Unusual for the Art Dump, but I thoroughly like it.
Awaiting more from you.

Pretty cool Vampire.


Finished a new piece today.


(as a side note: I do believe I am developing a habit of writing out posts then accidentally navigating off page before submitting... ugh)

So today I decided to take a stab at drawing without linework, just so happens my friend told me to "draw the last video game character you played as"


Yeah it's terrible, drawing without linework presents a slew of interesting new challenges.

i think it looks 10000x better than your other work. i think you should try to stick to that style.

I prefer not to mentally confine myself to a Style, I just do whatever feels right for the current piece.

however, I would like to point out that this painting isn't really in a "style", it's just a few steps further along the line of realism so to speak.
basically you have:
1. colored art, not shaded. has linework.
2. colored art, CEL shaded. has linework.
3. colored art, CEL shaded. no linework.
4. colored art, soft shaded. has linework.
5. colored art, soft shaded. no linework.
6. more detail.

The image kind of started as 1. went to 4. then 5.

literally every piece of artwork in any art medium has a style. the one you used in that image looks way better than the 2004 flash theme you seem to go with otherwise
hint: never use really cheap gradient effects

I don't ever use "really cheap gradient effects", and I like how "every other piece" of mine is one of them in your opinion. nice to know I have only made one thing going by your logic...

not at all shitty gradients, nope.
Oh, and yes. You've only made 1 piece of artwork in your entire life. That's what I was saying, yes. You pinned the nail on the head there. Nice analysis.

ah, ok, please learn art terminology then, that's not gradient shading, that's soft shading, albeit on a grayscale instead of a colored one.
gradient shading is literally just applying a gradient across the image in the stead of shading.

if you don't like smoother soft shading that's fine, it's just a style, same as anything else.

No man that's gradient shading alright.

Gradient's are tricky sons a ♥♥♥♥♥es.

This seems like the perfect opportunity to pop in and say I really don't like Bombzeros art, regardless of the fact I don't like that style in the first place I keep noticing several things that you could be doing better, constructive criticism time!

Firstly, your proportioning is terrible, for example in this image,
the sand worms tail, tail pincers and face pincers fail at obvious consistences (the tail should be the same size for the entirety of its length, the pincers should be almost symmetrical, ect)
Numerous similar faults exist in your other works.

Now the gradients, and to get straight to the point I'm going to agree with Miggles (OhGodHowDidThatHappen) and say they look terrible. I know you're most likely going to defend them to the death and not going to stop using them, but I want you to seriously reconsider the next time you reach for that gradient tool. If you take a look at all similar styles, you'll notice that almost none of them use gradients, some use shading
but gradients are usually reserved for people who can't shade, or create very detailed pieces. Why doesn't anybody use gradients? Because simpler pieces greatly benefit from a cleaner look, and for another example, a flash animated show that has gained quite a following in recent times.The eye contains 1 gradient, only a single 1 directional gradient in the entire piece.

Finally, your lines and shapes need some work, but the only thing thats going to help that is practice. So, uh, keep at it!

Even if you want to call it "soft shading" it's still being used inappropriately.
You're right in one way in that it makes the materials it is used on look soft.

You don't want them to look soft.

You are shading a giant chitinous worm and a diamond. Neither of those things will reflect light in the way that you have shaded them implies.
Diamonds are sparkly and reflective, there will be a large variation in shades that cannot be simulated by just shading from top to bottom. It needs vastly more contrast than you have used and also a greater understanding of how light sources work upon objects with several refractive edges.

The worm should not be gradient shaded either. Even a soft bodied worm would need more definition than it has been given. You have shaded this as if it is one continuous object rather than a segmented creature, lazily letting your outlines do the work for you. If you are going to have shading then you should not use your outlines as an escape clause from having to apply it everywhere that it is necessary!
The segments form crevices which should naturally be darker than everything around because they are crevices. The head and tail which definitely aren't meant to be soft and fleshy should have harder lines (and the spikes should actually cast shadows, once again you are letting your outlines do the work for you!)

And let's not forget that your light source just doesn't make any sense anyway.


You can argue "it's not gradients" and "it's stylistic!" until you're blue in the face (and you'd be wrong, it's pretty much a textbook example of gradient shading) but that doesn't actually help the fact that ultimately it is an unattractive technique that leaves little definition in the objects and hurts your growth as an artist. Please do as Miggles said and focus on what you call "hard shading" and what virtually everyone else calls "actual shading"

To further add a point to that shading bsnss, stick your hand within a foot of a lamp. Notice the shadows? They're actually pretty well defined. There is a small gradient at the edge of the shadow due to the curvature of your hand, but past that point it's uniform in light level. The more diffuse the light source is, the bigger the gradient will be. The sun, however, tends to cast very sharp shadows by itself, so unless there's a total cloud cover, you'd usually want outdoor shadows to be sharp. Bonus points for that because it's actually easier than doing proper diffuse shading.

I personally go with up to three levels of illumination: Not lit, lit and "reflecting light right into your face". Reality obviously has more shades than that, but it isn't easy to keep track of them. Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but you used a soft burn tool to make the shading, right? If so, then just make it harder, and keep the light source and volumetric shape of your objects in mind. Also remember that outlines are sneaky bastards. Cubes have a hexagonal outline, but they shouldn't be shaded like so.


yaknowwhatimsayin? Not that i think you made this particular mistake, just be careful not to do it. Also, i know the corner facing the viewer is technically unlit, but sharp corners like those are typically better off being brightened (it looks better), not to mention that they'd probably reflect a lot of ambient light. Flat surfaces should normally have a uniform light level (possibly specular reflections at the very edges), while curved surfaces usually cast shadows upon themselves at some point and have a narrow specular in the "center" of the lit area. I'm saying this because, as chao mentioned, soft shading on a crystal doesn't do the crystal justice, especially when it's an angular one.


IT IS IMPORTANT. And this isn't including how most gems are transparent, which is hellacious to illustrate. Also, in case your crystal is a light source, note that light sources themselves are rarely shaded at all. Exhibit A: a lightbulb. Exhibit B: the sun.

Also, different note: While i don't endorse the use of the word "terrible" in conjunction with constructive criticism, these chaps are legitimately trying to help. While i'm pretty sure that i tend to get unreasonably butthurt for the strangest of reasons (and that most others don't), it's still worth keeping in mind.