Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Argentinosaurus huinculensis by Paleo-King Argentinosaurus huinculensis by Paleo-King
FORGOTTEN GIANTS: species #2 - Argentinosaurus huinculensis

*NEWLY UPDATED with more robust limbs, bigger chest, and more accurate femur width and limb spacing*

**Dorsal vertebrae COMPLETELY REVISED based directly on the 1993 description paper, with a new posterior view of the third dorsal**

***Femur and fibula COMPLETELY REVISED after intensive study of the description and Mazzetta (2004)***

***Black flash skeletal added. (Thanks Amin for the suggestion.)***

Location: Plaza Huincul, Argentina
Time: Cenomanian epoch (beginning of the Late Cretaceous)
Length: 110ft. (33m)
Probable mass: 80 tons

This not-so-forgotten giant is currently considered by most people to be the "biggest" dinosaur (though there are as many as ten contenders for that title, including something potentially longer and a LOT wider: fav.me/d3lfqci).

Argentinosaurus is a basal titanosaurian sauropod (currently classed in the dubious family Andesauridae, though it may not belong there), and probably reached a length of 110 ft (33m). It's known from two specimens - one consisting of some enormous dorsal and hip material plus a fibula (NOT a tibia as Bonaparte and Coria originally claimed in 1993), and the other being a femur shaft that's missing both ends. Its neck and tail are totally unknown, but based on related basal titanosaurs, it's likely that both were pretty long.

Argentinosaurus had a very long torso. Here I have restored it with 11 dorsal vertebrae (the standard count for most macronarians, including some titanosaurs). However it may have had 12 like some other basal titanosaurs, making its belly even longer.

References:

- Bonaparte, J.; Coria, R. (1993). A new and gigantic titanosaurian sauropod from the Rio Limay Formation (Albian-Cenomanian) of Neuquen Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 30 (3): 271–282

- Carpenter, Kenneth (2006). Biggest of the Big: A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Mega-Sauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus, Cope, 1878. In Foster, John R.; Lucas, Spencer G.. and Geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. 36. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin. pp. 131–138.

- Mazzetta, Gerardo V.; Christiansen, Per; Fariña, Richard A. (2004). Giants and Bizarres: Body Size of Some Southern South American Cretaceous Dinosaurs (PDF). Historical Biology 65: 1–13. www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/pape…
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcaprisaurus:
Caprisaurus Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2012
All i can say is, it was found in Montana and they killed each other and i think the Nanotyrannus had skin impressions.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
wait-skin impressions- do you know if scaled or feathered?
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The size is wrong, Argentinosaurus was 45-50 meters long, matching the other Giant Seismosaurus
Reply
:iconcaprisaurus:
Caprisaurus Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2012
WHAT? The Argentinosaurus is somewhere in the 30-metre range. Seismosaurus is 34 metres.
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
fucking book, get your shit together
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
50 meters? Are you serious? Where do you get those numbers from? I've NEVER seen estimated of 45-50m published anywhere for either Seismosaurus and Argentinosaurus. Before you say "the size is wrong" in my reconstruction, please go read Bonaparte and Coria's original 1993 description paper (cited above) and check the measurements of the bones - ALL of my measurements of the bones are taken straight from the paper. Everything else is based on the general proportions of related titanosaurs and titanosauriforms, and my 33m Argentinosaurus is not too small - it falls within the general range of length estimates proposed by peer-reviewed paleontologists, and in fact is larger than many of those estimates.

Unlike most "dino-experts" who just throw random numbers out there, I actually go by the real measurements based on the bones, and I cross-scale all the bones and scale bars just in case. And based on the bones (which are ALL scaled correctly in this image) it would be impossible for Argentinosaurus (or at least any of the two KNOWN specimens of Argentinosaurus) to be 50 meters long, unless it had some crazy-abnormal proportions not typical of a big titanosaur. 50m is 165 ft, are you sure you know how long that is? There's no dinosaur in that length range unless you count Amphicoelias fragillimus, which being a diplodocid would be mostly tail anyway.

You're wrong about Seismosaurus too. The longest estimate EVER given for Seismosaurus by any scientist was 130 ft. (39m) by David Gillette himself. And it turned out this estimate was too high, Seismosaurus probably was no more than 33m (110 ft.) long, it was basically an oversized Diplodocus. So at 110 ft, it WAS the same length as Argentinosaurus (just a lot lighter), but both were just 33m long, NOT 45-50m (which is an estimate I've NEVER seen published anywhere).

