affinity designer Playing with polygons, Grant Wood American Gothic 1930

[VectorVonDoom]

I've just put a mini-how to in the tutorials section. But when you use the colour picker tool (not from the colour palette, from the tool palette, so shortcut "I") there's an option in the toolbar to specify the sampling size. It defaults to a single pixel but there's 3x3, 5x5... which averages the colour. For low poly you normally want that as your just enclosing similar areas not exact same (obviously), so you want an average. You still need to decide exactly where to sample but it makes it easier.

I'd use 5x5 and then, if need be, go smaller 3x3 in tight areas like eyes.  There's a big jump after 5x5 to 17x17 which is might be too big but depends on the reference image.

[Ros]

I had no idea. Thank you so much.

[SrPx]

As a low poly modeler for games, that this aesthetic did get to be trendy for some time always filled me with curiosity....Then there was this eternal fight among people who preferred rectangular polygons better than tris... (usually rectangular among the film, animation people, tris for game artists... but since a bunch of years, four side polygons are better than triangles for better deformation in animation and uv mapping, also in games...even while for games or any real time thing, it ultimately all get converted to tris) . And Caravaggio is one of my favorite painters of all times...

[SrPx]

1 hour ago, MEB said:

Hi Ros,

Picking a 5x5 sample with the Colour Picker allows you you get an average of a larger area of colours thus representing better the overall colour/balance of that particular area which you will then use to fill the triangle that covers it rather than picking colour from a single pixel which may be way off of the average colour of the area.

 

Now that is mentioned that tool, and while a bit OT (not even AD), and me not being yet (bills keep at the crazy level, too) an A. Photo customer (tested it very intensely in open beta, though) , only have for now AD... is it not possible in any way to set a key, a keyboard shortcut, I mean, (in APhoto) like one sets ALT key (could be any key) so that while painting, would just hold pressed that key, and click in the color in the image (instead of having to drag the eyedropper icon from its panel to that point, as that is quite more slower and makes loose focus/concentration) ?  Is the typical standard usage of the brush tool. My plan for the app is as an image editing/integration/main target/final export and file preparation in every project (but not for heavy painting), but for to do some final over painting/retouching of the illustration, etc, avoiding so many final I/O operations.

 

If it is too OT and does not get answered, totally fine..  (and if so, I apologize...Not trying to hijack the thread, a fast 'yep' or 'nope' would be very welcome,...  ... from anyone.)

 

[VectorVonDoom]

Yeah and there's the people who think if you've used any more than 2 triangles then it's not low poly. These might count as mid-poly rather than low I'm not sure, I checked last night and the St.Peter one is just under 14k of objects, but it doesn't really matter. I tended to stick with triangles as that's what most illustration examples I saw used but I did cheat here and there and use a polygon. Using all polygons would have certainly been a bit easier.

I'm probably misunderstanding but for low poly, for example, in AD you draw the region with the pen tool so "P", then use the Colour Picker "I" and click to sample and it fills the object. No need to drag. I've no idea about AP though.

[SrPx]

Clearly, this trend got its 100% of inspiration from the 3D field from real time 3D applications (virtual reality, etc) , mostly games. Nope, quadrilaterals wouldn't be "real" low poly. Among game professionals (or modders, etc) it's often called low poly anything of a certain polygon count (quads or tris, but lately everyone and their dog uses quads. I do. ), and those standards vary wildly as hardware evolves, and engines adapt to it. What low poly was initially a character a 300 polygons or less (even 150...) character (I could model a full character, textured an animated in 24 hours events !  Today that's impossible) today is several thousands of polygons, depending on the type of game, target machine, what amount of AI or objects are loaded at once, etc, etc, etc. But really, pure low poly concept is referred to very low end machines or specific usages, and what the video cards understand and processes -last time I checked-  are triangles. It ultimately would convert any quadrilateral to tris, so when one wants to use the latest bit of the machine, (worked at a cell phone games developer company, and back in 2005 this was REALLY important..today, I dunno been doing design for web/print, and illustration for a while, 3D high res if anything. And do machines evolve fast, lol... ) one think in tris, as the actual final thing, and optimizes every bit, all for that. But quadrilaterals do give a ton of workflow advantages, and provide more quality. I'd stick to tris for this style, as here is all about the original inspiration....Quads would look kind of another sort of thing, imo...not feeling like, or reminding to...pure low poly...IMO.

