I'VE FOUND THE PERFECT COLORING STYLE! Now how do I replicate it?

akitsukino 2017-07-08 15:34:21 UTC #1

I love French animation, so it only makes since that I've found myself attracted to French comics recently too. I was scrolling on the twitter of a French animation news site, and they posted pictures of a comic called "Bergères guerrières".

THESE COLORS ARE GORGEOUS! I know some basics, but I've neglected color in favor of mastering character design and anatomy, so I guess what I'd like here are some terms to go and research. Would you refer to colors like these as mostly warm or cool? What about the shadows; are those warm or cool? Would you refer to these kind of colors as saturated or more faded? Would you call this kind of look "painterly"? What kind of brush would you use (I'm really not that good at digital painting yet, by the way). Is this the kind of coloring style that might benefit from using blend modes?

I'm sorry if I'm using these terms wrong, but I really haven't taken the time to bare down on color theory yet. I know getting the theory down is important, but I've also learned the dangers of being too vague in your art goals, so I thought it'd be good to have something specific to strive for. If anyone can give me some info or terminology on achieveing a look like this, I'd really appreciate it.

DeformedSunflower 2017-07-08 16:02:07 UTC #2

I'm not the best person to give you an answer, so I'll just do what I do best
Firstly, you were asking about the main colour palette (colour for the characters, objects, etc.). The
main palette they (the author) were using is of a warm, orange-loaded, sunset-ish one. As seen from the multiple appearances of the colour orange, cream and dark brown.

On the other hand, the shadow they use from a cool palette; blue. Furthermore, they used the technique cell-shading, which is shading EVERY aspect of the illustrations with only one (or a few) colours. While the colour for the main objects (characters, backgrounds, etc.) are saturated, the shadow is more of faded.

If you want to go into more detail, the main colours used are:
-orange (bf5034)
-greyish yellow (e5e0cc)
-dark brown (694e3b)
-stormy blue (d3e3e3)
-ochre-ish green (694e3b)
around that palette.

Brush-wise, I prefer to use something multi-functional, like a round tipped one. And the first 2 pages doesn't actually have a lot of blending happening, so it would be easier to master (the shadings have a clean border). Contrary to them, however, the third page has quite a lot, especially when the light diffuses into the darkness.
(I'm not really sure about what you mean by 'painterly', sorry)

Sorry for the lengthy comment. I hope that helps and good luck with your work!

shazzbaa 2017-07-08 16:07:45 UTC #3

Warm vs. Cool refers to the colours that things are, so that's not going to be an element of style, but of scene. Warm colours lean more towards the red side of the colour wheel, while Cool colours lean towards the blue side. A "warm" purple is going to have more red in it, and a "cool" purple is going to have more blue in it.
So, a warm and cozy scene might use more warm colours, while a spooky cave might use more cool colours. The same person's skintone might appear orange in the cozy scene, with the warm lighting, but seem more greyish and dull in the cave's cool lighting.

The specific samples you've linked -- despite the fact that it looks painted (it reminds me a lot of ti-ri's watercolour work, and I'm not sure but wouldn't be surprised if it's watercolours or gouache) I wouldn't call it "painterly," because that word usually describes works with less flat cell-style colour, and more visible brushstrokes (I'd say Pest Caravan is an example of a painterly style)

It's most visible in that first page you posted -- the girl's cloak is a single field of green, (with slight variations in colour that make it look like real media), and the shadow is similarly a single shape of a darker and more blue colour. I wouldn't quite say cell-shaded, but it's a lot closer to that style.

This varies! The girl's hair and cape are more saturated than her surroundings, for instance. Saturation is basically just..... on one end of the scale, the most saturated, you have The Most Hazard-Orange Orange You Can Make, and on the other end, the least saturated, you have a warm grey. Desaturate that hazard-orange a little and you have the colour of a natural red-head. Desaturate it more and you have kind of a brown colour. (If you want to play around with this on your own, in my colour theory class we desaturated a colour by mixing it with its opposite -- so 80% orange and 20% blue is gonna make a less saturated orange. When you have 50% Orange and 50% Blue, that's supposedly going to be a sort of grey colour, the most desaturated you can get.)

