[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Critique and review needed for artwork, please...



Thanks for your observations, Tracy! Sorry about jumping into the "lip camp"
like that...I'm really still kind of on the fence on this issue (I've heard
compelling arguments for and against so far). I'll be starting a new image
that will incorporate any and all anatomical corrections that will be
indicated by DML feedback; I think I'll include a lipped and lipless version
for comparison's sake.

The "Stan" skull that I used as a reference for this piece was a cast that
was donated to Quarry Hill Nature Center in Minnesota by Sue Hendrickson,
and it didn't seem to have orbit-spanning bosses indicated; of course I may
simply be missing something because of an untrained eye, but you seem to be
saying that there is a new restoration of "Stan's" skull...? If so, I have
not seen it. Also, the photo of that skull that I used for intial reference
is at such an angle that the nuchal crest is not that high visually; I can
see from my reference photos of the "Sue" mount that "Sue" has a VERY high
nuchal crest, yet when I look at MOR 555, AMNH 5027, and "Stan" the nuchal
crest doesn't seem nearly as high. Is there any possibility that this is a
result of individual variation or sexual dimorphism, or is it more a matter
of incomplete material in all of the other specimens?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@cox.net>
To: <theclaw10@charter.net>; "Dinonet (E-mail)" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 1:00 AM
Subject: RE: Critique and review needed for artwork, please...


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> theclaw10@charter.net
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:45 PM
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> 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
> well.<<
>
> This is what Witmer says, and looks good to me.
>
> >>I tried to render the nuchal crest more prominently than was in the
> original.<<
>
> 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
> had
> 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...
>
> Thanks!
>
> 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
>
>
>
>