This series rather cute -- I heard it's been green lit for a 2nd season this fall. This is the "Pres", Rias Gremmory, who the main character calls Rias Senpai as she's an older classmate (as well as his master). You see, she's the head Daemon of her household and you don't want to get her irritated with you.
Here's a multi-shot-stack showing layers of development follow through on the development:http://imageshack.us/a/img846/3420/progressive6xtallsmalle.jpg(6 images top->bottom outlines-only on white, added hair fill, added face+clothing fills, added eyes (13 & 15 layers for Left and Right eye, respectively); same layers with black background; same layers with final background (another set of layers shown in next strip). The background strip is shown here:http://imageshack.us/a/img703/5073/progressivetallbackgrou.jpg7 frames total. top frame is a plain color that I started with. 2nd added a baroque pattern underneath the whole thing as a faint background -- stock adobe photoshop pattern; 3rd added a darker shading to move the wall into the background (visually) so foreground character would stand out from background more & added slight gradient going from top->bottom gradually darkening. 4) full panel view of the molding in the upper left -- the molding was a collection of 4 gradient layers at an angle - each of those layers was blended with overlay gradients from Left->right, with each of them taking about 25% of the width. Example -- 2nd from left is a lighter than the rest gradient that creates the light-beam coming down. It uses some effect layers to aid in this -- to give the appearance of it having been painted with 'faux gold'; 5)panel 4 in the main pic (yeah, just a little corner); 6 larger pattern of diamonds applied on visible areas of background -- (note -- I didn't bother filling in areas that were to be obscured by foreground matter); and 7, added the corner of a wazzit. Could be a picture frame, but up close could be a cut into the wall.. what it is? Undecided... which is is part of the background.
I re-upped this in png and went through all the gradients and changed them to dithered... it seems to look better.
As it stands now, Rev2-4 above are the corrected image and u/l in PNG ... they keep changing order... So weird...
(later...updated this description ~ 5-6 times to clarify issues brought up in comments AND to note that a first revision of this posted hadn't passed a full-res, detailed QA...my bad! posted corrected version, noted above, based on those comments, some number of hours later...with VampLuvr helping to correct some ordering of the versions that I had in uploading (noted in notes below) -- thank you!
Note: choose Rev 2 for 16:10 format (same pic as 3&4)...
(Choose 1 if you want to see initial problems in image @ fulll res.)



Saving…
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Biggest thing I have to say is what's the source material? Is this based off of a screenshot, or is this a picture? Did you just vector Rias, or did you also do the background too? It looks like you've got some effects in there, what exactly did you do? What did you work with?
So I like what you've done with Rias, but when viewed at the maximum resolution the quality significantly decreases. Best advice I can offer with this, is to create a vector in a larger resolution and then downsize it for posting on a wallpaper. It offers a much better quality overall, where as with this it really points out the overall loss in quality when you go that large.
As for the background. There's a huge difference in the quality of the vector to the quality of the background itself and while the image is rather large, it's still rather jarring when you put it on a desktop for a background. Secondly, what is the background suppose to be of? It helps paint a picture for us if we know what's going on, but I can't really tell what the scene is suppose to be of. Is it of an office? Is she in front of a door? It's really hard to tell.
Biggest thing with composing a scene is you want to tell your audience a story. Let us know what you created, and why you created. I hope this information helps!
7 months, 2 weeks ago
For some reason I ended up with some artifacts that show up alot more in the jpg versions -- but are still the same in the tiff.
On layer in her here I could see a line across it at 100%, that wasn't there working on it -- it's was a very slight gradient layer that I didn't turn on dithering on... but as near as I can tell, it split a dither right across the layer. When I changed it to a mono color, it went away.
I'll post a correction after I've gone over it at 200%...
7 months, 2 weeks ago
If you are using Illustrator, the line through the gradient. is due to an error in the application. Patching to the latest version of CS5, or upgrading to CS6 will fix thie issue.
7 months, 2 weeks ago
I was using CS5 -- but changing it to 'dither' on all the gradients got rid of all the problems.
I think another thing that threw people off was not using pure simple colors in the hair -- I used digital noise to break up the smoothness since real hair would both have a smoothness to it, but also have a graininess to it... so I threw in a little shading / dusting of digital noise to dark the layers around their edges. Some people have thought that was an error in some copy process -- it actually took extra work and consideration to get it added in.
