Created more brushes owoNew pencil + web mix work with mix engine (mixed your 2 chosen colours together).And soft-tip pen depends on opacity. Stronger pressure - lighter colour, which means when you rise your hand/stroke it gets darker. I like it for sketches especially.They are nothing special, but hope you`ll like them!
The Hand Drawn Bundle Rar
The post with previous 2 bundles: My lineart and drawing bundles Tutorials & Resources [Drawing kit samples] [Lineart kit samples] Decided to share bundles with brushes that I created for my own use 030 Its my first time doing it, and Im not sure that I did everything right, I had no issues, but not sure if other people are not going to have them. All my brushes can be found by putting the word Aura in the search window. Hope you`ll like them
It still has the problem with an indication of missing brush tips for Aura Pastel Hard and Aura Pastel Soft brush presets. This is very puzzling because the brush tips are present in the bundle and the brush presets are using them, as can be seen by using the brush editor.
In the United bundle itself, I had a look inside and there are references to two brush tips that are not part of your bundle and are not used by any of your brush presets.One of these is abominable_snowman.png, which is in the Krita_4_Default_Resources bundle.The other is dlyakritafull_1 which may be a brush tip in your personal resources collection.
I dont understand how it happens @_@I remade tips for brushes, turned them into png and put in a brushes folder.Also for some reason I only can created bundles with the new version of Krita, the old ones don`t react to my actions at all for some reason. Mistery
I also stumble over problems like this all the time, I would guess it is a problem with the Windows version of Krita? (If you are using that OS too.)The list of bugs I have encountered making brushes is ridiculous, and makes bundle-creation take a lot longer. I wish you luck in fixing that!But the good news is that they are rewriting the resource manager in 5.0, so I am crossing my fingers for the bugs disappearing then!
By having visual graphic resources on hand, designers have the ability to expand their creativity. It can be used to inspire, inform, and attract people. Our graphic resources are compatible with Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Canva, and other graphic programs. Our graphic design bundles can be used for greeting cards, invitations, flyers, etc.
Designed by Darius Dan from iconPerk and with a total size of 45.1Mb, this huge free bundle of icons contains over 2800 colorful icons, which fall into 20 different categories. The mass collection can be used in personal and commercial projects without requiring attribution.
A bundle of essential icons every designer should have. With a total of 140 icons, this pack contains 80 universal icons and 60 business and communication icons. The icons come in two visual styles: flat and outline.
This is brilliant. I love Kirby and realized that for some reason I just couldn't ape his style when I was first learning to draw. For some reason it never dawned on me that it was a bit inaccurate. I really like his squared up hands and fingers!
I think I disagree with the thesis being presented here. Certainly, Kirby is using a shorthand, loose way of suggesting anatomy, but I think that shorthand is based on a reasonable understanding of real anatomy.In the image of Etrigan used, the strong diagonal running under the top of the deltoid seems to be a representation of the coracobrachialis diving between the biceps and the triceps. That squiggly line could be the inferior border of the long head of the triceps.In some ways, Kirby's representation of anatomy is clearer and less confusing than the Bridgeman student drawing you compare it to, which is made more impressive due to the fact that the academic study was done from direct observation while Kirby was probably working purely from imagination. All the Kirby drawings in this post seems to have an at least plausible enough rendering of the basic large muscle groups. While they're not perfect, they're more believable and correct than the muscles seen in a lot of contemporary comic book pencillers. Also, we find plenty of artistic liberty taken with anatomy in the work of "more serious" artists like Rubens and Michelangelo.If anything, I think this post makes me more appreciative of how great Kirby was at portraying the real structure of the human body in a simplified, but functional and dynamic, way that was perfectly suited for the simplified, dynamic world of his art.
Kenney Melcher-- yes, those oversized Kirby hands-- big, blunt squared off instruments-- weren't well suited for poets or surgeons, but were an ideal stylistic exaggeration for an artist specializing in super heroes. James Gurney-- Good to hear from you, Jim. Yes, I take your point about Z space. I suppose they still had a lot to learn about mastering 2D space (including details of what goes on beneath the surface-- something which many artists later concluded they could do without). No sooner did we became accustomed to thinking in static Z space than our pictures began moving and talking in 3D. What new brand of steroids will we come up with next?Humbucker-- A few weeks ago on this blog I defended Picasso's use of unrealistic and exaggerated anatomy. I wouldn't cut Picasso any slack that I wouldn't also give Kirby. Personally, I think you're being generous in your interpretation of Etrigan's deltoid and coracobrachialis (I suspect you were closer to the truth with "a shorthand, loose way of suggesting anatomy"). But we don't need to debate that drawing-- if we look at one of the drawings I describe as spectacular failures, I think they are indefensible as "based on a reasonable understanding of real anatomy." That right arm is a bunch of convex squiggles to denote power, unconnected to human anatomy. (How do you account for that horizontal line?) I'm not saying that's a bad thing-- rather, I'm impressed that Kirby gets away with it because of (as you put it) the offsetting value of the "simplified, dynamic world of his art." Many artists trade the discipline of representational drawing for something else. For some, it's watching football games or having fun surfing the internet. Those slackers are easy to spot. Picasso traded realism for other effects that were incompatible with a tightly drawn, accurate pictures. It's possible that Kirby did understand anatomy but traded it for the potency of comic book drawings. It's up to the viewer to determine whether what they receive in exchange is worth the trade off.