BTW, Seismosaurus is not the only "other giant" besides Argentinosaurus. Read my blog or look at my gallery, there are PLENTY of other giant dinosaurs far more massive than Seismosaurus (which is a very badly named animal - at 20 tons max, it was hardly an "earth-shaker" compared to things like Argentinosaurus, Argyrosaurus, or even plain old Brachiosaurus).
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Men i have tons of paleontology books in my house, i'm going to study paleontology in the future, i'm not lying, these two, along with the Ultrasaurus are the biggest dinosaurs, the sizes aren't worng, besides, the size of the Dinos vary in the books so i really can't tell you the EXACT size
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
I'm not calling you a liar dude. I'm just being brutally honest and blunt. :D

I'm questioning your sources and your knowledge - your info is exaggerated and WAY out of date. I've never seen any source I would call credible giving the length of either Argentinosaurus or Seimosaurus as 50m. Just because it's printed in a book, doesn't make it true. ANYONE can write a book. Any publisher can print a dinosaur book - and since there's no real scientific standard in the book market, a lot of junk gets printed as "fact" by ignorant authors and publishers. Literally only about 1% of dinosaur books at any given time are accurate to the best up-to-date research. Books are great to get people interested in dinosaurs and a few of the more technical books are pretty good - but if you want to verify actual sizes of dinosaurs and fossils, why not try looking at actual scientific papers printed in journals like JVP, APP, Amenghiniana, or PLoS One where the REAL paleontologists publish their research and measurements?

"Ultrasaurus" isn't even a valid dinosaur genus anymore. That is, assuming you're actually referring to Jensen's "Ultrasauros" with the 9-foot shoulder blade, not the original "Ultrasaurus" which was a small and unimpressive non-diagnostic sauropod limb bone found in Korea by Hang Mook Kim, who wrongly thought it was a real record-breaker. Jensen's "Ultrasauros" isn't valid because it's really a chimera of TWO different animals: the shoulder blade is from a brachiosaur but the type specimen was a vertebra that's actually from a diplodocid, Supersaurus (have you heard of that one?) What's more, the Jensen shoulder blade may have been long, but its fused coracoid is unusually small which means the animal it belonged to - even as an adult - was slimmer and probably lighter than even the teenage type specimen of Brachiosaurus - yep, Jensen overestimated the size and even sculpted a fake arm for the thing that is about 20% too big! Ever since 1988 the term "Ultrasaurus" has been discarded. Don't believe me? Look up Greg Paul's 1988 paper on brachiosaurs. There's a PDF version on his website. Even better, there's Mike Taylor's 2009 paper on brachiosaurs: [link] . Since you are such an expert, I'm sure you'll have no trouble understanding the scientific terminology in the paper - it does mention the 'Ultrasauros' shoulder blade and its true proportions somewhere in there, I'll leave you to find out where. Or if you really want to look sharp, I could just challenge you to explain what a bifurcated postzygadipophyseal lamina is, but given where you're at I won't bother.

You may have a lot of books and plan to study paleontology in the future - but I've got the actual scientific papers by published PhD authors and I'm studying it NOW. Seriously, I don't mean to be arrogant, but the sort of information and knowledge I have on dinosaurs (or at least sauropods) is in a whole different league than what you can merely buy in a bookstore or see on TV. You're roughly where I was at 10 years ago. Books on their own don't prove much - there are plenty of inaccurate dinosaur books that aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. Now if your books include bone diagrams republished from the scientific papers (as mine are) or mention the actual museum catalog numbers of the bones (as I always do) THEN you may have some hard-science dinosaur books. Otherwise you're just looking at watered-down popular literature by commercial authors who don't much care whether their length estimates are off or whether their taxonomic info is outdated.

And judging by the sort of wishy-washy claims you are peddling as absolute truth ("your sizes are wrong but my sizes aren't wrong, but they vary in different books so I don't know the EXACT size") I'd say you need to read more current material and some actual scientific papers in respected journals with actual measurements of the bones - as well as reading up on what the actual standards of scientific credibility for research and theories actually are. You claim Seismosaurus and Argentinosaurus were 50m long? PROVE IT with references from peer-reviewed journals and paleontologists. I've cited all MY sources for my data and measurements, revised and checked my work many times, and listed all the specimen numbers. I've done a lot of hard work here and you're basically dismissing it on a whim based on some book you read somewhere. I hope you take the science more seriously than that if you truly hope to be a paleontologist some day (and believe me, we ALWAYS need more paleontologists).
Reply
:iconcaprisaurus:
Caprisaurus Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2012
Also, there's a new British dinosaur book coming out soon. The Sunday Times reviewed it and they said perfect. And even the British dinosaur journals accepted it, mainly because it was written by some guy from the journal. Sadly it won't come out internationally (yet) and it will only come around Britain.
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
OMG when you respond, you respond Dx

I didn't know that of Ultrasauros, and yes i know of Supersaurus, well you're right, i need to buy new books and investigate some more =)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Even better than buying new books - check out these resources, they're FREE and a LOT more detailed than any book, PhD paleontologists publish papers in them:

[link] SV-POW

[link] Palaeo-Electronica - FREE online scientific journal

[link] Acta Palaeontologica Polonica - FREE online journal sponsored by the Polish Academy of Natural Sciences

[link] PLoS ONE - the ULTIMATE free online resource for scientific papers of ANY kind, including dinosaurs and paleo papers.

