own throats and get the death over with, ASAP.
So, great hug machine, not a great present on all acocutns, though :3

It's a good picture, though, you've really managed to apply your art style to fat chicks and get that retarded and overall fucking ugly look out into the open, exposing all their insecurities and how they cover them up with smiles, wiping away their tears in their own backyards and begging, even screaming at the walls, for a better life, less teasing, less... hurt.

Nice picture.

BizarroJoe responds:

The fun thing is that everything you said in this review is what I was intending... For another character. It was an old idea I had for an animation inspired by the "Fat Anime" collabs... One project that came again to my head when doing this... *Aah* maybe one day...
But thanks to your input, now I know I'm on the right lane for that!
Thank you very much for commenting!

[Ms. Death]

Oh Snap, it's a GRAMAPHONE!

Another great submission, Luxembourg. Loving your stuff, and, well, decided that I had to do some sort of review for it. To start off, the style is original as always. I can honestly say that it's branching away from everything that I can base it on, developing your own unique style, which seems to have a strong basis on innocence. This style is going well with the theme of death - considering all the submissions were based on or off the general subject of the Grim Reaper (Not so Grim, this piece) and the whole concept is it's own take on the subject. The colours match the lineart perfectly, giving off the idea of a musty attic - which I'm assuming is the general feeling you were heading for.

I wouldn't say that her eyes being huge is a bad thing - the lack of experssion, facially at least, does clear the way for some proportional warping and I wouldn't rebuke you for over-compensating via way of her eyes. Especially in a relatively cartoon piece which doesn't really have much basis in reality anyway. As for the designs, I think you did particularly well - they were subtle, enough to be missed at a first glance, and the designs on the girl's (I'd consider her more eccentric then insane for her utter desensitization to death) coat really appealed to me - good thing you didn't have to redraw her, because getting that right twice would have been an utter bitch.

However, there are quite a few problems with this that no-one, including yourself, seems to have mentioned. The most notable is that you've utterly cocked up the depth and volume of the background objects - they seem utterly flat, and completely indecipherable from the foreground - the main character could be 2 or 20 meters away from the shelves, for all I know. The corner spiderwebs, along with the pipe, seem unattached to anything - I'd advise trying to research how to draw your graphical drawing, then try and apply them to art. I can't really seem to find any good tutorials right now - all the Google results I can find seem to either insult your intelligence or are completely unrelated, but I suppose you get the general picture.

Now, while the designs were fairly well done, the textures did seem quite cheap - the static on the TV, the woodwork on the table, and the background "crumpled paper-esque" textures all seemed fairly cheap. Since you draw in Coral Painter, there's no real point in telling you to go try some Photoshop effects to try and emulate in the textures in place of drawing them, but I do liek to think that you have to know the limits and rules of a subject before you can fuck with them to your desire, so here's a link (probably butchered by the NG things) to some realistic texturing - pencil, but whatever.

http://www.learn-to-draw-expressively.com/drawing-realistic-texture.html

Another problem with this was the shading - it's a great way to convey tone and depth, but it's been used way too sparingly in this picture and doesn't really amount to any difference in the long run - I had to actually to actively search for the shading to find it. As a rule of thumb, while shading, and when using layers of shading sparingly (ie when you're only using the one main tone) try to go 30% to 40% shading, scoring enough of the picture for it to be notice. The more layers and tones you used, the more you shade, but that;s jsut a basic rule of thumb.

Other then defining the character and background some more, while working on your light sources, those were the main problems with the picture. Looking back at your other pictures, your lineart has improved greatly, and your colouring is eons above what it used to be. You do seem to have an overall theme of innocence in your drawings - it works well with the style. The only other things I can really add are that chimneys in your head is the the new black, try adding some cast-iron into your pictures, and would "The Big Book of Death" have anything to do with a certain Bronwyn Carlton?

Luxembourg responds:

