I make the same mistake myself A LOT. A good way to check is to convert your picture to grayscale (in general, I mean; it was pretty obvious on this piece since everything was the same color. It is still very possible and much harder to spot when you have a variety of colors). If all of it looks the same, you need more contrast.
The easiest way to fix it (outside of using a filter like I did) is to pick a really dark color and go over your shadows with it, and use a really bright color and go over your highlights. It's tough to avoid ending up with a flat image, but it really pays off in a big way to pay attention while you're working to how dark or bright your darkest and lightest areas are. Just try to keep it in mind.
Regardless, it's a pretty solid piece! The finer details are a bit messy, but the metallic sheen on the myr is aces and the image as a whole works really well.
If you want the specifics for how I adjusted it:
I just copied it so I had two identical layers. I bumped the contrast up on the top layer, and then erased out the background with a soft brush, leaving only the foreground on the "high contrast" layer. It's a quick fix, but I'm a big fan of picking the right colors from the get-go, since in the long run it'll help a lot more.
The idea of this being in a dust storm or something like that isn't bad, but then you need to make the air look full of dust or something. Right now all your colors are essentially exactly the same value, and it looks incredibly
BORING.
Here, look at this:
All I did was bump up the contrast (and brightness) of the stuff in the foreground, and it looks way more interesting. It might not be the effect you were going for, but unless you are very careful about it, a picture with high differences in color value will look much better than one where all the colors are the same brightness. It's a pretty good composition and you did a great job with the shading, but none of that matters when all the viewer sees is a giant boring expanse of brownish gray.
I wouldn't get discouraged, microstar22! I actually quite like that last alter, aside from the obvious messiness (but that'll go away with practice). I'd say keep at it, just experiment with it every now and then. Unless it really is mostly just a time issue, in which case that's too bad!
And demonium71, I wanna join the crowd saying that that Mulldrifter is just absolutely fantastic.
As for myself, I've been wanting to do this for quite a while:
Laaaa la la la la la laaa~
I wanna get the prince in there somewhere, but I don't know where to put him!
And here's another quickie:
Figured I may as well make a Kerrigan before I get my paws on a Queen of Blades.
So I was feeling that one of my favorite Commanders deserved a more... noticeable presence on the card:
I quite like how it turned out, although her face lost basically all the character Mr. Lago originally imbued it with. Oh well, you win some and you lose some!
WELL, it's been a long time. So long, in fact, that my threads were retired! But it looks like I'll finally have some time to do alters again.
A commission:
And two for myself:
I'm pretty happy with the Hollow, although I think the water needs some more work.
Some great stuff being posted, as usual! I do hope that this 'latest thing' with the wavy tendrils and stuff doesn't become too prevalent, though, since there are lots of great styles out there that I'd love to see more of!
Oh, and CutBackDropTurn, I don't know too much about the tricks to color matching, but I do know that if you are using black and white to darken and lighten your colors, you should be aware that they will also make them 'duller'. Beyond that, lots of practice is the only trick I know!
Unless the set symbols need to be a fixed size or number, you could have ten pictures instead of five; faction versions of the four rarities and the unknown, where each picture is the watermark and the set symbol side by side.
Not sure if the setup would allow for that, though, and it could get clunky.
The sword dude is actually some guy called Haohmaru from a game called Samurai Shodown, I believe. I didn't pick the characters, I just did the alters.
Actually, no religion claims all of those things to be true (that I know of, at least). So what you have done is create a list of assumptions that lead to the conclusion that religion is dumb.
BUT, what you are failing to see is that we (the "shouldn't" group) think the best way to address the situation is to correct the thinking first, and THEN build the cultural center. By doing it the other way around, you are pissing someone off and only making your purported goal harder to accomplish.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. This is a key point that I failed to pick up on in your earlier posts.
