EI: One of these things is not like the other...

[Pickslide]

Um...

[Sapient]

very nice! maybe just an optical illusion, but ... something seems wrong with the contour line of the armor on the right side (KII's left side); it seems to follow a strange curve.

[zookeeper]

Sweet. How about adding a (small, not huge and fancy) crown?

[Eleazar]

nice!
i'm detecting an increase in skill here.

[Sgt. Groovy]

Proper stuff, I especially like the wrinkles of the sleeves. The pose and expression are also very good.

Few issues:

• The cuirass should have a seam on the side (or has he wiggled into it when he was 12 and has grown to fill it?)
• The contrast in lightness between the nose and the far cheek should be stronger (the nose being lighter), now the face has uncanny flatness.
• The brightest spot of the forehead is now on the "horizon", even though the light is coming pretty much from his front (relative to torso). The specular hotspot should be somewhere above the eye.
• ETA: The far side cheekbone is awfully angular.

[Sgt. Groovy]

Putting on the Anatomy Polizei cap for a moment, let me point out the upper half shrinkage (around 25%) of the head, and the rather smallish ear (the lower edge of the ear should be close to the level of the lower end of the nose):

[Jetrel]

Proper stuff, I especially like the wrinkles of the sleeves. The pose and expression are also very good.

Few issues:

• The cuirass should have a seam on the side (or has he wiggled into it when he was 12 and has grown to fill it?)
• The brightest spot of the forehead is now on the "horizon", even though the light is coming pretty much from his front (relative to torso). The specular hotspot should be somewhere above the eye.

These two, I agree with, especially the business about the cuirass. (which actually reminds me of a number of the difficulties I've had with "wrap-around" garments.

Putting on the Anatomy Polizei cap for a moment, let me point out the upper half shrinkage (around 25%) of the head,

Just as a caveat; I've noticed that as much as the "eyes at 50% height" is a good rule-of-thumb, it's entirely normal to see deviance from this, especially in more germanic/nordic/celtic head types (e.g. most western/northern europeans). A deviance of about ... 25% ... is fairly realistic, and is something I've seen on quite a few real people. If it gets bigger than that, they start to look exaggerated, and unpleasant, as our rule of thumb, and theories about symmetry, describe.

I'm also not so sure about the ear, either - my litmus test is for the attached-to-head part of it to be planted below the eyes, which seems to apply here.

(Speaking of which, it could be a good exercise for us illustrator-types to make a thread for general philosophical discussion/musing about what exactly makes certain human appearances more attractive than others).

[Sgt. Groovy]

Just as a caveat; I've noticed that as much as the "eyes at 50% height" is a good rule-of-thumb, it's entirely normal to see deviance from this, especially in more germanic/nordic/celtic head types (e.g. most western/northern europeans). A deviance of about ... 25% ... is fairly realistic, and is something I've seen on quite a few real people.

I don't completely disagree, and anyway, deviation from the rules is one way to express character; bigger lower half tends to give a "manly", "square-jaw" or "brutish" look, while bigger upper half can either give "brainy" or "juvenile" look, depending on the features. I'm not sure the image needs to be changed in that respect, he definitely has a nice "leader type" look to him.

All that said, I still like to point that out, because I've noticed that shrinking the upper half of the head is THE most common error in head proportions people make. People who haven't been taught the rule basically all do it, I still find I often do it myself. I guess it's some sort of importance perspective thing, because most of the features we pay attention to in a face are on the lower half, so we instinctively give them more room.

My philosophy with rules is, if you want to break them, you have to know you're breaking them, and why. First put the eyes on the "equator", then start changing the proportions if it doesn't look like what you want.

I'm also not so sure about the ear, either - my litmus test is for the attached-to-head part of it to be planted below the eyes, which seems to apply here.

Yes, I agree, and that part is OK in the picture. I was talking about the lower edge of the ear, which I think is too high, because the ear is too small.

[Pickslide]

Technically your cheek bone will point toward the ear canal, which is smack dab in the middle of the ear. Placement and size kind of depend on all the other factors floating around. Personally, I feel like small ears imply a big person, while relatively big ears imply an overall smaller char.

Also, I feel a king should show his dedication by never removing the solid one piece armor that he donned at 12. I'm going to think about how to better represent that in the portrait so this point is more clear, as I think it is central to this Konrad II character.

[Jetrel]

I don't completely disagree, and anyway, deviation from the rules is one way to express character; bigger lower half tends to give a "manly", "square-jaw" or "brutish" look, while bigger upper half can either give "brainy" or "juvenile" look, depending on the features. I'm not sure the image needs to be changed in that respect, he definitely has a nice "leader type" look to him.

All that said, I still like to point that out, because I've noticed that shrinking the upper half of the head is THE most common error in head proportions people make. People who haven't been taught the rule basically all do it, I still find I often do it myself. I guess it's some sort of importance perspective thing, because most of the features we pay attention to in a face are on the lower half, so we instinctively give them more room.

My philosophy with rules is, if you want to break them, you have to know you're breaking them, and why. First put the eyes on the "equator", then start changing the proportions if it doesn't look like what you want.

Yep. (This is all excellent advice.)

I would say that in this case, I think those deviations were intentional choices on his part, to reasonably good effect. About the only thing that bugs me is the small size of the eyes, and that's probably bad bias based on what I've been exposed to, rather than any flaw in his work (I don't even really like "large eyes" in drawings; ironically the most emotively motivating things for me have more to do with select expression-components in the face (around the eyebrows, the edge of the eye, and around the mouth), than they've ever had to do with things contained -in- the eye.) Friggin anime is getting too deep into my work.

[turin]

Also, I feel a king should show his dedication by never removing the solid one piece armor that he donned at 12. I'm going to think about how to better represent that in the portrait so this point is more clear, as I think it is central to this Konrad II character.

I completely agree.

[irrevenant]

Should his armour be a little tighter-fitting around the midriff? To me it looks like his whole torso is leaning uncomfortably far back and I think that's because the midriff is large.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[EDIT] Yeh, I was looking at the edited image. Disregard me.

[turin]

Should his armour be a little tighter-fitting around the midriff? To me it looks like his whole torso is leaning uncomfortably far back and I think that's because the midriff is large.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Are you looking at Pickslide's original image or the one Sgt. Groovy posted? Sgt. Groovy rotated the image so the face wasn't tilted (in order to make a point about proportions), I agree he looks uncomfortably far backwards in that one, but not in the original image...

[Sgt. Groovy]

Aye, I rotated it, use the original for the basis of criticism.

[zookeeper]

I committed the one in the first post for now, as it's already a great deal more fitting than the old one in EI. I hope you don't mind.