npr testing

[STRAT]

a few 5 min wips.....

 

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/cga/npr1.jpg

 

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/cga/npr2.jpg

 

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/cga/npr3.jpg

 

http://www.nikclark.com/strat/cga/npr4.jpg

[IC]

Nice work Strat. I like the last one best.

 

The second last one looks a wee bit like it's shot in a blizzard.

[taprice]

I second Iain's thoughts, nice pshops.

[Tim Saunders]

how did you get the "squigglies" in the first image?

[karl zacharias]

Hands Down #4

[Ernest Burden III]

It appears that when you edit your post, it doesn't say 'edited' ever-after. Would I have to be a moderator to be able to revise history better than certain members of my own family?

 

NPR--why now? Every time you see some of my work you remind me the NPR look isn't your taste, or your company's. Well, we should all grow as people. I wonder whom I should grow to be?

 

The vignetting is properly done. I have seen too many examples in the 'my try at NPR' threads where a positive white frame has been added to 'take away' from the image. Which is wrong. The idea is that we are mimicking a drawing, and as such, pigment is added to white paper and trains off at its boundries. It's solid over field. You have done this.

 

The more effective tries you post are No's 1 and 3. They look the most like a hand-drawn picture. Painting is a process of simplifying what you see, and those two renderings do that the best. Just messing up the boundries of areas of tone isn't the point, its unifying similar things. To a large extent, its saying what is and isn't similar and depicting them linked, whether by shape, color or level of detail.

 

That's too much typing to say I like example 1

[STRAT]

well cheers fellers.

 

EB - you are correct. npr for me is usually a dead path. i personally think in certain circumstances i'd love to use it, but as i keep stating, my firm and clients are yet to see it that way. i see myself first and formost as an artist, no matter what my bosses and clients think. i like all forms of illustration.

 

But, more and more these days, when we put brochures together we're liking the idea of something abstract on the front cover. like a throw-away image. this is why i'm testing things out. perhaps i can start squeezing it in more and more to 'real' work .

 

every technique is different fellers. and to be honest i cant remember one from the next it's a mixture of overlaying filtered layers etc etc. the history brush also features in there. a much under used and under rated tool imo.

 

i'm still desparate to get that extended lines feel. there are several ways to acheive this which, as yet, i'm not happy with -

 

motion blurring the horiz and verti line in ps is a nice method, but only suits best if you got a very perpendicular image.

another method is to hand draw the lines on a separate layer. very effective again, but time consumming for larger jobs.

autocad also can give you the extended edges feel, but the logistics of using it are pretty nightmare'ish.

 

ideally i'd like the sketch and toon renderer for c4d which easily does this, or i'm also looking into setting up the exact same model and camera possition into SketchUP, then layering the SketchUP image directly over the ps image.

 

my personal fav is no. 1 too, followed by no.2 and no.4

[Ernest Burden III]

i'm still desparate to get that extended lines feel.

ideally i'd like the sketch and toon renderer for c4d which easily does this

 

I used to do the line extensions in CAD, and covered that in my old 'hybrid rendering' tutorial. But it's an involved process, and getting camera position out of ACAD was never something I could do, Datacad was do-able. Also, Datacad has a better wiggly line style than the ones for ACAD.

 

I do my overshoots with Photoshop and, as you say, with a horiz. and vert. motion blur. The trick is how you combine them to get something on angled lines. It's not a perfect solution, but in a color image it work well enough.

 

The sketch&toon module of C4D will do a fantastic job. It produced results that are just about 100% of what I would like, yet I never use it. It's about as slow as GI. So I never have time. I've done experiments with it, and I would use it on every project if there was time. Like stochastic mode GI, its a perfect solution that takes too long to use. So it is with Cinema, I'm afraid.

[STRAT]

have you ever tried manually drawing lines over an image Ernest?

 

i went through a stage once of printing out my image, then putting a sheet of tracing paper over the print out and traced over the lines using a chunky felt pen. i'd then scan this trace out back into the pc and scale and match it back over my original render in photoshop.

 

this can work beautifully, but is most time consuming and isn't as accurate as i'd like

(see image below of something i did 4 or 5 years ago using this method)

 

Also, every now and then i draw lines over in photoshop, but again, only if the building isn't too complicated and wont take me too long.

 

if you can find it (or even be arsed digging it out ) can you post up a link for your tutorial you spoke of up there again please? (if it still exists).

 

[Ernest Burden III]

have you ever tried manually drawing lines over an image Ernest?

 

if you can find it (or even be arsed digging it out ) can you post up a link for your tutorial you spoke of up there again please? (if it still exists).

 

Oh, yeah. I've printed and drawn over, painted over, renders. I've drawn on white trace and scanned (or digital camera) back in. But only to add stuff that was easier to draw, not to trace a whole picture.

 

My former working methods (historical document now)