how the fuck am i supposed to draw backgrounds If it's something like a flowerbed honestly i don't care, i can see it will take a lot of time but it's doable you just have to spend time on it, but BUILDINGS?? Machinery?? The human hand literally doesnt have the precision to draw on a fucking TINY grid, and its not just any grid, its a perspective grid, I have to place like 500 lines all aligned each other perfectly taking the z axis distortion into account. This is literally fucking grunt work you hire assistants for to trace 3d models, how am i supposed to do this as an adult working a 40 hour week?
>>7958849 its not gonna look like anything if just draw 3 cubes for the buildings and a couple of blobs for the bushers, what makes it look like what its supposed to be is 40 windows 30 books and an uncountable number of leaves
>>7958851 You can't even see the individual leaves in your fucking low resolution photo for ANTS and you can still tell what it is. The books are only recognizable as such from context. What makes you think you have to draw every single individual leaf?
>>7958852 this doesnt matter, its called growth principle, to get a believable macro image you have to build it out from details, random squiggles wont look like leaves >>7958857 you cant simplify a grid, its a grid, its arleady in its simplest form
>>7958859 what the hell are you trying to make exactly it sounds like you're overthinking and making it harder for yourself than it is have you even put the pen to paper/screen yet
>>7958842 >but BUILDINGS?? its more important to learn their components and look at what they look like than to follow a grid. Grids is more like tools you use when things doesn't look right.
I am not a cityscape specialist but when I watch them paint they do use a lot of pattern duplication and perspective warping trickery to make building parts very quickly, but I couldn't really elaborate on that because I either use 3D models or draw everything by hand.
If you have a deadline to meet, then just use 3D models or stock and be transparent about it.
>>7958867 btw the wonky perspective in here hurts my eyes, so i cant take your advice because i literally dont want to draw this sorry, its the worst of both worlds
>>7958899 I have a similar problem and I feel you but you really have to get used to this way of working, there's nothing more quintessentially /beg/ than fixating on details in the early stages of a drawing.
>>7958842 Thumbnail in preparation for the full drawing. Shape-based approach is usually a lot easier than a line-based one. Oftentimes noise and detail are indistinguishable.
>>7959054 >retard can't read the entry is for pastel shades, retard, not pastel painting nobody thinks the digital painting was done in pastels, it was done in high key pale colors, ie pastel shades now pyw jelly faggot, you can't even theorycraft without getting assraped
>>7959049 i dont see how what changes the fact that their colors are muddied? like the other person was a cunt but pretending like their art is perfect is just hug boxing them.
>>7959060 demonstrate what exactly? my skill? you're being overly defensive about it all so i have no choice but to believe its yours and you got butthurt that somebody decided to "correct" what you were going for, so my advice to you is if you're going to do pastels don't desaturate your colors o much. The whole point of pastels, especially in digital, is the vibrancy of the hues at higher tints. If you muddy them it just looks dull and washed out. Less pastel and more dead.
>>7959080 >l-lmfao matters quite a bit, considering how asshurt you are that you're not taken seriously butthurtpost some more, that'll show me how unaffected you are roflcopter