Spidey

Sequential76 · 09-21-2011, 04:57 PM

Here's a shot of Spidey web-slinging through the arch of Washington Square in NYC.
Hope you dig the idea!

Just a cool little story, when I started drawing this I got a call from Orlando Harding. Orlando was the first guy to publish me in a full comic back in 2005. He was in California for a meeting to shop the comic to be made into a movie. Sadly the meeting never happened for some reason but as he drove through the streets a little old man in a non-assuming Mercedes drove by. It was Stan "THE MAN" Lee! Orlando followed him to his house and approached him. Orlando spoke with Stan in his driveway for close to an hour, Stan was nice, he looked at the books, liked my work (the artist

) and they talked about movies and such.

Sequential76 · 09-23-2011, 12:29 PM

My Deviantart

Sequential76 · 09-24-2011, 11:42 PM

My Deviantart

Sequential76 · 09-25-2011, 01:52 PM

I call this one Dead Bear! 1! 2! 3! GO! DEAD BEAAAAAAAAAR! YEAH! DEADBEAR! DEADBEAR! DEADBEAR! YEAH! D-E-A-D-B-E-A-R! DEAD BEAAAAAAAAAAAAR!

My Deviantart

Adam Masterman · 09-25-2011, 04:07 PM

Nice stuff, man, that bear pic is very strong. Your stuff has a real Top Cow feel; ever submitted to them?

Sequential76 · 09-25-2011, 04:36 PM

A few years ago.

I'd jump at the chance but I gave up with them for now, they've got a pretty tight brotherhood over there.

Sequential76 · 09-25-2011, 04:38 PM

Sequential76 · 09-25-2011, 04:47 PM

I'm going to the NY comic con, Do you think these might be good portfolio pieces?

creativesynergy · 09-26-2011, 10:41 AM

David, I've looked through the above images, as well as your work on the DeviantArt site, and have to say: You are a fantastic artist with a great sense of composition and understanding of emotional impact. You've got a couple of different styles, one more realistic and detailed, the other more cartoony and simpler. I think you need to showcase both as sometimes I think less is better. Also, I was noticing the amount of details you'll put into a cover (single image) vs. a page, so them seeing what they can expect at a given speed of production, that'll help them make a decision. Your work, to me, is very reminiscent of Phil Jimenez, not only in the amount of details, but also in the style of your more detailed work.

There are areas in a couple of the pictures you've posted above that either don't make sense (Spider-Man) or don't have as much impact as it could (Michelle).

Let's start with Spider-Man:

- His swing looks great, with the web in his right hand (is it?) having that sense of give showing his upward motion (back to this in a second), but the web being shot from his left wrist is aimed downward. Why? Is he shooting it at someone? Was it to create a leading line to the bottom right corner? If that's the case, the slope/tilt of the image would probably suffice. Design-wise it looks great, but it doesn't make as much sense (and it isn't a matter of "suspension of disbelief").

- I'm confused about the web that he has just let go of (is it?). I see where it "seems" to come from and the end I "think" he let go from, but I can't be sure because the one under the arch is so close to the webbing under his right arm, making it look like it has disappeared behind it, and that he hasn't, indeed, let go. Also, because the lines of the web on the end that he has let go of blend in (on the initial viewing) with the details and degree of blacks in the inking, it's hard to determine which end is which. That might be something they will comment on at the show.

- Stupid question, but is that woman's hair at the bottom of the picture a Disney reference?? If so, nice touch, but what year is it taking place in? Do African-American women still style their hair like that? Might be another comment, but I like how you incorporated that in.

You might have to explain what is happening in this picture, for the sake of clarity, when you show it.

Now onto Michelle, with and without glasses:

Gorgeous image which should sell itself, but a couple of issues I see are the stance/pose, the lack of clarity and impact when looking at the eyes in the darkness of her coat, and the lack of (believe it or not) a naval/belly button (really?). The last point is easy to add, but let's look at the first two:

- This is a photographer's pose, not a "natural" pose (believe me, I know, as my father-in-law is a photog and is constantly contorting us). There is no action or sense of movement. Her arms, positioned as they are with the palms facing us, aiming the pistols to the sides of the image, make it look as if she "should" be aiming them at something or show as if they have just shot something (with smoke coming out of the barrels). Her legs seem "lifeless", having perfect balance being side by side in the art, but not being appropriate/complimentary to the positioning of the arms. The two together don't work. If you haven't already role played this pose, I suggest you do so. It isn't "real". Even a "power pose" needs to make sense. And if you have the arms up to create leading lines in the composition, the rock formations on the bottom sides and the larger globe in the upper middle portion of the page already accomplish that.