[SrPx]

in other take at it, while I was going to college (fine arts) , there was this technique for painting where you did "build" your painted figure or whatever using sort of "planes" (triangles or not). It is a sensible way of painting, because it helps both "seeing" (from a very early moment) the structure, volume, and light behavior (obviously the 3 give feedback to each other) and at the same time helps synthesize the color and details (I don't have this technique as base anymore...)... to summarize them, helping in building an expressive thing. Which can lead later to a higher realism (working so mostly as a color-sketch convenient first step) , or to even cubism or any other aesthetic (cubism based on this in a large portion, but developing the idea further, outside of realism rules, and implies quite other aspects). I mention it as your results make me think more in that technique than in low poly (while wireframes-only (lines) pieces, or larger (or more contrasted(so, necessarily less realistic)), more evident polygons do make me think more of actual low poly)

 

Not a con (if anything, I give more value to any good eternal painting technique than a trend that will pass fast, or has already), just  all results are inspirational and good, thought I'd mention, tho.

[peter]

On 12/8/2017 at 10:51 PM, VectorVonDoom said:

Thank you.  Just for you...

Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio c.1600.

Thud! Chin on floor again!!!

[VectorVonDoom]

4 hours ago, SrPx said:

in other take at it, while I was going to college (fine arts) , there was this technique for painting where you did "build" your painted figure or whatever using sort of "planes" (triangles or not). It is a sensible way of painting, because it helps both "seeing" (from a very early moment) the structure, volume, and light behavior (obviously the 3 give feedback to each other) and at the same time helps synthesize the color and details (I don't have this technique as base anymore...)... to summarize them, helping in building an expressive thing. Which can lead later to a higher realism (working so mostly as a color-sketch convenient first step) , or to even cubism or any other aesthetic (cubism based on this in a large portion, but developing the idea further, outside of realism rules, and implies quite other aspects). I mention it as your results make me think more in that technique than in low poly (while wireframes-only (lines) pieces, or larger (or more contrasted(so, necessarily less realistic)), more evident polygons do make me think more of actual low poly)

 

Not a con (if anything, I give more value to any good eternal painting technique than a trend that will pass fast, or has already), just  all results are inspirational and good, thought I'd mention, tho.

 

Yes, I guess it is a bit like that but of course this is a lot easier as someone did the hard work.

 

[VectorVonDoom]

19 minutes ago, peter said:

Thud! Chin on floor again!!!

 

I see  from your Pinterest link that you're also a cycling fan, the first simple ones I did were Hinault and Kelly

 

 

 

[peter]

Fast researching skills...the 80's were an amazing era.

 

I am indeed a cycling fan (My Pinterest ID shows me wearing the same Combine/technicolour jersey as BH).

 

Both me and my cycling buddies were Fagor and PDM fans. So could I please put in a large wish list, that is if you're doing requests for Sean Yates and Holland's finest-climbing-tag-team-duo Stephen Rooks and Gert Jan Theunisse. These three riders, really inspired my to get pedalling, when I were a lad.

 

The Badger (Bernard Hinault) is probably thinking "I hope he's got my best side. Grrrr!";  as for Sean (King) Kelly, "Oi'm too busy now, but Oi'l look at yer wuk lerter."

 

Great no it's PDM...pretty damn magnificent.

 

peter

 

 

[VectorVonDoom]

I'll have a look at what photos are out there. I've big list of stuff I want to do, none of it low poly, but I'll see.

[retrograde]

Wow, new respect from me! That's a ton of work right there. Thanks for the explanation VectorVonDoom.