Of course, since now we've agreed that people shouldn't be offended by the building, the only question is do we wait until nobody would be offended by it? Personally, I think that the best way to cause change is precisely in this way: this story made some headlines, got some people to think about it and speak out for and against it. It is extremely difficult to get people's attention without causing controversy, and, because people are now paying attention on account of the controversy, hopefully they'll see that the source of it is unreasonable and take steps to remedy that.
I wasn't going to continue this, but I can't help it. I just can't. It's too much fun. Gonna spoiler this to avoid clutter.
Look you JUST, RIGHT HERE, admitted you are twisting my posts and discarding my points... why should I debate with you? You aren't interested in a rational debate or an exchange of ideas...
I'm sorry if jokingly quoting your words came across too seriously. Previously I ignored most of your posts in my silly one-liners because if your basic assumption turns out to be false (i.e., that people SHOULD be offended by this) then the rest of the points are irrelevant. But obviously we have a harder task at hand.
You aren't pointing out where my reasoning is flawed by twisting what I say and calling me a racist. If you have to use racist logic yourself to twist what I said into some semblance of racism, then you are be a giant hypocrite.
I'm not sure if it's entirely my fault if you can't pick up the logical flaws when they are pointed out to you.
No, I meant not all Arabs are Muslims. You took my statements about a specific sub-group of Muslims and tried to claim I was being racist against all Arabs (or in your words, brown people.) I was pointing out that in no way was my comment about a sub group of Muslims a comment on Arab people, and the only way someone could see it in that light would be to be a giant racist.
Awkwardo has it correct. The point you should be making is not all Muslims are Arabs, not the other way around. But it's really entirely irrelevant to the "debate", since it was a throwaway comment poking fun at you.
Yes, it would be offensive. (I am consistent). I guess I'll address point 4 next, since I pretty much jsut destroyed your point 3.
Okay, you find it offensive. I guess there's no reason needed to find it offensive, you just can?
I never said he was doing it purely to upset people. I said he's (supposedly) trying to build a cultural outreach to reach out to the surrounding culture. The surrounding culture that his actions are knowingly offending. He's either monumentally stupid, or he's intentionally antagonizing the very people he claims to be trying to reach out to. by all accounts he's not monumentally stupid.
So all those examples I quoted where people knowingly upset the culture around them, all those people were actually in the wrong and should have avoided offending others? Good to know.
? You started out by calling me a racist. I pointed out that you were twisting what I said, and only by the use of that twisting and racist logic could you come to the conclusion that wahat I said was somehow racist. You then agreed with me that that is waht you were doing.
And now you're upset that I pointed it out?
I was going to joke about being incredibly upset and hurt, then realized that wasn't working so hot, so I'll lay it out for you: I don't care whether or not you're prejudiced against Muslims. You personally may not even be. But you ARE supporting the idea that people should feel offended by a building with connections to Islam simply because the terrorists were Islamic. By saying this, you are suggesting that these people are correct to be offended by AN ENTIRE GROUP based on the actions of A FEW INDIVIDUALS, or, being generous, a subgroup. Do you see what that is? This Muslim did something bad, so what that Muslim does offends me. How is that in any way fair? I honestly cannot think of a simpler way to put this.
By the way, look at the above quotes. Out of all of them, only the sixth one actually addresses anything I said in any meaningful (and I use the term loosely, since you're just re-stating things) way. I understand that you are upset over the implication that you are prejudiced, but perhaps the better way to refute that would be to back up the reasoning you are using rather getting upset about it.
Edit: Sorry, I missed this:
The big difference is that no one is saying muslims can't build mosques. We're only saying they shouldn't build one near Groud Zero. That's all. It's not about racism or having anythign against Islam. It's just about pointing out this is a very sensitive location to pull a stunt like that.
Again, I realize it's sensitive. But why is it sensitive? Because people are failing to distinguish between blaming specific individuals and blaming an entire religious group. That's where the problem comes from.
1) why are you so obsessed with calling me a racist? I haven't said anything racist and yet you are consistently digging in everything I say trying to find something you can twist into me beign racist?
2) Not all arabic people are muslims. If I'm talking about muslims I'm not necessarily talking about arabic people. (Now whos being racist?)
