Site Header
ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Description
This is the last one. Not because I'm fed up with studying this one guy's style, but because I have a colossal back log--and more Darnell references I just screen cap'd--and I need to move on.
Raymond, I'd guess, didn't know what soft-focus/deep focus shots entail, but you can't have two planes in focus at once; so, I blurred the woman in the foreground to pronounce the many ladies in the background; then added a slight blur to the girls in the far back to push the sense of depth even further.
I think if Raymond was aware, he didn't simplify the foreground enough to push the eye toward the subject of interest. I mean, absolutely, your eye does go there, buuuut then, if that's his intent, why didn't he just blur the foreground, when the eye is going to do that regardless? It just seems, authentically, like a mistake; by someone who, for all his extensive acumen in gesture, anatomy, and perspective, doesn't understand cinematography.*
A camera simulates a human eye; what it focuses on, whether in the fore, middle or background, is what's in focus.
For my approach I used a Kyle #1 for the initial silhouettes and lineart, a Flex Wet brush for the large blocks of solid black; and then a Thick-n-Heavy brush for the lineart's intersections, and for the finer hatching. I toggled the pressure sensitivity to add more texture in the hair.
For the patterns on the clothes, I didn't even bother; I just erased what I didn't need from the original reference and used a Guassian blur. Because those patterns were going to get blurred anyway.
*Possibly he just forgot and this panel was an oversight.
Image size
3168x864px 2.75 MB
© 2024 - 2026 ThePsych0naut
Comments13
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Exactly how would you expect a fellow working with brush and quill to "blur the focus" of a newspaper comic strip? (One printed on paper.)
One must consider that so much of what the strip and comic book artists did was adapted to the printing technolog of the time. The paper was the lowest grade, so absorbed ink like a sponge - hence the need for simplicity: detailed pen and brush work would bleed and pool to make a giant spot where one had presented his details (i.e., facial features). Size of the original work had something to do with it, too. Once reduced to the actual printed page size a well-drawn, well-considered composition could turn out indecipherable with bleeds and blotches.
It's good to study the Masters to learn, though you start to lose me when you switch gears to teach by criticizing them (Masters) - and doing it unfairly - as if using them as straw men.
BTW - the blurred camera focus in an ink illustration hurts the eyes. This is a terrible effect as it is, and moreover can not be replicated on the printed page. It doesn't apply to print. Simple line, line weight, tonal scheme, contrast framing, and silhouette are the technical tools at one's disposal (not camera lenses).