The thing about the larger size.... It really is designed for a larger screen or to be split across multiple screens -- you wouldn't sit 8-18 inches away from a 60" screen -- which is what the 5120x3200 would be for....best viewing distace for a 60" screen.. at least 5 feet usually more around 6-8.
It's like human skin, if you blow it up 3-4x and zoom in 5x, it isn't going too look smooth.
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Hair has what now to it? Graininess.... since when? lol And irrespective of your resolution an image should be crisp and clear, free of any obvious imperfections such as missing lines and incorrectly overlapping layers and overuse of blur. So I don't know why you're arguing the quality of your wall in regards to your resolution size... honestly out of all the wallers I've critiqued you are the first one to use that excuse. I have tried to give you constructive criticism to help you see the faults and to improve your work, for that is how we artists grow and develop our skills; by listening to those who have the experience to give advice... but it's obvious from reading your response to Clock that you have no intention of listening.
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Please look at the latest and see if your comments still apply. ***There are no lines that do not join up that I can see. Please don't think I'm shining your comments on. Much of the stuff you criticized was a trivial fix. I just didn't design it with the attention to detail that you gave it. When I realized that -- it was fixed and uploaded a few hours later... yet you think I'm not reading anything saying.
You want to see me as someone who is argumentative and doesn't listen. Then explain why most criticisms are gone a few hours later? Those were trivial fixes.
What you call "blurring", is called "feathering/anti-aliasing". No blur was used in producing the vectors -- but when I didn't use a 1-2 pixel feather, I could see jagged, non-blending lines.
For me, this was the first time I've worked with someone of this low a resolution. Normally I do what Cy says -- I work a range that is at least 2x what I publish in. This time I went far in the opposite -- but it wasn't a gross error, it was fine tuning -- why make such a big deal about it
[quote] And irrespective of your resolution an image should be crisp and clear, free of any obvious imperfections such as missing lines and incorrectly overlapping layers and overuse of blur[/quote]
I really don't think you looked at the newly uploaded versions.. I fact, it's hard to tell what you looked at, given that the corrections I uploaded last night had been deleted this morning...I re-up'ped them again, later, saw 1 bad on top and 3 good at lower levels on the stack that comprised version 1. A few hours ago , I say those 4 had been split to 4 versions. Satisfactory -- as versions 2-4 were correct, just that they should have been 1 revision.
[quote] Hair has what now to it? Graininess.... since when? [/quote]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Blackhair10.jpg <- black hair that looks more white due to reflections.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Menschenhaar_200_fach.jpg <- a real hair .. it isn't smooth. It's got overlapping layers of keratin... These catch and reflect light differently -- some are translucent, others partially reflective.
The result isn't uniform. I focused on a more organic look -- and overlooked the details of 1200% magnification -- which were there, I admit... they were also trivial to fix. @ 161 layers, you find a few that aren't lined up.
As for use of blended transitions vs. cut clean lines -- it really is a matter of what is appropriate for the subject and personal preference, but on the matter of placement of transitions -- if the placement is wrong. They are wrong -- sharp or soft, but fortunately those are easily fixed.
I guess i should just thank you for noticing my design techniques (as well as catching my inattention)...
As for this line: [quote]honestly out of all the wallers I've critiqued you are the first one to use that excuse[/quote]
Honestly, if you really believe that was an excuse and was not the absolute truth, that's very sad (http://imageshack.us/a/img843/9418/pssettings.jpg). Proof's in the settings. That you would call the truth an "excuse" ... dunno what to say..I'm sorry?
I've tried to look at hair VERY closely...(http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/204/6/9/tail_on_black_by_aethena-d589r3u.jpg).... I designed the brushes that I used in making that used in making that 'courser' texture.. That's @ 3800x3800. I've since designed even finer versions. I didn't use any of those here. as I didn't want to design this is in 10k... so I used the afore mentioned "excuse" for hair in photoshop -- Thank you for your "constructive" criticism.