You have a knack for giving me good reviews, and this one is no exception.
I'm glad you generally like it, and I'm glad you see the issues where they are and pointed them out.
About the depth, I am absolute shit at depth and perspective and things of that sort. That's certainly no excuse, but it's something I really have trouble with. I don't really know how to cause things to look farther back without putting them in a position to look very far away. I'm terrible at that and pretty embarassed about it.
The textures are something I'm fairly new with. As you've noted with my work, details and coloring have never been my forte and I've always worked mostly with lineart. This is one of the first times I've ever digitally tried to apply a texture to anything, and I did them all by hand. Practice will help me with that, but I understand that I did a poor job with most of the textures here. I thought I did a decent enough job with the wood texture on the gramophone (which looks different than the texture on the desk), though that's virtually invisible unless viewed full size. I regret using the paper texture in the background. That was cheap.
I'm always a little scared of shading things digitally. I tried, but I always make things too light to avoid them messing up the pieces. I'm also pretty bad when I don't set up a directly visible light source, so I don't always know how light will behave when it's area lighting rather than concentrated lighting. I was more liberal with shades in, say, The Vexon and the Light, but I'm not always aware of what to do when I don't set up some more direct light sources. I feel like I learned some things about basic digital shading on this, so I hope to be more liberal in the future with shades.
It's a reference to a Christopher Moore book, by the way. "A Dirty Job", which is about Death. It's one of my favorite books of all time.
Thanks for the awesome review, Lintire!

[Miss Neon]

No Cigar4U

Now, before you go all "ZOMG HE VOTED LOW BURN HIS ASS", just hear me out. Or more likely, grab a drink and settle down for the read. I've noticed that not many reviewers like to put much effort into their reviews so much as just commenting. I don't know what's up with that, I just keep and keep. Anyway, I can appreciate what you've tried to achieve here - that is, recreating the effect of glow sticks waving about into a picture. The problem is you haven't done it very effectively, the drawing itself looks cheap, and there's a complete lack of detail in the picture (even darkness can have detail).

The basic glowstick effect you've been able to recreate quite nicely - that is, having one of those kids that you don't really like waving his hand up and down really fast to create a trail of glow that, when ordered right, can create a picture. The problem is that the glowstick trails are extremely messy in some ends yet minutely detailed in other (compare hair - neck) and while other parts you've actually outlined colours with other colours. While this isn't only impractical, kids having the motor skills of, well, a brick, the yellow eyes being sourrounded by a fain blue outline is also unsightly.

My advice would be to put more emphasis on there being glow stick trails. Point out beginnings and ends of trails, have them much more bright to the source as compared to simply being blatantly done with a lowered opacity brush Photoshop (well, that's what it looks like to me. If you're not doing that, using a different program and actually putting effort into it, then stop what you're doing and defect). You can also shove detail into here too - have the lighted glow-sticks at the ends of the trails, grabbed by grubby little hands and try to paint this picture as an actual piece done by kids holding glow sticks, rather then a product of glow sticks. Like, without the grubby little hands.

I'm not saying there should be grubby little kids with grubby little hands and spleens ripe for the collecting, I'm just that this piece, as it is, is weak. No strength. Kids with their spleens intact can, somewhat, fix that.

As for the drawing itself. Well, Not all picture of women have to be lookers, but an egghead that looks like it came straight out of a backyard flower-shop isn't exactly attractive to look at when shrouded in all this illogically existing glow stick trail. Your proportions are fairly off - that nose does look like a facial tumour - but it's ugliness is kind of accelerated by poor positioning and structure, You moved it to the side in order to accommodate your signature - which, while not "un-fine" is kind of incentive to believe that the picture, isn't the main attraction.

Anyway, much potential for a picture, but as it exists it is pretty damn weak, shallow, and whatever other words I con conjure up for a picture that has no real substance. No sugar-coating it.

Snowman responds:

I find this review to be very helpful. I see what your saying to about everthing, and on some rainy day i will most likely be retrying this and keeping this review right next to me.

I find it funny how some have voted this review to be useless.
Honestly , I wish more people would review like this, the only thing it could do is help me fix my mistakes and improve. I dont see why people get all butthurt when they get reviewed under a 10.

[Ucogi Beach]

Assmongerer.

Well, man, you're certainly able to draw perfect asses. I mean, the ass of this drawing is perfectly ass-tacular, what with the ass and the skirt and the ass. Did I mention how great that ass is?

However there are a great many things wrong with this picture. Not that ass. Damn, I'd hit that. No. Great many wrong things with this picture. The hair is completely bland, sporting a wholesome three sparse layers of shading that are completely at odds with the rest of the picture - even if the hair was "directing" the flow of shading for the picture, the body (ass included) and clothes don't show it, sporting lighting from another two sources as well as completely ignoring the presence of the hair. My advice would be to choose one direction for the lighting, stick with that, and try and put more detail into it, while shaping the light flow around that spank-magnet.

Next issues would be the skirt. It's length is at odds with itself, longer at the sides while shorter over the big booty itself. Now, while I definitely appreciate what you're trying to do, there is no real existing fashion that employs those tactics and any attempt at foreshortening doesn't really cover how much shorter the ass-flap is. I'm not telling you to lengthen that one part of the skirt to make it fit in with the others, no. I'm telling you to shorten the rest of it, just to show off more of those gracious hips, hey?