- Was this image designed around the main focal point being the eyes in the darkness of her coat, or were they an afterthought? To tell you the truth, they aren't obvious enough. Due to the fact that her legs are so close together, and because the eyes are at knee level, you don't see them as well as if her legs were further apart or if the eyes were further down near the ground. Yes, the idea of hiding is to hide, but they aren't menacing enough the way they are right now. Comparing it to an old Porky Pig/Sylvester cartoon where they are in a "haunted house", the eyes in the dark of the mice have more impact because they are made to be the focus. I don't get that feeling from this image. The idea is that the black area where the eyes dwell are in a frame-within-a-frame, created by the positioning of the legs. Use that to your advantage.

- Given how tight her coat seems to be around her arms, shoulders, and waist, I'm trying to determine the heaviness of the fabric, as it seems too tight to be leather, but not flowing enough to be a lighter fabric. If it is leather, should it be thinker and heavier looking? The bottom portion of the coat looks like leather, while the top looks lighter. This matters, because lighter fabric, flowing more, would billow out more, making the eyes obvious as they are surrounded in darkness instead of just a peek through a crack.

Regarding the glasses vs. no glasses battle of opinions, here's mine: The glasses in the first picture make her look mysterious and unpredictable, while the lack of glasses in the second one shows her humanity. One shows emotionlessness, the other shows emotion. The eyes are indeed the window to the soul, and if you want to show feelings coming from the character, then you need to have them uncovered. It entirely depends on the meaning and intent of the image. What are you trying to convey? Let's put it another way. With regards to the eyes in the the darkness, is she "human" with them being more symbolic or literal with them being an extension of her mysteriousness? You decide.

I think you have some great work to show at the Con. Sit back, think about some of the points I've mentioned, and GET BACK AT IT!

Steve

Sequential76 · 09-27-2011, 08:30 PM

Steve, thanks for the critique! I'll be back a few more times read this again.

On the spidey piece my biggest gripe is the eagle on the monument being tangent with spideys head, I had some problems redering it too. As for the Mickey mouse girl, she's from an indy book I worked on with a friend in which she does go back to the seventies. That said I think many New Yorkers can be a pretty retro-eclectic bunch. I'm surprised and amused you mentioned that.

As far as Michelle, good eye, those demon eyes did come as an after thought by my buddy who ordered the commission. I originally layed her out in motion coming toward us and I had the jacket billowing even when I was deirected to have her stand with gun to the side. I thought of the trench as leather but it could be some kind of poly mesh or flat finish latex material.

Good stuff and thanks again!

CaptJackZodiac · 09-29-2011, 12:46 AM

You should draw the critter that effed up that bear.

09-21-2011, 04:57 PM	#1
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	September Forum Fun Here's a shot of Spidey web-slinging through the arch of Washington Square in NYC. Hope you dig the idea! Just a cool little story, when I started drawing this I got a call from Orlando Harding. Orlando was the first guy to publish me in a full comic back in 2005. He was in California for a meeting to shop the comic to be made into a movie. Sadly the meeting never happened for some reason but as he drove through the streets a little old man in a non-assuming Mercedes drove by. It was Stan "THE MAN" Lee! Orlando followed him to his house and approached him. Orlando spoke with Stan in his driveway for close to an hour, Stan was nice, he looked at the books, liked my work (the artist ) and they talked about movies and such. Last edited by Sequential76; 09-23-2011 at 12:37 PM.

09-23-2011, 12:29 PM	#2
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	A page from the work I did on Zenoscopes GFT 51 p5 My Deviantart

09-24-2011, 11:42 PM	#3
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	My Deviantart Last edited by Sequential76; 09-25-2011 at 01:54 PM.

09-25-2011, 01:52 PM	#4
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	Zenoscope Myths and Legends I call this one Dead Bear! 1! 2! 3! GO! DEAD BEAAAAAAAAAR! YEAH! DEADBEAR! DEADBEAR! DEADBEAR! YEAH! D-E-A-D-B-E-A-R! DEAD BEAAAAAAAAAAAAR! My Deviantart

09-25-2011, 04:38 PM	#7
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	Michelle without glasses

09-25-2011, 04:07 PM	#5
Adam Masterman Starving cartoonist Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 344	Nice stuff, man, that bear pic is very strong. Your stuff has a real Top Cow feel; ever submitted to them?

09-25-2011, 04:36 PM	#6
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	A few years ago. I'd jump at the chance but I gave up with them for now, they've got a pretty tight brotherhood over there.

09-25-2011, 04:47 PM	#8
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	I'm going to the NY comic con, Do you think these might be good portfolio pieces?