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, actually I have looked at the newer revisions considering I'm the one that tidied up the mess that was made of them in the uploading process, as you requested of me in the shoutbox, might I add. So don't paint me as someone who is going out of my way to be critical for the sake of criticism. Just to clarify I never said that any of the things that I pointed out to you were huge issues, I do believe I mentioned in my critique that they were all small things that needed a little bit more attention to make a big difference, but if you want to continue to quote me to make your points, then please feel free it really is no skin off my nose. I honestly was trying to help, but again I see you aren't willing to listen to what I may add is merely constructive (I loved your sarcastic use of that btw) advice, feel free to take it on board or not. Your unnecessary use of linking wiki pages about the construction of hair baffles me, irrespective of what you linked I saw no graininess as I had queried in the first place. Variation in hair tone and colour certainly, which most artists use to their advantage when vectoring their characters. If you want to take the grainy approach, then be my guest, no-one is stopping you. Again I was querying something that made no sense to me, and believe my point is still valid. And yes, I do find you argumentative as a matter of fact. In every conversation I have had with you so far where I have tried to explain simple matters to you reasonably you have continued to argue the point. Here I was merely trying to offer my vectoring experience to someone that I thought could do with the advice, it's how I learned and am still learning, (if you take the time to look through any of my other critiques than you would see that I was hardly singling you out) but I see quite clearly that it is unwanted and being taken as a personal attack. Then so be it, I'll leave you to vector your way and keep out of it. Good luck in your future endeavours, I hope they prove fruitful.I'll refrain from offering my unwanted advice in future.
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Please don't accusing me of arguing when I am explaining. Explaining is not arguing a point, it's explaining how I got there. It may be me explaining how I screwed up, OR it may be explaining that some assumption you made in your critique wasn't based in what I did.
Example. I didn't use blurs. AFAIK, photoshop doesn't have a blur function for vectors. I used gradients -- something you say I should use.
If I didn't use blur's, but used gradients and you criticize me for using blurs and not using gradients, I can see how that might come across as an argument. BUT it's intended to let you know that using the techniques you claim I should use, I got the results I did that look like some form of blurring you don't like. It's not negating your like/dislike of them. It means, in this case, I don't know how to apply that particular piece of feedback to what I did..
I can write more, but you have your view that I read nothing and use nothing of what you say -- which is ridiculous. But if you wonder why I might feel defensive, it's the clear contradiction in your initial critique and your response to me pointing out this was my 3rd wall.
You said: """I'm really sorry to have been so negative in regards to your work but I have tried to give constructive advice as well, as I think you could improve greatly with a little extra work, but as it is ****this wall really does need a lot of improvement****"
And then come back with: """"Just to clarify I never said that any of the things that I pointed out to you were huge issues,"""
Please don't play the wounded critic when what you wrote only details faults -- and speaks nothing to or about anything I might have done right.
And thanks for your efforts in fixing the versions problems. Not getting any response from you I could only hope... clearly you are able to do well despite little spits and spats of miscommunication that zoom back and forth...... I honestly like vamps too!.. sigh.
7 months, 2 weeks ago
If you say so.
7 months, 2 weeks ago
7 months, 2 weeks ago
You have been hanging around Bantam...
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Honestly this wallpaper didn't look extraordinary when I first saw the thumbnail, but I decided to click it and check it out anyways. I ended up downloading the wall, mostly because of the vibrant colors of her hair and her eyes and vector-like quality. At first sight, I thought this was vectored, but when I zoomed in, there were simply too many errors and too much noise for this to be a vector, even a bad one. Regardless, it does say something that I thought this was a vector at first (if this is really a vector - sorry). I don't know what kind of source you worked from, but this isn't too shabby, and you don't pick up on any of the errors at my screen size anyways (1080p).
7 months, 2 weeks ago
You should really check out the new version...-- problem is when I am uploading....all my revisions are going into revision1...and no way to move them over to revision 2...so last night had 2 corrupt versions & 3 good versions -- all under version 1, this morning, only 1 corrupt version was left.
So I uploaded the good versions again, as well as a good copy of the odd resolution that had been kept -- did my uploading in png instead of jpg as well...as they seem to be more resilient to some of these minor color glitches...
7 months, 2 weeks ago
so I think it just look fine... better in a small size not so good at full size but well I downloaded anyway, i think I saw a texture like the one the bg has, but don't remember :) thanks for sharing
-btw love redhead girls hehe-
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Hmn... from thumbnail view this wall looked quite nice, nice enough that I was prompted to take a closer look. However upon full view I was a bit disappointed to see things that made the wall lose quite a bit in quality and quite frankly made it seem rushed.
As Crimson said, it's nice to have a bit of story with any wall, it gives us as appreciators a way to put the wall in some kind of context, or perspective if you like. Now, on to the things that I really feel need to be improved upon;
Firstly I'll start with the little things, but changing these will make a huge difference to the look and quality of the wall.
-Blur... why? Just why use it so much? If you want to blend then use gradients, they are much nicer and look far cleaner.
-Blunt Lines... this may be a personal peeve of mine, but I know other artists here on the site share my loathing of them. A tapered line looks far more natural and clean than a bluntly ended line, especially when it comes to lineart for Hair!