3) If I'm talking about a specific sub-group of muslims (in this case the grou erecting the cultural center) I'm not talking about all muslims, I'm talking about the sub group.
4) Theres no question in my mind that he knew it is an antagonistic move to build an islamic cultural center where he plans on building it. That makes it an intentional action, and therefore he is being "intentionally antagonistic."
In Sum: You're digging through everything I say looking for something you can twist into something else so you can call me a racist and thereby discard my (valid) points without addressing them. In order to do this you are having to apply racist logic yourself. You are not only being a poor debater, you are also being a hypocrite.
So you're saying building the thing is bad because it is an antagonistic move. But WHY is it an antagonistic move? Because people are getting upset. WHY are those people getting upset? Because the terrorists were Muslim.
I fail to see how anybody can be upset about this unless they associate all Muslims with terrorism, and that is why I am twisting your posts and discarding your points.
But here, let me go through your entire last post and maybe we'll see why I only focus on one or two things normally:
1. I am obsessed with "calling you a racist" because many of the things you're saying seem to be founded on the idea that because the terrorists were Muslim, all Muslims should now act guilty about their religion because their religion is offensive to Americans. I am not merely trying to accuse you of being prejudiced, I am trying to point out where your reasoning seems to be flawed.
2. I think you either mean not all Muslims are Arabic or not all Muslims (or Arabs) have darker skin, otherwise my comment (despite it being jokingly made) still stands.
3. Yes, indeed you are talking about a specific group. However, what you're saying is that that specific group should behave as though their religion was responsible. Ask yourself this: if a Christian suicide bomber blew up an abortion clinic, would you say that a church being built near there would be offensive? Even if the people behind the church, having had no involvement in the event, are building it in an attempt to remove any misplaced anger and resentment people may have? If yes, then at least you are consistent. And before you say that building it will only cause more anger and resentment, please see point 4 below.
4. He knows that it will upset people. However, simply upsetting people and upsetting people as a consequence of trying to make progress are two different things. Gay pride parades upset a lot of people. Martin Luther King upset a lot of people. Gandhi upset a lot of people. I could go on and on. What makes you think that he's doing this purely to upset people?
In summary, yes, please, let's go on calling each other racist and getting in a huff.
The easiest way to fix it (outside of using a filter like I did) is to pick a really dark color and go over your shadows with it, and use a really bright color and go over your highlights. It's tough to avoid ending up with a flat image, but it really pays off in a big way to pay attention while you're working to how dark or bright your darkest and lightest areas are. Just try to keep it in mind.
Regardless, it's a pretty solid piece! The finer details are a bit messy, but the metallic sheen on the myr is aces and the image as a whole works really well.
If you want the specifics for how I adjusted it:
BORING.
Here, look at this:
All I did was bump up the contrast (and brightness) of the stuff in the foreground, and it looks way more interesting. It might not be the effect you were going for, but unless you are very careful about it, a picture with high differences in color value will look much better than one where all the colors are the same brightness. It's a pretty good composition and you did a great job with the shading, but none of that matters when all the viewer sees is a giant boring expanse of brownish gray.
And demonium71, I wanna join the crowd saying that that Mulldrifter is just absolutely fantastic.
As for myself, I've been wanting to do this for quite a while:
Laaaa la la la la la laaa~
I wanna get the prince in there somewhere, but I don't know where to put him!
And here's another quickie:
Figured I may as well make a Kerrigan before I get my paws on a Queen of Blades.
I quite like how it turned out, although her face lost basically all the character Mr. Lago originally imbued it with. Oh well, you win some and you lose some!
The only place I could find it was this old auction. Which is a shame, since I'd have liked to see more from this guy.
EDIT: Whhuuuuuuh where'd the post I was replying to go?
A commission:
Some great stuff being posted, as usual! I do hope that this 'latest thing' with the wavy tendrils and stuff doesn't become too prevalent, though, since there are lots of great styles out there that I'd love to see more of!