Now, i really should move onto the way-too big forehead and unrealistic tiara and boring gradient-based background and poorly proportioned breasts, but all I really want to concentrate on is the ass so let's head back to that, shall we? The hips are out of proportion to the torso and shoulders - while the characters (whose name and face and whatever else beside the ass is not important) is turned, it's obvious that the shoulders and torso are too small for those hips, try lengthening them out a tad, or just shading them more accurately to make them seem lengthened out more.

So, overall, nice ass, ass and ass. Can't say much for the rest of the picture. Should really rate this lower but you get an 8 for perfect ass-drawing.

Sexually depraved? What are you talking about?

Veinom responds:

hey, thanks... the forehead was bugging me too lol!
Maybe I will leave this one as it is and try to be more careful next time. And yes, the shadows are a bit random, but I never thought somone would notice anything beyond that ass! I'd like to think that the sun is above her, not that it has 2 light sources. oh, and the skirt is not shorter, its in perspective, as it moves by the blowing of the wind so are the hair.

[Doubles Showdown 12]

Hot damn, a washing machine!!

Well, this may have taken a while to get around to - but I tend to procrastinate on anything and everything worth procrastinating on. Call it a failing of mine and it doesn't get any better when I actually enjoy neglecting my responsibilities. Says something about who I am, don't it? Anyway, here my (hopefully helpful) review:

Luxembourg and Ashman, the shared artwork you've done here is pretty much genius. Luxembourg, no worries - I've passed out of Lazytown and are heading into ThoseNiddlyDetailstown. It's a nice place, I recommend the beef stew they always have on special, but any length of time spent there is, in a word, exhausting. You want to put as much detail into a picture as you can, but at the same time don't want to put too much effort into it and be expected to do the same for each and every piece that you do. Just a subtle hint - details are good, but expecting yourself to produce better and better detail in each subsequent picture is a great way to suckerpunch yourself with a nice case of artist's block. Happened to me several times >.>

Commenting on the linework, I have to say that I think the idea is simply brilliant - I can see major evidence of scrap heaps and all, along with those appreciated details that are easy to pick up on - like, say, the washing machine to the left. You've kept in with your simple and elegant design, but it's obvious that you've ramped up the stakes and given yourself bigger goals, with more time to achieve them. You certainly haven't failed to deliver, and all over it's a great example of your art - I remember you stating in the Doubles Showdown thread that you were absolutely no good at drawing robots - isn't it a great thing that robots are flexible (?), able to bend themselves to no particular style. I've seen some pretty weird robots out there.

All the same, there are a few problems with the lineart - namely, I suppose, perspective. Even if the way it was drawn "was meant to be that way", matter of fact is you could have done so much more in positioning, foreshortening, and angles. The focal point is present, but seems to be weak - don't be afraid to warp perspectives and lengths to suit your goals - those washing machines could have been twice as long and warped in nature, but still look natural - the trick is to keep it in uniform - where you spread the machines, you spread the path, and you spread the robots. You probably want to work with more 3D objects, get those perspectives and distances under wraps. But overall, you did great and it's a good start into the world of... worldly things.

Onto the colouring, I'm a real bitch for fancy lights and night-time scenes, so frankly I think a 101 degrees too biased to do any real criticism. To do a few pointers, though, you'll want to research your more complicated block-style shading patterns - in fact, I've got a great example right here by David Cousens, he did a great job colouring this picture:

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t240/Nitecreeper/ broken-link-final.jpg (You know the drill with the spaces)

So you'll want to study multiple cases of other artistâEUTMs work, just gather in how they do it. Just a tip to improve your lighting, itâEUTMs always a thousand time more complicated than I ever think it is.
Great submission, guys, and I think you made a great team.

- Lint out

Ashman responds:

WOW way to review dude, that was genuinely helpful, with lineart work i try not to put in too much detail, it takes away from the lineart, instead i try to build on it with fancy lighting and color

[Doubles work]

Walking on broken glass.

*sigh* Felt that I needed to write a review about this. Which is probably more a punishment than anything else, because I tend to be a long-winded bastard. So I won't blame you if you just read the first line or two and decided to walk in the other direction.

Your style is unique and brilliant. It's a bloody niche that has the ability to be elevated to unforeseen heights of brilliance, instantly recognizable by all and frequently copied by the nubs. Not there yet. Might be. Not yet. You've got a few "problems" in the way of it, and to one's particular surprise I'm just going to helpfully point them out for you. Mostly they've got to do with one point - when it comes to your art, you seem to be exceedingly lazy. I don't mean that in a conscious sense, but theres no real sugar-coating it - it seems that 90% of the time you'll pump out some lineart, slap on a colour or two call it done. Well no, it's not done at all.