Now onto the more major problems...
Your background is quite poor in quality, the blur is just overwhelming. Without the blur it may be easier to tell what the background is meant to be; I'm assuming that's a doorway back there? But honestly it really is quite poor in quality compared to what it could be. Sharper more defined lines would be a far better choice, with a slight gaussian blur to give a sense of depth. And whatever that shading is, try something else, it just makes the wall look dirty. A soft gradient would be a much smarter choice there, giving the wall a sense of lighting, and depth.
Now onto the Character herself...
Again, that damn blur is frustrating me to no end. You have a beautiful character that could quite literally shine in this wall, but you've gone and dulled her with blur. Especially when it comes to eyes, you should avoid blur unless it's to help with blending and even then it should be minimal. Gradients (again) are a wiser choice giving a cleaner and brighter look. Eyes especially benefit as they have more 'life' to them when they aren't bogged down with blur.
You've blurred your lines as well... In fact I'm finding it difficult to find something that you haven't blurred... Blurring of lines for certain areas can enhance a vector, depending on the amount of blurring you use and what the lines are for, (for example depicting a soft material / sheer material) but generally crisp lines are much better for a vector's overall quality. Trust me, I've made the blur mistake and learnt from it - http://www.animepaper.net/art/185372/shy-girl - In small view she looks awesome, but upon full viewing you realise she's way too blurry as was pointed out to me by my peers who have been vectoring far longer than I had.
So, your lines don't match up with the colouring, colouring spreads out from the lines which seems odd to me to be honest. You have colour missed spots in the hair, areas that should be red but are showing the background colour through them. This is a quality problem that should have been picked up before submission. Always use the 'Eagle Eye' on your work before submitting, go over every inch of your work with a bright garish layer behind it, something opposite to the colours you are using in your work. For your wall I'd use a fluorescent green for example, so if there are spots that should have colour but don't, you will be able to see them clearly.
Hair lines shouldn't be lighter than the main colour you are using, as a rule they should be a touch darker than your darkest shade, the shadow shade for example. Gradients on your lines will help with lightening the areas that have a brighter shade. Also, be careful of line overlaps and colour layering... you have the hair colour on the right hand side of her face totally overlapping her face line, it is non existent from her cheek upwards. Your colour layers should always be underneath the line layers. If it's at all helpful, I organise my layers in folders and in sections for each part of the vector I'm doing as I vector. Top folder will be hair lineart, or any hair accessories that are on the hair, working my way down, to accessories, clothing, skin being the last. Each folder has the lineart as the top layer, with the colour layers below that. This way you avoid overlaps that shouldn't be there. Just a tip if you want to use it, but I find it very helpful when you are working with multiple layers.
Ok, so what happened to doing lineart for her clothing? You have lineart for all of the rest of her, why not her clothes!? To be honest it looks pretty odd and jarring against the rest of the vector. If you are going to work with the lineless approach, it is generally done over the whole not just in one spot. Ditto for taking the lined approach to vectoring, you don't just miss the lines in one area.
I'm going to be very honest in saying that her clothing looks rather horrid, it's blocky and unattractive. If you had paid a little more attention to the details it would be a different story. The colouring is just odd, there is no real graduation from the bold navy blue to the grey, a colour choice I don't understand either, it just looks off. Again, gradients would have solved this issue for you, taking a slightly softer blue in the right shoulder and using radial gradient to shade inwards, would have achieved the lighting effect you were looking for.
But the thing that puzzles me most are the strange colouring edges that appear throughout your wall, almost as if the scan is still underneath it all and you've merely coloured over the top of it... odd. It detracts from the wall and gives it an unfinished and just overall poor quality.
I'm really sorry to have been so negative in regards to your work, but I have tried to give constructive advice as well, as I think you could improve greatly with a little extra work, but as it is this wall really does need a lot of improvement. Good luck on future works!
7 months, 2 weeks ago
this wallpaper sure looks amazing :) keep up the good work and good luck in the feuture (sorry my eng sucks xD) ;)
7 months, 2 weeks ago
Graet wall
7 months, 2 weeks ago
gods
7 months, 1 week ago
In this wall I think you should focus more on Rias rather than the background. For me close-up shots should be vectored and should be nice and clean.The lineart should be fix because the color of it seems lighter than the base color. The hair highlights should have some effects but the shadows are fine. And you should use a smaller size for this since it dont have so much detail elements in it.
