...Now THAT was an undertaking. WHEW.
It probably would've been less frustrating if I hadn't been so determined to make it as anatomically correct as possible and draft bronchi beyond the segmental ones. I should've realized, when I couldn't find any bloody sources or references for the anatomy, that nobody really cares about those ones.
For those who perhaps aren't intimately familiar with guts, this is (from the top, working down): a larynx, a trachea, some bronchi (main, lobar, segmental, etc.), and the outline of a pair of lungs. It was Assignment 1 ("draw something cylindrical using only line") for my Illustration Techniques class.
It prints a little better than it looks onscreen. I ended up working at something like 1200 dpi... which, incidentally, is the dpi you're supposed to work at anyway when you're doing black-and-white illustration. If your monitor is anything like mine, it's anti-aliasing everything. But anyway.
...I like it!
[Adobe Photoshop, Wacom tablet]
I want to commend you on your effort. I also think the drawing is very good-looking, but I feel unqualified to make serious assessments of that sort. I do know that it takes a good chunk of time to draw that level of detail.
ReplyDeleteYour mention of DPI piques my interest, because of my monitor issues. And, well, just because I'm a computer geek really. When you say you "worked at" some resolution, what device are you referring to? It's common for a laser printer to output at 1200 DPI, but a typical monitor is roughly 100 to 120 DPI, so when it's on your screen, is it ten times the size it is printed out? (I guess that's not too likely if you're complaining about antialiasing.) Do you have to scroll the screen interminably to take care of detail work? Does the tablet resolve to 1200 DPI?
...because you are a computer geek, I'm not sure I understand your question. So I'm just going to be thorough and cover everything.
ReplyDeleteThe DPI doesn't make any difference on a computer 'cos the computer measures in pixels, not dots--at least, that's my understanding. So technically, the dpi I worked at doesn't really matter and I probably used the wrong vocabulary term. Whether I print at 72dpi or 300dpi or 1200dpi makes no difference to my monitor or tablet or anything else; I can print a given image at any dpi I want. Right, right, I'm sure this is old news to you.
I sketched the image at life-size (so the trachea was in fact 11-13cm long on my paper); I scanned it at 600dpi. That's a whole lot of dots.*
In case you're wondering how I got "1200dpi" out of "I scanned it at 600dpi":
Because my original sketches were kind of large (you're only supposed to work at about 150% the size of your final rendering, and I'd apparently worked around 200% final size), and the final output had to be 33.5 x 50 picas (which is surprisingly small when you put it on a piece of paper), when I put those final measurements into my "image size" dialogue box, Photoshop took those measurements and my pixel measurements into account and assigned a DPI value of 1184. When I changed the DPI from 600 to 1184, nothing changed on my monitor.
So why did I mention the 1200dpi thing? Because I just wanted to get the point across that I was zoomed in REALLY CLOSE on a REALLY BIG drawing... without going through all the blathering I just did.
* My original image is 6602 x 10066 pixels.
(The Photoshop file I was working with, even in grayscale, is 82.4MB. The final TIFF, which is just a straight-up black-and-white bitmap, is 10.3MB.)
The image posted on my blog, for comparison, is 600 x 779 pixels.
I mentioned the anti-aliasing thing because Blogger shrinks my tiny little 600-pixel-wide image down to an even tinier 420 pixels wide. When the 6602 pixels-wide that I worked with appears on your monitor at 420 pixels wide, there's no getting around the fact that there's gonna be some detail lost.
Thank you for the blather. :)
ReplyDeleteThe description of your working procedure was most enlightening. It simultaneously revealed and overcame drastic differences in our use and understanding of terminology.
I should leave it at that, but I would like to make one remark about dots versus pixels: To most people (including me), these terms are essentially interchangeable. Thus, "dots per inch" is as relevant for monitors as for printers, and indeed may be used to express resolution in just about any context. For example, you can talk about DPI even for photographic film.
Looks great Josy! Hope you got great reviews in the critique.
ReplyDeleteJohn- I think 'pixels per inch' is ppi. Dpi, ppi... most people who don't work with printing probably don't need to know the difference. :)
ReplyDeleteLindsey- Thanks, darling! I actually get to critique on Friday with you, so we'll see. :D
holy crap this is amazing! Nice work. I especially like the way you've faded the bronchi.
ReplyDeleteThis is so good, you'd think you were going to do it for a living or something...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteugh. so glad i don't have critique on the same day as you. did you use illustrator or painter?
ReplyDeleteAnnie- :) Thanks!
ReplyDeleteBatman- :P
DiJo- I used Photoshop (CS4, so I could do the whole rotation thing). And come ON, your arteries and kidneys were awesome. :P
Simply gorgeous. I only wish I could draw with a smidgen of that talent. I like pretty pictures and I especially like the original resolution. I get the idea from the closest view you've got there.
ReplyDeleteVery cool! Awesomeee! :)
ReplyDeleteWow. This certainly qualifies as intricate. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteaeneadellaluna and Nathanael- thank you!
ReplyDeleteWhoaaa! One of the best designs in human bioloty! Great take on the topic!
ReplyDeleteCongrats Josy to this spectacular piece and getting an honorable mention at the AMI salon!
ReplyDeleteyou....are....awsome!