All you have to do is backtrack through Kirby's earlier (Pre: Fighting American) work to know that A: He did know Anatomy B; The Kirby we all know and love was 20 years into his career and had figured out a shorthand that allowed him to work quickly and give his work a sense of energy alot of other creators lack to this day.
Conor Hughes-- I will let others calculate whether Kirby was "among the top 5 cartoonists of the century." He was certainly very important to the comic book quadrant of the cartoon industry.But when you say, "To examine Kirby's work purely on it's accuracy is to completely misunderstand the point," I thought that was the one thing I wasn't doing. I was saying that Kirby's inaccuracies were offset by other redeeming features, which I think is a very rare thing. Usually when an artist gets anatomy wrong we mentally categorize them at a particular level. But with attitude and gesture and his "impression of the figure" Kirby persuades us that accuracy is secondary. What interests me on this post is what set of conditions persuades us to forgive the artist. As for the drawing of Orion, I am sorry but I think that is one awful drawing. The same with the drawing of Thor and Hercules. You might easily persuade me that an artist as prolific and underpaid as Kirby is entitled to some clinkers but you'd have a real hard time persuading me, regardless of the inker, that those are anatomically accurate or even passable. Finally, it would be hard to find someone who disagrees that Kirby's drawings understood power but you're probably the first person I've encountered who thinks that Kirby's drawings understood emotion. They have the emotional range of the Hulk (but that's OK).Jamal Igle-- Kirby's work pre Fighting American shows me that Kirby "knew anatomy" in the sense that most people have two arms, two legs and one head. But that was enough to get by in that era. I really like the period when Kirby "figured out a shorthand that allowed him to work quickly and give his work a sense of energy a lot of other creators lack to this day." For me, that period when he took more liberties is the period when he became excellent.
David--I'd personally even go so far as to say Kirby among my top 5 artists ever, but i agree his place in the history books isn't part of the discussion. As regards your point 2, I wasn't explicitly stating that your argument was such, but rather responding to what was the general feeling I had from the comments.Nonetheless the leading prong of your assessment (it seems to me) is that in spite of his inaccuracies Kirby is good. I would say that it is Kirby's 'inaccuracies' are what make him great. It is not 'conditions' that make us forgive him, in my mind, but that he convinces us that there is more to life than (what eventually becomes, esp in comics) egotistical replication of reality(e.g. Rembrandt vs Vallejo(tho Boris does have his charms)). Not only that Kirby demonstrates often a superior understanding of the mechanical aspects of the body as well as an ability to articulate that body ANY way he saw fit, without any reference of any kind. For every janky choice is 100 many experienced draftsmen couldn't replicate. Kirby's work is a tour de force in raw drawing power, where rather than wasting time on superfluous rendering, as many modern commercial artists do today, he communicates simply, effectively and with force. Regarding the 2 offenders, I still refuse to acknowledge the Colletta drawing. He is well known for actively not following Kirby's pencils, any discussion of Kirby's drawings with Collettas embellishments is completely worthless. I really don't have a problem with the Orion drawing, and actually find others you have chosen in the post to be worse offenders. Side note: it's underhanded to put up convention drawings as examples of his work. Again the fact is he is drawing things from crazier angles than any one else faster than any one else. The lines on Orions body communicate to me the lats. Sure he ignores the underplane of pec, but arguably the character is lifting the muscle and thus flattening it out. Kirby emphasizes muscles and de-emphasizes them constantly to support the action--->narrative. Many artists whose talent resides in the more 'accurate' depiction of the human form wouldn't accomplish such a thing without 10 photos and 10x the time. I would disagree on the point of Kirby's emotional spectrum. I know you aren't saying this, but in general there is a feeling that sketchy lines or mushy colors are the accepted method of communicating emotion, which I find to be rubbish. Thinking of this reminds me of Daft Punks song by title emotion. Look at FF issue 51 by Kirby to see him tackling emotion other than "me smash". The Thing is a hero, but he's an outcast and ultimately unable to have the one thing he desires. Kirby's panels in this issue communicate this emotion.Perhaps it's a personal thing, but contemporary works that people hold to communicate emotion (Blankets) don't feel like real emotion to me, but rather are examples of feelings of feelings. They are neither raw nor real. 2ff7e9595c
Comments