Just curious, is this meant to depict Eowyn or Galadriel? I had always assumed it was Galadriel, but I was reading Return of the King and there is a scene in the second chapter where Eowyn is saying goodbye to Aragorn, she drinks from a cup and he drinks as well. It reminded me of this card. And then I couldn't decide whether it's Eowyn or Galadriel. What do you guys think? Are those elf-ears?
art on "Favor of the Lady"
The flavour text points to Galadriel. Lovely, lovely art by the way. Not a very useful card -- still, I was often trying to have a copy just because of the art-crush.
And it should be Favour of the Lady.
I use it on Theoden with Herugrim. It's nice.
It's Galadriel.
http://magali-villeneuve.blogspot.se/2011/05/lord-of-rings-lcg.html
And yes it's very nice, I've actually replaced the normal art of the Galadriel Hero with this one when playing on my iPad.
The Fellowship drink from a cup when they leave Lothlórien as well, so I guess that's where it comes from. Also the reason Galadriel's Handmaiden is holding a cup - Caleb talks about this in Team Covenant's "Celebrimbor's Secret" unboxing.
And the art is fantastic. I do wish the card was more playable. I never use it as it pales in comparison to Eowyn's ability, Protector of Lorien or even Star Brooch though it's more restricted.
It's Galadriel.
http://magali-villeneuve.blogspot.se/2011/05/lord-of-rings-lcg.html
And yes it's very nice, I've actually replaced the normal art of the Galadriel Hero with this one when playing on my iPad.
Yes, I totally see that. This one is more lovely.
I actually used to think that art was reused, and zoomed in, on the Keen as Lances card but it is just a bid different. it is all Magali though, so it is all good.
I'm not sold on the art is fantastic on the Favor of the Lady. It seems there are mistakes art-wise on the card. Especially the shadow effect on the face. The bright light is coming from the right (of the viewer), yet the darkest shadow is found on that same side of the face. The other side of the face (farther from the light) should have darker shadows. Most importantly, that bright 'half-circle' lit area beside the bridge of the nose, on the bright side of the face, is plain wrong. It is right next to the darkest shadow on the face, with distinct borders. It's impossible to have so bright area right next to so dark area without any abrupt facial edges.
I used to like the artwork too, until I noticed that spotlight on the face error.
I'm not sold on the art is fantastic on the Favor of the Lady. It seems there are mistakes art-wise on the card. Especially the shadow effect on the face. The bright light is coming from the right (of the viewer), yet the darkest shadow is found on that same side of the face. The other side of the face (farther from the light) should have darker shadows. Most importantly, that bright 'half-circle' lit area beside the bridge of the nose, on the bright side of the face, is plain wrong. It is right next to the darkest shadow on the face, with distinct borders. It's impossible to have so bright area right next to so dark area without any abrupt facial edges.
I used to like the artwork too, until I noticed that spotlight on the face error.
What you're describing is called "secondary lighting" (at least that's the name I was taught in Spanish) and it is an established and well-used resource by many if not most illustrators and artists, hell, even filmmakers. The shadows in the face don't necesarily have to form a perfect light-to-dark sequence sometimes, particularly when there's a secondary source of light on the other side, like in this case. You can see it more clearly in the cup itself. Also the shadows on her right eye are totally possible depending on the orientation of the light.
Edited by GizlivadiI understand the secondary lighting and how it affects shadow formation. As a visual artist myself, it's easy for me to notice unnatural shadows. The lady's face does not have abrupt or sharp edges/contours to form dark shadows right next to a very bright spot. It's just not possible. Also the secondary lighting, being weaker than the primary lighting should have produced the darker shadows on the secondary lit side of the face, again because the cheeks don't have sharp corners or abrupt edges.
Over-all, the wrong shadows detracted from what would have otherwise been beautiful artwork.
I agree that the light/shadow on the cheek is quite extreme, but I do think that such an abrupt shadow is possible with a very specific lighting setup.
Something like this:
Admittedly I know nothing about Magali's working process, but her work looks to me like it is based on photographic references, which might explain the dramatic lighting in this painting.