[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Critique and review needed for artwork, please...
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: Critique and review needed for artwork, please...
A very special thanks goes out to Mike Skrepnick and Mark Hallett for their
valuable time and insight during the creation and revision of this piece.
Learning from these veteran artists is an honor and a privilege.
Initially, the _T.rex_ was lipless; Mark and Mike managed to convince me to
find a middle ground somehow between the lipless look and a lipped look. In
addition there were problems with the size, shape, and number of teeth which
I tried to address.<<
Well, IMNO and I have done a paper on this, research etc, NO LIPS, not even
partial. But hey, that's just me, I suppose.
There was quite a difference in how I initially rendered the lacrimal and
post orbital regions compared to the latest version. The ornamentation I had
chosen to depict originally was much more 'bladelike' in appearance; I've
effectively eliminated much of the lacrimal boss and tried to make the post
orbitals reflect the shapes present on the skulls a bit better. I initially
had the nasal ornamentation beginning too far forward and far bumpier than
the current version.<<
Hmm, have you seen the new 'Stan' skull with the orbital bosses? It
completely covers the orbital area; i.e. closes the gap between the orbit.
>>I have placed the nares more forward than I had originally indicated as
This is what Witmer says, and looks good to me.
>>I tried to render the nuchal crest more prominently than was in the
Should be taller.
>>Originally I had rendered dorsal spines on the neck; I decided to change
that to more conservative scutes.<<
This is up to artistic license, no one really knows.
>>Mike commented that the entire head looked too short, too compressed. I
tried to render an oblique view of the animal and as usual it came back to
bite me on the rear. I tried in the latest version to extend the length of
the head a bit to alleviate some of the compressed look.<<
Looks ok to me. There are some T. rex specimens that had a shorter skull.
The huge UCMP maxilla indicates this.
In the image shown at the following URL, the topmost image is the more
'compressed' looking version, the bottom version is the 'extended' version.
Please feel free to offer any critiques of the piece and suggestions
regarding areas that need to be improved...
The lower jaw, the back, should be about as large as the height of the
skull, about 3/4ths the height, so make it about 1/4 more deeper than it
already is. I just looked at AMNH 5027.
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca 92074