werewolves;53290 wrote:
Very nice sir.
Can you elaborate on your technique, and the software you use?
I currently use Photoshop in conjunction with hand drawn sketches and a couple of other computer programs. As far as technique, it is something that is always evolving but I find myself settling in a particular direction.
Tricks to the trade, I could surmise in one word “Experiment” but do not rely on the program to do the art. I know it sound confusing, but after experimenting awhile you’ll see what I mean. I’m in no way close to where I want to be at and am still a beginner.
Chap,
Beginner or not, your work is fantastic! :D
Take care,
I am relatively new to this board—lurking since summer and finally posting a couple of weeks ago—but I have read with interest this entire thread dating back to its beginning a year ago. This latest rendering of Mr. Dempster’s arms… Wow. Very nice indeed.
Are you doing these at screen resolution only or are these resized?
Thank you, I start out at 3000 x 3000 at 300 – 800 dpi then scale down as needed for such things as posting here.
I’ll send a variety of sizes to the client or as instructed.
It’s funny that you mentioned your signature tag. I was just reading Ottfried Neubecker’s A Guide to Heraldry tonight when I saw this piece by Albrecht Dürer. It’s a little hard to see at this resolution, but there is a small tag (almost looks like a price tag) suspended from the bottom of the shield with his stylized initials.
http://www.worcesterart.org/Images/Collection/Photos/European/1966.36.jpg
By the way, these are supposed to the attributed arms of Death itself.
That’s funny; I tried that same attachment without any good reviews.:rolleyes: lol
Though I believe Denny and Patrick defended/agreed my position on it.(post #230 & #232)
David Pritchard;53292 wrote:
Nice rendering Chap!
I have always found Mr. Dempster’s coat-of-arms a bit unsettling, that is having a charge beneath an ordinary that is charged itself. I suppose that it is the impression of the arms being three dimensional rather than two dimensional that this combination gives.
First thing to say is that I’m really pleased with Chap’s rendering of my arms. The sword is really effective and that lean and hungry lion is not the sort of creature I’d want to tangle with. Heraldic lions often don’t look dangerous enough for my liking - this one does.
As for the unsettling nature of my arms. As a Scot that’s something I have to live with. The base arms have the charge beneath the ordinary and they are at least 500 years old - and I believe a good deal older.
For differencing a bordure is out as I am an indeterminate cadet. Even had I been a proven cadet as the eldest son of the eldest son of the second son of the third son of the third son of the fifth son of the third son of the third son of the earliest ancestor I can prove the bordure design would have been daunting to work out. I tried once.
I would have to go back at least another 100 years to have tried to prove a link with our supposed armigerous ancestors and the 17th century is notoriously difficult in terms of getting anywhere with Scottish records.
Charging the fess was the obvious way to go. Trying to do something with the partition lines of the fess doesn’t work with that sword there. The lion comes from a quartering that I might have been able to work back to over which I had a debate with Lyon Court.
Research that I have done throws an element of doubt over what precisely should be the stem arms of the Dempsters. It is possible that the quartered coat used by the Aberdeenshire branch is actually a double coat. Lyon Court were unwilling to overturn the views of Mackenzie of Rosehaugh and Nisbet without my doing a lot more work. They had it that the lion quartering was for Abernethy. I won’t go into the whole thing here as it would take over the thread.
Finally, what’s with the Mr Dempster bit? James, please.
James
that is a very nice picture.
James Dempster;53311 wrote:
Finally, what’s with the Mr Dempster bit? James, please.
When one makes comments about the arms of an serious person such as yourself, James, it is best to be polite or the comments might be perceived in an unintended light. In other words I wanted to discuss your arms but not offend you.
Thank you for the brief explanation of the origin of your arms. Now that I know the historical basis of the design I shall try to adjust my eyes. Actually, I prefer your arms as they are rather than with a border.
Chapulin;53309 wrote:
That’s funny; I tried that same attachment without any good reviews.:rolleyes: lol
Though I believe Denny and Patrick defended/agreed my position on it.(post #230 & #232)
Sorry, Chap, but as Lloyd Bentsen might have said "I knew Albrecht Dürer. Albrecht Dürer was a friend of mine, and you’re no Albrecht Dürer."
(Not me, I’m not that old, but Lloyd Bentsen might have been.)
:p
Ahh, defensive and insultive.:p
That probably why I do not like politics, it brings out the dark side to benefit his/her own position or when votes may be threatened.
( Lloyd wouldn’t have made a good vice president anyway, being democrat n’all )
The opinions of the armiger himself are most important of course…especially to what part he likes best. However, from my seats in the peanut gallery I most appreciate the treatment of the sword…in particular the blade.
In your treatment of the blade my eye sees not only depth from the modeling, but it also sees the subtle variations in the metal like one would see in a real blade at certain angles. This to me simply makes this sword come to life in an incredible way. It is at the same time a heraldic depiction in that it is not exactly “real life” but it is also “real life” in a way that is not commonly found in heraldry. In that regard it reminds me very much of the work of Alex Kurov and his helms and crests which appear almost “in the round” in a way I’ve never in my life seen done before. The same can be said for the surface treatment of the shield and fess as well.
My personal opinion Chap – and that is all it is and I hope no one is offended by it – is that with the quality executions of this piece you have taken a step up closer to that league. Of course you would have to keep turning out these sort of ‘attention to detail’ pieces like Alex and the other masters, but if you do I think more and more people are going to start to notice your work and we may well have two masters who post here in the future. Just my own opinion of course.
Thank you Denny, those are very encouraging words.
That looks great, Chap! I especially like the "grain" in the metal in the close-up view of the sword. Awesome!
