I don't think I really need to say what you're GOOD at here, since it's pretty easily apparent - the technical details and all, clothing folds and small mechanical bits and hell, background details here have got a lot put into them too. It almost starts to get to the point where there's a bit TOO much to look at everywhere, gets a little busy and there's not as much focus as there could be. But anyways, it's obvious that's both what you're good at and what you put the most time into, so I won't focus on that - instea there's one problem that stands out and is sort of a common thing, and that is stuff looks flat.
I think the thing that exacerbates the problem is you've got almost a thin grey line going around the entire edge of both characters here. It's weird, it makes it look like the background ends at the edge of them rather than being a world that continues behind them and that they exist inside. And the characters themselves, although they've got a lot of detail put into them, there's something that's making them look like they lack some 3D form. It's a combination of factors - that failing to blend into the background, how close they appear to be positioned together, and the fact that the background's got as much fine detail rendered with clarity instead of having that simulation of distance blur - but the end result is these guys look like badass detailed cardboard cutouts standing in front of a badass detailed cardboard background.
You've definitely got the detail and technical shit down well, no question about that, so I'd say the lack of depth is the next thing you should work on to bring your stuff to a higher level of realism.
That's all very interesting and of course some points to consider in future works, but lately, as my skill grows, I've been asking myself the question - just how much about such stuff REALLY do understand people that cannot translate their understanding to an actual product? How much is it actual difference in biological perception?
It's like people who know all the intricate technical parameters, functionality and behavior of modern firearms, but who never fired them.
I don't know how to paint, there's no question in that, since it's not a thing I've done therefore have put no effort or practice into learning. You do know how to paint, and the effort you're putting into your works suggests you're going for realistic depiction, so I'm pointing out the largest obstacles preventing it from looking realistic and not paper-flat. Since ccharacters looking like they're sitting flat on the background (or actually, the way the background ends at the edge of them, it almost makes the background look like it's in /front/ of them rather than behind them, almost) is something that's popped up in your stuff in the past, and adding that depth would be a real improvement, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to work on that?
Goddamn man, when did you get shitty at handling critiques?
That's not being shitty at handling critiques, I said the points are valid, but of course, nothing of the sort happens overnight, it requires practice and training, and I'm pretty capable to see the shortcomings on my own and compromise with them when my current level of skill cannot fix them in their enirety. Because you don't paint, you don't realize the amount of work put into every step of improvement - a year ago I didn't even attempt to paint viable backgrounds, and that at a point in painting you have to say "stop" and finish when you're more or less happy with the result. Anything can be improved ad nauseaum.
So it's not really a critique, it's a "gotta be a smartass and say something smartass" attitude coming from non-painters that I find myself steadily growing to not being able to handle, because in the ends, it's bullshit. Because you do not and cannot paint, you cannot offer me a SOLUTION to the problem, because you don't handle the medium, and since I'm aware of the problem without you pointing it out, it becomes redundant. A person of a higher skillset than mine MIGHT have a solution, and I'd be interested in that. This though? Ain't interesting.
I used to take in all the critiques thrown my way because I didn't feel confident in my art and utilized everything from the opinions I could get. Now it's different - I'm being able to asses what is helpful to me, and what isnt. Sorry to disappoint you.
I am genuinely not trying to say smartass shit for the purpose of being a smartass here - I don't know what would be the point of telling you what you're good at (the technical details, shading and realism in isolated objects, etc.) - since it's obvious that's what you've got the most skill in already and so I'm assuming the most effort put into it. So I might not be able to tell you the exact methods HOW to fix problems that exist and how to improve them, I can sure as hell guess. Because seriously depth and placement of details is probably 90% of what you've got missing here. The background, isolated from everything else, is great. The characters, isolated from everything else, are great, apart from some minor anatomy shit and some of the same lack of depth. It's only when you're trying to put them together as a coherent whole that it falls apart.