Oh, and CutBackDropTurn, I don't know too much about the tricks to color matching, but I do know that if you are using black and white to darken and lighten your colors, you should be aware that they will also make them 'duller'. Beyond that, lots of practice is the only trick I know!
Not sure if the setup would allow for that, though, and it could get clunky.
What, then, is the purpose of this exercise?
Of course, since now we've agreed that people shouldn't be offended by the building, the only question is do we wait until nobody would be offended by it? Personally, I think that the best way to cause change is precisely in this way: this story made some headlines, got some people to think about it and speak out for and against it. It is extremely difficult to get people's attention without causing controversy, and, because people are now paying attention on account of the controversy, hopefully they'll see that the source of it is unreasonable and take steps to remedy that.
I'm not sure if it's entirely my fault if you can't pick up the logical flaws when they are pointed out to you.
Awkwardo has it correct. The point you should be making is not all Muslims are Arabs, not the other way around. But it's really entirely irrelevant to the "debate", since it was a throwaway comment poking fun at you.
Okay, you find it offensive. I guess there's no reason needed to find it offensive, you just can?
So all those examples I quoted where people knowingly upset the culture around them, all those people were actually in the wrong and should have avoided offending others? Good to know.
I was going to joke about being incredibly upset and hurt, then realized that wasn't working so hot, so I'll lay it out for you: I don't care whether or not you're prejudiced against Muslims. You personally may not even be. But you ARE supporting the idea that people should feel offended by a building with connections to Islam simply because the terrorists were Islamic. By saying this, you are suggesting that these people are correct to be offended by AN ENTIRE GROUP based on the actions of A FEW INDIVIDUALS, or, being generous, a subgroup. Do you see what that is? This Muslim did something bad, so what that Muslim does offends me. How is that in any way fair? I honestly cannot think of a simpler way to put this.
By the way, look at the above quotes. Out of all of them, only the sixth one actually addresses anything I said in any meaningful (and I use the term loosely, since you're just re-stating things) way. I understand that you are upset over the implication that you are prejudiced, but perhaps the better way to refute that would be to back up the reasoning you are using rather getting upset about it.
Edit: Sorry, I missed this:
Again, I realize it's sensitive. But why is it sensitive? Because people are failing to distinguish between blaming specific individuals and blaming an entire religious group. That's where the problem comes from.
So you're saying building the thing is bad because it is an antagonistic move. But WHY is it an antagonistic move? Because people are getting upset. WHY are those people getting upset? Because the terrorists were Muslim.
I fail to see how anybody can be upset about this unless they associate all Muslims with terrorism, and that is why I am twisting your posts and discarding your points.
But here, let me go through your entire last post and maybe we'll see why I only focus on one or two things normally:
1. I am obsessed with "calling you a racist" because many of the things you're saying seem to be founded on the idea that because the terrorists were Muslim, all Muslims should now act guilty about their religion because their religion is offensive to Americans. I am not merely trying to accuse you of being prejudiced, I am trying to point out where your reasoning seems to be flawed.
2. I think you either mean not all Muslims are Arabic or not all Muslims (or Arabs) have darker skin, otherwise my comment (despite it being jokingly made) still stands.
3. Yes, indeed you are talking about a specific group. However, what you're saying is that that specific group should behave as though their religion was responsible. Ask yourself this: if a Christian suicide bomber blew up an abortion clinic, would you say that a church being built near there would be offensive? Even if the people behind the church, having had no involvement in the event, are building it in an attempt to remove any misplaced anger and resentment people may have? If yes, then at least you are consistent. And before you say that building it will only cause more anger and resentment, please see point 4 below.
4. He knows that it will upset people. However, simply upsetting people and upsetting people as a consequence of trying to make progress are two different things. Gay pride parades upset a lot of people. Martin Luther King upset a lot of people. Gandhi upset a lot of people. I could go on and on. What makes you think that he's doing this purely to upset people?
In summary, yes, please, let's go on calling each other racist and getting in a huff.