Blend modes aren't a colour theory thing --it's a tool in a colouring program that changes how colours that you put down interact with other colours -- it basically makes the computer mix the colours a certain way. Anything that's painted using blend modes, you could also paint without using blend modes, just by knowing what colours to choose, but blend modes can make it easier and faster to figure out.

So for example, "multiply" is a common blend mode in a lot of programs. If you have a bunch of flat colours, and you paint over them with a blue on a brush set to multiply, it will automatically turn that into a blue shadow -- a darker and slightly bluer green over the green areas; a darker and slightly bluer brown over the brown areas. You could also sit down and figure out those darker and slightly bluer colours yourself, and paint them in yourself -- and in some cases, that does give you a little more freedom -- the blend mode just makes it easier.

Honestly though, I think you might get some really useful information from just trying to replicate this colouring style and then looking for differences between your attempt and the real thing!

Chopythes 2017-07-08 16:52:52 UTC #4

I can't really help you with the colours tho, but if you'd like to see more of that artist's work, they're on tumblr:

I think she mostly works with watercolours but I could be in the wrong here.

JessJackdaw 2017-07-08 17:57:28 UTC #5

Oh jeez, traditional watercolor replicated in digital is always going to get a little hairy. Umm, let me give it a go.

Hurk, I tried. Here's some tips I discovered.

Keep your colors at around 50% saturation.
Color block your big forms then use a selection mask to color in the shadows and forms for each color shape (ie. one for the face, one for the hair, etc.).
Use "flawed" brushes. I think I used a little too much scatter on mine, but definitely put a little in there.
Grab a watercolor texture from the googles and slap it on with multiply with 30ish% Fill.
I don't have it in the example, but this artist likes to use blue/purple washes for her shadows. Keep that in mind.

Mostly give it a go, copying her style. You'll discover a lot, and you'll quickly find out if you want to do it for your comic. I suck at color blocking, so it would be difficult for me to do at least. XD I'd like to get better at it though.

@shazzbaa Daww, thank you for using me as an example. ;u;

spadesart 2017-07-08 20:35:43 UTC #6

heres a copycat test i made

Would you refer to colors like these as mostly warm or cool? What about the shadows; are those warm or cool?

the artist blends warm bases with cool shadows

Would you call this kind of look "painterly"? What kind of brush would you use (I'm really not that good at digital painting yet, by the way).

it looks like it was made with watercolors, so youd use a slightly textured brush for it and then overlay a paper looking texture on it

i use a version of sai with tons of preinstalled brushes, but photoshop has tons more out there

shazzbaa 2017-07-08 20:40:22 UTC #7

Please make sure you have rights to the image first!!

If you're looking for free-to-use textures, I have to ENTHUSIASTICALLY recommend LostAndTaken -- their textures are high res, and free, they have a nice selection of subtle ones -- last I downloaded from them, they don't even ask for credit for their use.

akitsukino 2017-08-10 04:33:47 UTC #8

Sorry this is so late, but THANK YOU! This is exactly the kind of help I needed!

Mari 2017-08-10 09:33:52 UTC #9

Am I the only one who finds it offensive that you want to essentially copy an artists colouring style...?
An eye for colour is something that you develop from years and years of practice. Some people are naturally better at it, and the way to better yourself is to do palette exercises, not to pick an established artist's style that's the product of years of practice and be like "Yea I'll just take this".

hamstertoybox 2017-08-10 12:28:13 UTC #10

Kyle T Webster does a really nice watercolour brush for Photoshop

bilvyy 2017-08-10 14:59:21 UTC #11

i'm feeling this hardcore. this whole thread feels really iffy that you've just found this style and now want to carbon copy it, for a work you could potentially be profiting off (ad revenue at least) too.

my suggestion is listen to all the things the replies have found for you, like using warm bases and cool shadows, texturing your art and using certain brushes etc, and try to make your own thing out of it.

i found this extremely good twitter thread recently, it's very good and gets my point across better than me. basically ask why you like a stylistic choice, and use that motivation to further your art instead of just taking the stylistic choice for yourself without further thought: https://twitter.com/andythelemon_/status/894365518152384513

(edit sorry i don't know how to quote people on mobile thphtgph)

akitsukino 2017-08-11 00:19:40 UTC #12

I could understand that. I suppose writing in caps "HELP ME COPY THIS" probably didn't help anything. I said "replicate" because that seemed like the easiest way for people to understand me, but maybe a better term would've been "reverse engineer"? For instance, I love doing 2d animation and some of the ways I've seen people improve is by studying the masters. You can see an example here:

and here

http://www.timrudder.com/animationmentor/

I also wrote another forum post about studying artists I like for the sake of practice here too;

No one knows how important fundamentals like color theory are better than I do. The only problem is (and I've written DOZENS of forums posts about this) is that have a horrible habit of letting myself get so completely swamped with fundamentals that I'll completely forget why I'm even learning them. I've learned recently that while fundamentals are super important, they're not really useful if you don't have goals in mind for them. Amelie Flechais isn't the first artist I've noticed using warm base colors with cold shadows on her art that I've been attracted to (and I know those are the terms for those because of the good people here on Tapastic! Thanks again!), she's more like the fifth. I'd noticed my taste for these kinds of palettes for a while, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to describe them, that's why I asked for some help from people who probably know a little more about color right now than I do. When I find a "style" or a kind of art I really like I don't think I so much want to "copy" (or at least I try not to when I do my own work),as I want to study it, dissect it, cut it open, look at its inside and find out why its so good. And more importantly why I like it as much as I do. Its been a pretty good way to learn so far.

(And P.S When I do study other artists I never put anything online or claim its mine. It stays in my sketchbook with the rest of my studies [and I am nowhere near close to being able to sell anyone any of my art]).

nelmathyria 2017-08-11 01:05:15 UTC #14

Studying other artist's styles and trying to figure out why they're appealing is actually super valuable in improving your own art! No one lives in a vacuum, and no one develops their own style without taking bits and pieces from other art that they like. If anyone think they're 100% "self-taught" and their style is completely unique to them, well, that's just not possible. Sure, the title of this topic could possibly have been worded better, but the OP made their intentions pretty clear that they're trying to learn and aren't trying to actually copy this artist's work. And there's no shame in asking for help with that! For what it's worth, I think it's totally fine and even educational to attempt to emulate another artist, as long as you don't get stuck in that style and never try to make it your own.

heterodont 2017-08-11 01:46:28 UTC #15

like...theres a reason master studies exist lmao.

I don't see the problem with studying how someone else goes about drawing - a teacher of mine had someone ask them how they could do linework like Frank Frazetta and you know what my teacher told them? Copy Frank Frazetta. They found an ink drawing of Frazetta that they liked, copied it line per line and tried to get into the mindset of Frazetta in order to understand how he did his linework.

Same goes for stylization, if I like how someone else simplifies the face, I'd try to study their art style in order to figure out exactly why they do it the way they do. It's one thing to LOOK at someones art and be like, oh, yeah they do this, this and this for these reasons, but its entirely different to do it yourself.

It's only problematic when you're trying to copy them 1:1 and trying to PROFIT off of that! but very rarely do people do that!!! I know when I study someones style I like, I try to blend it in with my already established style. which is going to happen eventually anyway! you're obviously not going to do the same things the original artist did, so it opens up to a whole new branch of YOUR style!

Besides, the OP is clearly not trying to be malicious and I know they genuinely have problems getting ahead of themselves when it comes to fundamentals so it's kind of rude to claim that they don't want to improve. Anyone who was trying to just be 'marketable' would not bother asking for critique.

edit: and considering your reasoning is because of everyone's weeaboo phase where they copied anime without caring about fundamentals, there's a difference between blindly copying and copying with an already established, if weak, sense of fundamentals.

Mari 2017-08-11 12:22:34 UTC #16

I'm not saying this as someone who is "self-taught" as one of you implied, I've been in multiple art schools since I was a 12 yo (for primary education & private extra curriculum & and I'm currently in a University with less than 2% approval rating for art & animation ). Not once has any of my teachers or professors encouraged us to copy another artist's work. My reasoning about the copying someone's art style comes from myself trying to replicate other artists works when I was in my mid teens on numerous occasions, and it took years and years for my style to look like something I could regocnize as my own afterwards & a huge hit to technical ability (I was actually extremely skilled in shading etc in elementary school, and that all was flushed down the toilet). It doesn't matter how good you think you've mastered the fundamentals, going out of your way to change your style towards someone else's will without fail take a toll on your skill.

heterodont 2017-08-11 19:48:08 UTC #17

And I'm currently attending one of the top design colleges in the United States.