09-26-2011, 10:41 AM	#9
creativesynergy Steve Colle, Editor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Posts: 1,302	David, I've looked through the above images, as well as your work on the DeviantArt site, and have to say: You are a fantastic artist with a great sense of composition and understanding of emotional impact. You've got a couple of different styles, one more realistic and detailed, the other more cartoony and simpler. I think you need to showcase both as sometimes I think less is better. Also, I was noticing the amount of details you'll put into a cover (single image) vs. a page, so them seeing what they can expect at a given speed of production, that'll help them make a decision. Your work, to me, is very reminiscent of Phil Jimenez, not only in the amount of details, but also in the style of your more detailed work. There are areas in a couple of the pictures you've posted above that either don't make sense (Spider-Man) or don't have as much impact as it could (Michelle). Let's start with Spider-Man: - His swing looks great, with the web in his right hand (is it?) having that sense of give showing his upward motion (back to this in a second), but the web being shot from his left wrist is aimed downward. Why? Is he shooting it at someone? Was it to create a leading line to the bottom right corner? If that's the case, the slope/tilt of the image would probably suffice. Design-wise it looks great, but it doesn't make as much sense (and it isn't a matter of "suspension of disbelief"). - I'm confused about the web that he has just let go of (is it?). I see where it "seems" to come from and the end I "think" he let go from, but I can't be sure because the one under the arch is so close to the webbing under his right arm, making it look like it has disappeared behind it, and that he hasn't, indeed, let go. Also, because the lines of the web on the end that he has let go of blend in (on the initial viewing) with the details and degree of blacks in the inking, it's hard to determine which end is which. That might be something they will comment on at the show. - Stupid question, but is that woman's hair at the bottom of the picture a Disney reference?? If so, nice touch, but what year is it taking place in? Do African-American women still style their hair like that? Might be another comment, but I like how you incorporated that in. You might have to explain what is happening in this picture, for the sake of clarity, when you show it. Now onto Michelle, with and without glasses: Gorgeous image which should sell itself, but a couple of issues I see are the stance/pose, the lack of clarity and impact when looking at the eyes in the darkness of her coat, and the lack of (believe it or not) a naval/belly button (really?). The last point is easy to add, but let's look at the first two: - This is a photographer's pose, not a "natural" pose (believe me, I know, as my father-in-law is a photog and is constantly contorting us). There is no action or sense of movement. Her arms, positioned as they are with the palms facing us, aiming the pistols to the sides of the image, make it look as if she "should" be aiming them at something or show as if they have just shot something (with smoke coming out of the barrels). Her legs seem "lifeless", having perfect balance being side by side in the art, but not being appropriate/complimentary to the positioning of the arms. The two together don't work. If you haven't already role played this pose, I suggest you do so. It isn't "real". Even a "power pose" needs to make sense. And if you have the arms up to create leading lines in the composition, the rock formations on the bottom sides and the larger globe in the upper middle portion of the page already accomplish that. - Was this image designed around the main focal point being the eyes in the darkness of her coat, or were they an afterthought? To tell you the truth, they aren't obvious enough. Due to the fact that her legs are so close together, and because the eyes are at knee level, you don't see them as well as if her legs were further apart or if the eyes were further down near the ground. Yes, the idea of hiding is to hide, but they aren't menacing enough the way they are right now. Comparing it to an old Porky Pig/Sylvester cartoon where they are in a "haunted house", the eyes in the dark of the mice have more impact because they are made to be the focus. I don't get that feeling from this image. The idea is that the black area where the eyes dwell are in a frame-within-a-frame, created by the positioning of the legs. Use that to your advantage. - Given how tight her coat seems to be around her arms, shoulders, and waist, I'm trying to determine the heaviness of the fabric, as it seems too tight to be leather, but not flowing enough to be a lighter fabric. If it is leather, should it be thinker and heavier looking? The bottom portion of the coat looks like leather, while the top looks lighter. This matters, because lighter fabric, flowing more, would billow out more, making the eyes obvious as they are surrounded in darkness instead of just a peek through a crack. Regarding the glasses vs. no glasses battle of opinions, here's mine: The glasses in the first picture make her look mysterious and unpredictable, while the lack of glasses in the second one shows her humanity. One shows emotionlessness, the other shows emotion. The eyes are indeed the window to the soul, and if you want to show feelings coming from the character, then you need to have them uncovered. It entirely depends on the meaning and intent of the image. What are you trying to convey? Let's put it another way. With regards to the eyes in the the darkness, is she "human" with them being more symbolic or literal with them being an extension of her mysteriousness? You decide. I think you have some great work to show at the Con. Sit back, think about some of the points I've mentioned, and GET BACK AT IT! Steve

09-27-2011, 08:30 PM	#10
Sequential76 Stepping on Giants Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 931	Steve, thanks for the critique! I'll be back a few more times read this again. On the spidey piece my biggest gripe is the eagle on the monument being tangent with spideys head, I had some problems redering it too. As for the Mickey mouse girl, she's from an indy book I worked on with a friend in which she does go back to the seventies. That said I think many New Yorkers can be a pretty retro-eclectic bunch. I'm surprised and amused you mentioned that. As far as Michelle, good eye, those demon eyes did come as an after thought by my buddy who ordered the commission. I originally layed her out in motion coming toward us and I had the jacket billowing even when I was deirected to have her stand with gun to the side. I thought of the trench as leather but it could be some kind of poly mesh or flat finish latex material. Good stuff and thanks again!

09-29-2011, 12:46 AM	#11
CaptJackZodiac Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: I'm sitting at my computer Posts: 128	You should draw the critter that effed up that bear.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode