# Elements of Magic Cover



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2002)

This is rather nice!


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2002)

And this Drow cover is quite cool:


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2002)

And this one is Dweomercraft: Enchanters.


----------



## Blacksad (Sep 10, 2002)

You can't really argue with art, but I wanted to say that I wouldn't have accepted the enchanter cover:

The red and blue girl have disparate hands (one is smaller than the other).

The blue girl nose (or the shadow on the nose) isn't in the same diretion as the rest of her face.

Plus some strange body proportion.

Sorry to nitpick, but while I find the other cover bland, I think the enchanter one is bad.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 10, 2002)

Dark Quest Games mostly produces the books themselves, so we give them free reign for most details of layout and graphic style.  I'll say that frankly I'm almost never fully pleased with art in 3rd-party d20 books, but I seem to be far more picky than most gamers.  I of course have my own biases, and I think all publishers do.  We work with certain people, and we come to be used to their styles, or we ourselves just have unique tastes in art.  

A lot of people aren't too thrilled with J.L. Jones, who did work for Wild Spellcraft and FCTF, but since I'm her friend, I like her art (even though I still critique her a lot).  Other times, even the best artists are rushed, or have an off day, or whatever.

I also agree that the covers all have their fair share of minor faults.  But if DQG is willing to let me use my opinions of what I think is good art, then I'll let them.  I personally like the enchanters cover best, since I'm not too hot on the style of the first two.  It's all a matter of opinion.  When we manage to land Todd Lockwood for a cover, I'll tell you.


----------



## tensen (Sep 10, 2002)

You know, it is the problem of doing three dimensions in 2 dimensions.

personally I never noticed anything wrong with it, until you meantioned..  and then went..  yeah it is off.

But then I remembered why it looked that way.  The middle one does have her fingers a little thin, but the perspective is based on the fact that it is trying to curl around the globe that is in front of her.  Remember, think globe, not flat disc.

And the woman in blue has her arm turned towards her and you are seeing the back of her hand and just the bit of her knuckles.  Have someone pose in that same position.  What is showing is pretty much all you would see.

We are losing some of the coloration detail once it is displayed in the web palette.  Perhaps that will make a difference to your opinion if you see the original in print, as opposed to purely on the webpage.  Perhaps not.  Some people just see things differently.  Perspective in art is actually highly subjective.


We do appreciate the feedback on it, good or bad.


----------



## tensen (Sep 10, 2002)

And I hope that Morrus doesn't mind me hijacking his threads.  Since the original topic of this thread was apparently for the Elements of Magic cover and not the rest of the covers.


----------



## Wolvorine (Sep 11, 2002)

*Well...*

I like the Enchanters cover the best, but it's closer to my personal stylistic preferences.  It also does a fairly good job of portraying the scene.
The Dark Elves cover..  I don't like, a lot.  But I think most of that is the bottom male drow there, he just looks so wrong to me.  Closer to the way I like to picture a really deformed goblin than a dark elf.  The two females look fine, although a bit more stylized than I prefer, but still well-done.
Elements of magic is cute.  A good cover for the product, I think.  Not snazzy or eyecatching, but this is a symbol here, not a scene, and that's to be expected.

As for the suggested flaws in the Enchanters cover, actually most of those aren't flaws, they're correct.  The problem here lies in the fact that so few artists really do use RL references in much of their work (at least, not the BIG boys) that lots of people tend to get used to things looking wrong.  Or, more to the point, things in RL have a strong tendancy to 'look wring' when you take a hard, close look at them.  Perspectives have a habit of looking off, because you're used to seeing artistic interpretations of things in perspective, and seeing the real thing can throw the eye, so to speak.  It's no masterpiece, but this is illustration, not Fine Art.   It's a good, strong piece of it's genre.

And that is officially the strongest I've ever defended a pic I didn't draw myself.  (LOL)  So I'll stop now.

Oh, and I really like the concept of the Elements of Magic book, from it's blurb at least.  Sounds like a great product.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Sep 11, 2002)

Well, to be fair to the artist of the Elements of Magic's cover (my wife), I think y'all should have a full picture to compare, not just a thumbnail version.  Yes, I'm biased, but I think it's the best of the bunch.