There is quite the chance that there's a difference in curriculum but my point still stands that there's a difference between blindly copying, say anime drawings for example, and copying paintings done by Rembrandt, Homer, J.C. Leyendecker, or even copying people like Satoshi Kon, Kim Jung Gi, with a semblance of knowledge regarding fundamentals.

Master studies are a common assignment within most art schools- I've done at least 8 to date, roughly two per school semester yet my skills haven't taken a 'toll'. In fact it's only helped me develop more of an understanding regarding values, tone, and etc. It's also a form of practice as well, to just get used to whatever medium you're using to study off of any kind of artist, and any practice is good when it comes to art because you gain knowledge on how to use the medium at hand and learn from mistakes that you can apply to your original work.

The point of doing studies is so you can UNDERSTAND why an artist did what they did and apply it to your own work, not to be able to copy them 1:1 (which isn't 100% true because storyboard artists HAVE to be able to copy the set design without too much variation). I've done style studies at times because I don't know where to take my style, so I study those whose styles I admire in order to figure out if that's something I want to take mine toward. Plenty of my friends, some who are very popular, have done style studies as well because they feel like their style is stagnating and they want to embody certain stylistic choices they admire/love in their own work.

The only time it ever takes a toll is if someone does it without understanding what's behind the artists reasoning. The reason children who've copied anime have such a difficult time breaking out of it because they're only copying surface level and it becomes a habit - they aren't taking anatomy into consideration and how artists simplify facial features, they're just copying what they see and repeating what they saw rather than drawing what they know.

Using a previous example, there's a difference between me copying something and just painting in a little red on a person's leg because that's what the original painting shows and painting a little red on a person's leg because it's bounce light coming off of a red blanket that's right next to the person's leg and knowing that's the reason why it's red.

Mari 2017-08-11 20:09:50 UTC #18

We've done pointillism, impressionism, classism etc etc studies, which are short term technical studies usually attached to art history courses yes (still, never assigned to copy a specific artist - more to get the key points of that era correctly), but that is a different thing than picking an artist and going with it until the ends of the earth, no matter if you "don't share it at first". Two widely different things. OP was asking everything from texture brushes to specific colour palette's from the artist's style in order to reproduce it. That is copying, and not studying no matter how you slice it.

And the reason your skills take a toll if you copy someone's style indefinitely is because a considerate part of your brain will be focused on mirroring something unfamiliar (no matter how well you have the fundamentals down, again, since we are not talking about making a short study and then just going back to your own style ), rather than from muscle memory/your own skill & eye for colour. This will obviously make a dent. And again, the OP is not talking "ok I should use more water when I do watercolour" or whatever tidbits you come away with from technical studies, OP was talking about reproducing literally every aspect of the colouring.

Obviously the example with animu doesn't cut here exactly, and I never claimed it did, but it will still be a significant difference.

Anyway, I feel like I've expressed my point over and over again, and this time I tried to be as clear as I could. If people still miss it then that's that, I doubt I'll be able to convey it more clearly.

nelmathyria 2017-08-11 23:39:04 UTC #19

Exactly! It's all about how you approach it. If you're just trying to make a piece that looks exactly like something else you like, you might focus on the surface elements and not understand the structure and reasoning behind certain design/color choices. But if you go in with the mindset of "I really like how this looks, and I want to learn how to make something like it!" then you'll be more inclined to dissect the color schemes, types of brushes used, basically all the things that were outlined in the first post. Like art school, you get out what you put in to an activity like this.

Also, different people learn in different ways! For some people studying other artists' work may not help them or they may find it too tempting to just copy, but for a lot of people it IS really beneficial, and just because it isn't that way for everyone doesn't mean this second group is doing something wrong. The fact that we all work differently is what allows so many different art styles to exist, which we can then learn from, and that's fantastic!