So the first thing I can tell you that'd be a matter of specific technique is what I already mentioned, that thin grey line that's separating the characters from the background. It's most noticeable at first glance around the dude's face, the gun, both of their hair. There ar also some areas where it looks like you painted the background up to the edge of the charactes, and then ended it, so it slightly warps around the edges and gives it the impression of looking like the background is in front of them rather than behind them. It's also got a slight tangent effect in some areas - like the bottom left corner, where the mortar of the bricks lines up perfectly with the edge of the guy's jacket - it seems nitpicky but the whole thing combines to give the effect of flatness.
I'm not sure what you do when you're painting characters and background - do you do the background first and then add the characters on top, do you paint the characters and then add the background behind them, or some combination? Either way, what it could use is some distance blur - I think in photography they call it depth of field - depending on how far away they're intended to be from the buildings behind them. It'd also be a way to separate the characters from the background without having to have an actual EDGE separating them. I am guessing gaussian blur is the one that most closely resembles the sort of distance blur that shows up in photos - and hell, maybe even lessened saturation in the background, depending how far they're intended to be from the buildings, the further away something is the more air density there is between it and the viewer and all that.
The problem with the characters lacking depth is similar to the background, but on a smaller scale - while the attention to details is great, it's sort of a case of where you're putting them - or maybe more specifically, where you're putting the clearest texture or the most contrast that gives it a strange flat look. It's like I mentioned in that other recent piece, where the random patch of sand in the lower center of the image just had way more detail put into it than anything else. It had the highest level of a fine grainy textur and the sort of contrast where it looked like every piece of grit was casting its own shadow and looking at it you just find yourself wondering "why is my eye drawn to this random patch of sand?" The most attention to detail should be put in the most important parts, where you want people to look at the longest - but more than that, things that are supposed to look closer to the viewer should have more detal and clarity in the detail.
There's less of a problem with it in this one than that lol sand - most of the detail in the characters is where you'd expect it to be - their faces, his gun, and to a lesser extent hers. But then you would expect there to be less focus on less visually important areas - for some reason the one that stands out here is his sleeve. The clothing folds look great, realistically like how folds on a sleeve would look, but the contrast in shading in that one area is so much greater than in more visualy important areas that it's distracting. My view focus shouldn't keep drifting towards his sleeve. So the attention to detail is great, but it's where you put the greatest detail (and conversely, where less so) that seems like it should add depth. The more important something is and the closer it'd be to the imaginary camera, the most contrast and detail in texture - and things where the imaginary camera isn't focusing, less so. It defeats the purpose if you end up focusing on something that doesn't make sense to focus on.
Actually, you've got some of exactly what I'm talking about done right in the drone in the upper right. The rim closest to the viewer is clearly visible, while the bottom and the edge further away are slightly blurred. So the end result is that drone looks a lot more like it exists in the 3-dimensional space of the background than the characters do. So for technical advice? I'd suggest applying some of that to other objects in scenes.
As for the rest? I guess I could mention some minor anatomy weirdness - dude's got sort of a big head for his body and he's sort of got his neck jutting out a strange amount, and judging by the sliver of background visible between them and where the other side of her would end up behind her gun, the chick has approximately zero hips and/or ass, but that's less of an issue compared to depth and someone else could probably more effectively comment on anatomies than me. Either way, I'm not telling you this shit to be a smartass, but because it looks like realism is what you're aiming for, and lack of depth is the biggest obstacle in the way of this looking realistic.
Sta.sh
I think the thing that exacerbates the problem is you've got almost a thin grey line going around the entire edge of both characters here. It's weird, it makes it look like the background ends at the edge of them rather than being a world that continues behind them and that they exist inside. And the characters themselves, although they've got a lot of detail put into them, there's something that's making them look like they lack some 3D form. It's a combination of factors - that failing to blend into the background, how close they appear to be positioned together, and the fact that the background's got as much fine detail rendered with clarity instead of having that simulation of distance blur - but the end result is these guys look like badass detailed cardboard cutouts standing in front of a badass detailed cardboard background.
You've definitely got the detail and technical shit down well, no question about that, so I'd say the lack of depth is the next thing you should work on to bring your stuff to a higher level of realism.
Devious Comments
It's like people who know all the intricate technical parameters, functionality and behavior of modern firearms, but who never fired them.
Goddamn man, when did you get shitty at handling critiques?