Completely an artwork is taking a simple artistic style and plugging so much detail and love into it that in the end you've got a saturated plate of awesome. It's like comparing a classic cartoon movie - say, Sleeping Beauty - to those cheap-ass Saturday morning cartoons. Same basic style, but which one would you call the masterpiece? What I'm saying is that while your style is unique - dark fantasy twixt innocence - your level of detail and commitment and effort isn't. It takes a lot more than raw talent, minimal effort and an encapturing view on the world to take it to masterhood. You've got to get in there and add some bloody detail - say, on the above piece, double sided glass on the candle - a candle inside, textures on the wood, a frayed dress, saddlestraps, engraved eyes, signs of multi-levelled propaganda on this world of yours - just, as an idea of lateral thinking - bruises on the girl to suggest a hurt mind escaping from a harsh reality.

Just saying. Love your ideas, concepts and style. Don't level your execution of them.

Another fairly disappointing flaw that a little effort that could be rectified with a little effort - backgrounds. Dreaded word, I know. But most works nowadays need them. Starting off simple would do - in this piece, again, clouds, floating isles, canyons, stars, planets, all kinds of background accessories could have been added, given this artwork much more depth than the level which it currently owns. Going from there, you could work up to the point where the background is much more illustrious than the foreground, having the potential to be artorks in themselves. Just going with this one, you could have (in time with mountains of effort) entered a multi-level gothic metropolis altering with the flow of the ghost thing, acting as a focus point and eye candy. Level of complexity could have been added, and this piece could have been an outright winner. Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Now, last point, but really just an afterthought because it's really something that has to be worked into - your colouring. On this piece, good, but you didn't do it and I'm just going to really ignore it, but take heart in it. Colours matching your styled drawings, with levels of opacity (I'm guessing) to create that digital painting look. Pretty. He forgot to soften the lineart itself, but what the hell. Try searching tutorials on colouring - it's a right bloody asset in drawing, can adds depth of awesome never before experienced. But that's up to you.

Anyway, finishing off, the piece is great and nobody's perfect. Keep it up, loving the style, etc etc blah blah blah. Luxembourg really is a catchy name, mint gum is annoying, waterbottles aren't so ravishign once they get dirty, using "Wicked Lovely" as both a book title and series title is cheap. Whatever.

Luxembourg responds:

Holy hell, this is a massive review.
Laziness isn't something that has really occurred to me. This particular piece was kind of rushed since the deadline for the Doubles was right at the door, but I do see what you mean. Details are something that I'm far from perfect with, and I often feel that I need to be able to do something well with physical mediums before I do well with them on the digital side of things. I still have a lot of problems with digital shading, although I've gotten worlds better with shading with pencil, as an example. I'm trying to get better with details, but the fact of the matter is that, quite simply, I don't entirely know how. Textures elude me and I find backgrounds crushingly hard to make look right. However, I NEVER run away from things I'm unable to do, and I've been practicing both detail and background with pencil drawings. I have worlds left to go, but I'm getting better, and I hope to be able to get better when working with a tablet as well in the near future. I'm not good at these things, and I know that, but until reading your review, it never occurred to me that it's laziness so much as I think it's fear to try it in what I consider to be a full-blown piece rather than just a practice work. I think I'll mess it up too badly and it'll ruin it. But now that you mention it, it could be laziness; it could me just being unwilling to at least try and detail things, since even if I mess up on a new layer, I can just delete it. And your suggestions for how exactly I can add detail were actually really good.
As for colors (on other pieces), I usually have no idea what I'm doing with colors. I can identify what looks good when I look at colors, but when it comes time to do them on my own pieces, I'm clueless. I think that has a little bit to do with the fact that, like I said, I work maybe 90% of the time in pencil, which is all monochrome. I want to get better, and I've actually been practicing with colors since the Doubles competition, since I now see how good I can make things of mine look if I get better with colors. My lineart on this piece kind of blows, I know that, but the colors (while a tad messy) are great, and I think if I could get that good with colors on my own, better works, things could get worlds better.
Well, we're both long-winded bastards, but that's a good thing I think. Really, it's reviews like this that inspire me. They really open my eyes to something I'm doing wrong and help to further me. I'll be trying to incorporate more details into my digital work, now, even though I'm bad at them. Thank you for this amazing review.