PDA

View Full Version : Color samples


DonEdwards
12-28-2013, 08:31 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tSYM9tYoR1g/UrwbcictTeI/AAAAAAAAIgo/RuJz7mksVd4/s1600/UK019.jpg

For more: GO HERE! (https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Art-of-Don-Edwards/187111741322461?sk=photos_albums)

Charles
12-30-2013, 01:43 AM
To paraphrase, color, color everywhere, and nary a drop to drink.

You have a dreadful tendency to flood your works with color, to the point where you leave the reader drowning in a sea of color. And just like a tidal wave of water crashing ashore, the tsunami of color that you inflict on the reader ultimately destroys the end result that you are striving for.

Here, the reader is treated to a torrent of purple. It's like the great flood of biblical proportions. There's so much color, that it makes it difficult to appreciate what it is that you have colored.

If God injected Creation with color in the same manner that you inject pages with color, then we would all soon go blind from sheer visual overload. Look at nature. Look at images from the Hubble Space Telescope. The universe is full of color, Don. It's all around us. Yet, it doesn't look like this page.

Even the speech bubbles you just had to flood with color. Why? Full scale visual assaults with color of this scale annihilates visual interest.

That little blue guy in the center panel. He looks good. He looks decent. He doesn't visually gouge me in the eye. But, all around him on this page, Don Edwards is sticking me in the eye with yaping maws of color splotches.

The star field in the bottom left of the page. That looks pretty good. Then, over on the bottom right of the page, you nuke our eyes with the color red on a galactic scale.

The red speech bubbles do nothing to visually enhance this page. Rather, they are merely the visual equivalent of adding insult to injury. The monstrous red splotch in the star field at the bottom right was apparently not sufficient to punch us in the eye with. You had to populate the page with those large red speech bubbles, too. Plus, you treated us to white text on all of those red speech bubbles. Even in the speech bubbles, no oasis from all of this color run amok is to be found.

That center panel, the one with that decent looking little blue guy, why, oh why, did you need to our a bucket of orange in the background? What did that accomplish? What was the point of it? The top is immersed in purple. The bottom is dominated by red. So, flooding the middle with orange was visually beneficial, somehow? How?

The purple fox, or whatever he is, in the top panel competes visually with all of the other purple surrounding him on this page. The fox's fur, skin, and clothing are all dark colors dark purple or dark green. You have some contrast between the glazed-over star field behind him, but he is so dark that the color absorbs the reader, thereby taking away from whatever details that the art, itself, otherwise provides.

And the fox needed a yellow eye, also? Are you afraid to leave any white on the page? Even the eyeballs must all be colored and not white? According to this page, apparently so.

There's some kind of ruins in the center of the page, but you flooded that whole area with purple. The eye is eager to escape that color trap, and it seeks safe visual harbor elsewhere on the page.

You like to use special effects in a lot of your coloring. Just as you frequently display a lack of color discipline, likewise, you no less frequently display a lack of special effects discipline in your artistic handiwork.

If you would kick your special effects habit for a while, I really do think that your coloring skills would improve appreciably. The majority of your colored pieces that I have encountered to date evidence the equivalent of a two-hammer approach to coloring. In one hand, you wield a sledge hammer of color. In the other hand, you wield a sledge hammer of special effects. Yet, what you need to be using is a scalpel.

Even though I don't know you, personally, ironically enough, I have followed your coloring and art longer than I have any of the other artists and colorists on this website. So, I am certainly no stranger to your coloring handiwork.

Until and unless you rein in those wild, raging horses of yours - namely, color and special effects - your coloring will continue to reek of an amateur's touch.

From what I have seen, to date, coloring is probably the least of your strengths. You're a better artist than you are a colorist, and you're a much better writer than you are an artist.

I will say this for you, however - you continue to pursue coloring with a degree of passion, and you are far and away more prolific in pursuit of your passion for coloring than are many who are far more refined in their respective artistic disciplines.

Your coloring is like a bull in a china shop. You wield color as if it were a double-edged sword. If only you would gain a greater appreciation for the inherent value of utilizing color in a subtle manner.

In another thread, you recently posted this:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-x_yJ4DjHAxE/Uq_dRgtd0eI/AAAAAAAAIWo/44_4KD7TlKE/s1600/usagi%25255B4%25255D.jpg

SOURCE: http://www.digitalwebbing.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1816105&postcount=1

Usagi Yojimbo's two swords are NOT neon colored. His fur is not dark purple. That example demonstrates a far greater degree of artistic control than this page that you now treat us to.

Your Usagi Yojimbo piece demonstrates well, I think, that a given piece can possess a lot of color value, while simultaneously not everything in it has to just be oozing or saturated with color of a thick, bright, or neon quality.