So it's not really a critique, it's a "gotta be a smartass and say something smartass" attitude coming from non-painters that I find myself steadily growing to not being able to handle, because in the ends, it's bullshit. Because you do not and cannot paint, you cannot offer me a SOLUTION to the problem, because you don't handle the medium, and since I'm aware of the problem without you pointing it out, it becomes redundant. A person of a higher skillset than mine MIGHT have a solution, and I'd be interested in that. This though? Ain't interesting.
I used to take in all the critiques thrown my way because I didn't feel confident in my art and utilized everything from the opinions I could get. Now it's different - I'm being able to asses what is helpful to me, and what isnt. Sorry to disappoint you.
So the first thing I can tell you that'd be a matter of specific technique is what I already mentioned, that thin grey line that's separating the characters from the background. It's most noticeable at first glance around the dude's face, the gun, both of their hair. There ar also some areas where it looks like you painted the background up to the edge of the charactes, and then ended it, so it slightly warps around the edges and gives it the impression of looking like the background is in front of them rather than behind them. It's also got a slight tangent effect in some areas - like the bottom left corner, where the mortar of the bricks lines up perfectly with the edge of the guy's jacket - it seems nitpicky but the whole thing combines to give the effect of flatness.
I'm not sure what you do when you're painting characters and background - do you do the background first and then add the characters on top, do you paint the characters and then add the background behind them, or some combination? Either way, what it could use is some distance blur - I think in photography they call it depth of field - depending on how far away they're intended to be from the buildings behind them. It'd also be a way to separate the characters from the background without having to have an actual EDGE separating them. I am guessing gaussian blur is the one that most closely resembles the sort of distance blur that shows up in photos - and hell, maybe even lessened saturation in the background, depending how far they're intended to be from the buildings, the further away something is the more air density there is between it and the viewer and all that.
The problem with the characters lacking depth is similar to the background, but on a smaller scale - while the attention to details is great, it's sort of a case of where you're putting them - or maybe more specifically, where you're putting the clearest texture or the most contrast that gives it a strange flat look. It's like I mentioned in that other recent piece, where the random patch of sand in the lower center of the image just had way more detail put into it than anything else. It had the highest level of a fine grainy textur and the sort of contrast where it looked like every piece of grit was casting its own shadow and looking at it you just find yourself wondering "why is my eye drawn to this random patch of sand?" The most attention to detail should be put in the most important parts, where you want people to look at the longest - but more than that, things that are supposed to look closer to the viewer should have more detal and clarity in the detail.
There's less of a problem with it in this one than that lol sand - most of the detail in the characters is where you'd expect it to be - their faces, his gun, and to a lesser extent hers. But then you would expect there to be less focus on less visually important areas - for some reason the one that stands out here is his sleeve. The clothing folds look great, realistically like how folds on a sleeve would look, but the contrast in shading in that one area is so much greater than in more visualy important areas that it's distracting. My view focus shouldn't keep drifting towards his sleeve. So the attention to detail is great, but it's where you put the greatest detail (and conversely, where less so) that seems like it should add depth. The more important something is and the closer it'd be to the imaginary camera, the most contrast and detail in texture - and things where the imaginary camera isn't focusing, less so. It defeats the purpose if you end up focusing on something that doesn't make sense to focus on.
Actually, you've got some of exactly what I'm talking about done right in the drone in the upper right. The rim closest to the viewer is clearly visible, while the bottom and the edge further away are slightly blurred. So the end result is that drone looks a lot more like it exists in the 3-dimensional space of the background than the characters do. So for technical advice? I'd suggest applying some of that to other objects in scenes.
As for the rest? I guess I could mention some minor anatomy weirdness - dude's got sort of a big head for his body and he's sort of got his neck jutting out a strange amount, and judging by the sliver of background visible between them and where the other side of her would end up behind her gun, the chick has approximately zero hips and/or ass, but that's less of an issue compared to depth and someone else could probably more effectively comment on anatomies than me. Either way, I'm not telling you this shit to be a smartass, but because it looks like realism is what you're aiming for, and lack of depth is the biggest obstacle in the way of this looking realistic.