7 months, 1 week ago
Thanks -- I wanted to focus more on the foreground than the background, myself. One of the things that is confusing is that I didn't use lines in the hair only as boundaries, but also as darkening streaks in a few places, just like I used light-ish lines as hilights. I deliberately blurred most of the dark lines, as when I see images, in real-life, I don't see lines so much, so my style right now (at least for this wall) was to try to minimize the abrupt transition of hard lines -- so in that sense it definitely isn't your average 'vector'. I'll admit the shines on the eyes probably could be sharper when viewed up close, but if you design for up close, you get a missing effect when it's downsized or viewed at a distance. My avatar source is 4500x4500. So much detail is not only shrunk when it's downsized to an avatar, but looks really different.
On the hair highlights/shadows -- when viewed at a lower resolution, the digital noise at the edges of the lighter reason looks more like shadowed gradient. It's only when it's viewed @ full res, that those sections have a bit more in common with half-tone print like newspapers use to give it a rougher texture... Perhaps a bit artistic overkill for a simple line-drawn graphic, but I 'm trying to reproduce some of my hand effects in vectors -- a challenging task.
Also to be clear-- by use smaller size, do you mean lower resolution or that it should only take up part of a screen? If you want lower resolution -- a downloader could always choose a lower resolution for display. I certainly don't display this on my desktop at 5120x3200 -- my desktop is only 2560x1600 @ about 30" so it's about 12-24" away depending on what I am doing. If it was a 60" and really 5120x3200, it would be 5-8 feet away. So I'm not sure what you mean by smaller size. Thanks for the comments! You can be sure I listen to all of 'em (may not agree, but the words stick in my head, regardless!)...
7 months, 1 week ago
Can I pile on and dump on this wall too? Do I have to have a mustache or the all seeing eye to do so?
My $0.02
7 months, 1 week ago
Replying to CrimsonCyanide... source 5th episode, 720p, near or about this frame: http://imageshack.us/a/img89/2382/ep5base.png --- which was at about 22:35/24 They had a few of her -- just in head shots that were striking. It was down to between this and another -- Am still thinking about that one -- the expression on her face is a seductive one -- but the level of complexity on it is so low, I didn't think it'd be interesting enough. I dunno -- after I went over this one, it came out better than the original -- especially in the coloring. I was trying to stay true to the original and wanted it to be a high res version of what I saw on the 'small screen'...I wanted to focus on the character, though if you look at the original, you'll see even in recreating a similar feeling of the original, I went way up in the detail as it was too blah. The color on the central figure with the high red and aqua-greenish eyes I thought were enough by themselves to make her stand out. The clothing was not what you wanted to focus on -- and not what was focused on in the original. In virtually every way, I had more detail at ~5-6 times the resolution. My problem on the first version -- I didn't compare the larger version to "itself"... compared to the source I drew from, it looked so good I rushed things out without inspecting it on high against 'itself' -- if that makes sense.
If you zoom in on the original, you'll see the same type of shading in the lighter areas of her hair -- a technique I liked and thus emulated for texture in the hair. I'm more into the anime than I am vectoring, so my style ended up being more like the original source material than than some people are used to in vector graphics...I like the effect. As for what I vectored -- the whole thing is a vector -- has to be as the original was alot smaller, but the background is the least exact in terms of being an exact representation -- I added more detail to the wall paper print -- especially the diamonds. Which were separately placed objects throughout the wall, but I didn't want to overly draw attention to the background, as it wasn't the intention. As for telling a story? Eh? it's a still from an entire story that I found striking. Was originally just going to do a partial job for myself, but at some point decided I might as well do the whole thing and submit it here for others to "enjoy" (and "roast")... seems like even though I end up with things users like... the critics crawl all over my details and techniques... But I do it for the enjoyment of the viewers and fans of the show... not for critical art. I don't do alot of walls, I certainly can't churn them out like many do... I try to go for simple and pleasing... It takes a long time for me to find things I like... but, I have to have a fairly strong emotional response to something to even start it -- let alone finish it.
Hope that answers your Q's...and thanks for being an early pointer out of my neglect in comparing it to itself. I couldn't believe I'd messed that up...so basic...oh well... Can't see the forest for the trees...
6 months, 5 days ago
pretty
5 months, 1 week ago
good wall
5 months, 1 day ago
aaaah, the Prez. I´m surprised by the simple, innocent pic you chose to work with, but it looks so nice and clean!
5 months, 1 day ago
Rias looks beautiful
4 months, 7 hours ago
I love her facial expression,rias is so lovely and beautiful