I'm currently working on a digital painting and although it isn't technically Lusternian in nature, I might end up editing it and submitting it for the artisinal.

It's nowhere near finished yet, but I have a question about the hair. I'm really inexperienced wiht art in general, and I was wondering if anyone could suggest ways to add definition to the hair. In the photograph I'm using as a model the hair really is all black except for the few highlights. I was wondering if it needs more definition and how to add it, or it's one can just assume it's "hair" and leave it at that.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e226/Cit...burninggirl.jpg

Any other comments or constructive criticism would be appreciated. Just remember that it's still very much in progress.

And if this belongs in the Real World section that's fine; I wasn't sure where to put it.

That's disturbing looking. I like the coloring and shadows but what is it supposed to be?

I couldn't decide what to draw so I made a friend come up wih three nouns, three adjectives, and three verbs. The sentence I ended up with was "A girl (named Janet, incidently) on fire with blue flames eating a decomposing golden apple." She's blue because that was one of the adjectives, and I wanted to have that there even if I didn't get to the fire. Her fingers are pink arbitrarily because I like pink, and I can change the colour once I'm finished.

I haven't decided where the fire is going to be yet. I might have someone else in the background aflame, presumably some indication of a contest for the golden apple.

*shrug* I make up stories once I'm finished, but this is the first full painting I'm attempting. The rest are just body parts, usually faces. Which is why I have no idea what to do with the hair.

You've chosen what is probably the hardest hair colour to give depth to. Congratulations!

The trick with hair is to build it up with layers - start off with general areas of light and dark. Then start drawing in prominent strands/swashes of hair, using slight variations in colours. Finally, add in the very darkest shadows and the very lightest highlights.

Not my work (though I wish it was), but take a look: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/25693414/

This is a nice example because it's essentially unfinished, being a speed painting. You can see how she's started off with big blotchy patches of light and shadow, and then added more definition. Start with a big brush, get progressively smaller. Notice also the colours - predominantly blacks, but there's browns, greys and blues in the lighter parts as well.

Does that help at all? My experience is with paint and pencil rather than pixels, but I guess the theory's the same. Look up some proper drawing tutorials.

Also look at the rest of jezebel's gallery, she's an awesome digital artist.

PS. I like the picture so far. Nice job with making the face look 3D. Ear looks a little far to the left, perhaps? Maybe just the angle of the face. But the ear itself is spiffy. Thumbs up from me.

I know, theoretically at least, the concept for hair. My main problem is that because of the lighting, the hair really is pitch black. Because this isn't a photograph, the straight black seems like I just forgot to do something to it. I'm just not sure if it's ok as is, or if I need to illuminate it. Plus adding another light source means I have to add more/different highlights and shadows to the face.

Yes, that's more or less the impression I'd get - that there's something missing. You've gotta choose between sticking to the photo and keeping the hair pitch black and flat looking, or ditching the photo as far as the hair is concerned and being inventive. I'd personally go with the latter, but I like adding greater contrast to pictures, so meh.

I don't think adding another light source is the best answer - you've already pointed out that it's a pain. Besides, I think you could get more highlights out of the light you've already got. You see how you've got tone on the ear? There's no reason why the hair, which is in roughly the same place and even closer to the light source in places, shouldn't have a similar amount of tone variation. This is difficult to see just on the picture you posted, but the hair seems to get a bit closer to the light down by the jaw/neck. If this is the case in the original photo, you can pretty safely improvise with some lighter bits there, and streak them up nearer the ear. The tips especially would be lighter than black. Just don't use too much white. Blues are probably your best bet, since black hair can be quite shiny and would reflect some of that skin colour.

Well anyway, you could give it a try. Start off subtly, and see how you like it. If not, just keep it pitch. If anyone complains, wave the original photo in their face.

Thank you so much for your input. I don't think I managed it very well (I already knew I suck at painting hair) but you can at least tell what it's supposed to be now. I think I'll leave for a come-back-once-I-have-some-idea-what-I'm-doing type of thing. I'm definitely learning a lot with this though, and I'd love any more tips, pointers, or anything else.

Oh, and I love Jezebel's gallery.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e226/Cit...urninggirl0.jpg
This is where I am so far. Next up, I think, is trying to get her fingers to look a little less like Gumby's.

Edit: Just for fun I changed around the colour scheme.

In the green one it looks like her last two fingers dissapeared.. I would suggest using soft greenish black (very very slightly lighter than the straight black) for highlighting the hair, since there is always some light reflecting off the nearest objects...