----------



## Blacksad (Sep 11, 2002)

tensen said:
			
		

> *
> But then I remembered why it looked that way.  The middle one does have her fingers a little thin, but the perspective is based on the fact that it is trying to curl around the globe that is in front of her.  Remember, think globe, not flat disc.
> *



*take a ball in his hands*

Nope, it is wrong.
Look at how thick the finger are, and remember that while it's perspective, there isn't that much espace between the hand.
Or look at yourself in a mirror with a ball.



> *
> And the woman in blue has her arm turned towards her and you are seeing the back of her hand and just the bit of her knuckles.  Have someone pose in that same position.  What is showing is pretty much all you would see.
> *




hm...Look at yourself in a mirror, it's easier, you see 4 fingers, and the right hand is still smaller than the three finger perspective on the other hand.



> *
> We do appreciate the feedback on it, good or bad.
> *




Ok, then:

The arms of the red haired girl are of different length.

Take any photo, and compare the proportion between the red girl head and her body.

The left boob of the white girl is higher than the right one, while it's her right shoulder which is higher (though, being a man, I do not really know how boobs works, so this statement could means nothing).

The white girl face isn't symetrical, this might be normal, but the lips are a bit on the left, while the check on the rigth is bigger than the other, if it is based on a photo in a magazine, it is perfectly normal.

Long Hair do have a weight (blue girl), BTW I have lightweighted long hair. 

The light comes from above on the white girl, while it comes from the left on the red girl.

The style is good, I like it, but it doesn't look like someone posed for the cover and/or that it was rushed, and the error in the cover completly spoiled it for me.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 12, 2002)

lol, I can't believe there's this much discussion going on.  Let's talk about a cover I helped with:

I did the city skyline.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Sep 13, 2002)

I'd second the opinion that I think most 3rd party art is, at best, subpar. But the old addage applies, you get what you pay for. I guess I shouldn't talk...these guys are published...and I am not. But then I'm not trying very hard either 

But, Blue drow?


----------



## tensen (Sep 13, 2002)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> *I'd second the opinion that I think most 3rd party art is, at best, subpar. But the old addage applies, you get what you pay for. I guess I shouldn't talk...these guys are published...and I am not. But then I'm not trying very hard either
> 
> But, Blue drow? *




You get what you pay for does not apply at all to art, nor to writing.  You can get some stunning work for free.  And not so good work for really expensive prices.

Dark Quest pays pretty competitive rates for work...in fact I've been told I pay higher than some of the major companies.

Its a matter of taste actually.  We enjoy very much the work we put out.  And I dislike some of the art that WOTC uses...but they seem to like it.


----------



## Blacksad (Sep 14, 2002)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *lol, I can't believe there's this much discussion going on.  Let's talk about a cover I helped with:
> 
> I did the city skyline.   *




I don't like the style(sorry), though the proportion seems accurate.

Something that would have made the cover cooler (IMHO), would have been a gradual transition (blur?) with where each character drawing are cut and the backround (or the other character).

and I like the city skyline


----------



## Wolvorine (Sep 14, 2002)

*3rd party art*

I won't go so far as to say I think all 3rd party art is fabulous (or even exceptionally good for that matter), but most 3rd party publishers seem to be hiring previously 'undiscovered talent', and some of that talent is at least as good as the 'established talent'.  
This is the pitfall of using unestablished talent, you must wade through hundreds of people who's mother told them they were great before you find someone who's mother was right. *chuckles*
I have to give Dark Quest serious kudos for doing everything they can to make every book as good as it can be.  I know that both Gillian (DQG's delightful AD, and regular DQG artist) and myself push ourselves as hard as we can to give Tensen the best art possible to go with those books.  Heck, I'm taking a break at this very moment from the 3rd final draft of an illo. for Enchanters  before I start the 3rd final draft for another.
And as Tensen pointed out (as have many others, on many occasions), people's tastes vary *widely*, which is both blessing and bane.  
The *really* hard part is to take a good look at an illo. done in a style you dislike, and try to see where the technique itself is solid.  I don't like the *style* of the Elements of Magic cover (and 4CTF), but stylistic preference aside they are well-done illos, and stand strongly.  The proportions are good, the stances, posing, and positioning are good, and within the artist's own style, everything is pretty much dead-on.  They have a nice internal consistency.
I guess the basic point is, yes there's a lo of garbage being put out, but there's some fabulous 'uncut gems', too.  I think it's a good trade-off (but then again, it's gotten me published, hehe).


----------