... books are nice but when you can check them out at library and download the actual research papers for FREE, why waste your money?
Reply
:iconriygan:
Riygan Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
can you send me them in a note? please
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2011  Professional General Artist
Awesome, Paleo King, awesome! I'm still working on my tribute to you. I think you might like it....
Reply
:iconzombiesaurian:
ZombieSaurian Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2011  Student Digital Artist
I might draw this guy! Your drawings are a very good resource!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks! If you use my drawing as a reference then provide a link to my avatar and a link to this page.

Good luck! Argentinosaurus is hard to draw because so little of it is known, but based on comparisons with over 20 other titanosaurs I'm pretty confident that it was NOT a short-necked, flat-headed Saltasaurus clone, and it would be nice to see more artists draw it with long neck and big nose, the way a big basal titanosaur should be.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2011  Professional General Artist
Big NOSE? Is ol' Argentinosaurus a Durantesaurus????? :laughing:
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ah, yeah, teratophoneus has a point, it is gonna falll, and, why're your sauropods always soooo....thin? Kidna confuses me, I mean, shouldn't they be a little bit mroe muscled up or something, I mean, like, okay, it's cool, but....the musculature issues....especially the legs
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
PLEASE read my response to teratophoneus - this is a schematic, not a snapshot live scene! I realize in life it would have just one limb off the ground at any moment, unless moving quickly. That's not the purpose of a schematic, the purpose is to show the normal extremes of limb movement. As for the thinness... it's not too thin. The legs are actually thickened considerably from previous versions (as with my new Andesaurus), and pretty heavy compared to the leg bones (I drew those in there for a reason :XD:). Also, Argentinosaurus probably had fairly slim legs, at least laterally - have you seen how slender and smooth the tibia is? There's barely anything for big heavy muscles to attach to! It would have had relatively slender legs for its size, which is completely different from what you see in later, stout-limbed titanosaurs like the saltasauridae. When I get to the more derived titanosaurs you will see thicker legs (but still not bulging all over with muscles - they just have proportionally shorter, stouter leg bones).

Keep in mind that all sauropods were graviportal, they were not built to run at high speeds or high impacts, and therefore they generally didn't have the crazy flared-out muscle attachment crests that you see on fast-running or galloping dinosaurs - so all the bulging muscles you'd find on Triceratops or Edmontosaurus just aren't there in sauropods. The muscles would have hugged the bone pretty closely. Just like elephants don't look as bulging and curvy as rhinos or hippos... they're just built differently. I don't draw sauropods abnormally thin... their limbs were pretty lightly muscled since they only had to perform very basic, slow, linear movements. Greg Paul and Scott Hartman both draw them lightly muscled as well, I'm far from being the only one. It's just a matter of understanding the anatomy, which sadly most artists don't.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2011  Professional General Artist
Am I a sadly artist? :) Anyway, my claims are made from long study of living creatures, the dino bones themselves (mostly pics, but I have seen the real thing too!), and some personal experience with having to do things myself, vis-a-vis my own and other peoples' bodies. I stand by my thoughts.

AND! Just for your information! You are perfectly fine with this Argentinosaurus' walking stance, nothing wrong that I can see at all. A lot of people seem to forget that living creatures actually MOVE, and movement adds kinetic balances that do not occur with an unmoving object. Show this link when you get complaints about two legs on the same side being off the ground. [link]

You and I have discussed the muscularity issue a lot and the posts should still be around. I've seen some mightily bulging muscles on some slender bones, with small processes is all I'll say for now.
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The reply, well, I was kinda breezing through the text udner the pic...neither is my eyesight so good....but anyhow, I've never noticed Argentinosaurus' legs...last time I drew it was about two or three years ago in ninth grade....well, maybe I didn't mean enormous muscle bulges, but just a little leg solidity...but then, yeah, it does make sense for something that CAN'T run....to have....slim legs, yeah, never guessed it out straight
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Well more than anything it's the actual fossils that hold the clues. And the Argentinosaurus leg bones are pretty slender for being so big. The ends are not expanded that much and muscle attachment crests are pretty limited, so you can't throw huge amounts of muscle on them. You tend to get more robust legs and somewhat bigger muscle crests on later titanosaurs like Opisthocoelicaudia, Saltasaurus, etc. They had short, stout legs.
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, thanks for that! I'll be submittign my new giant Mendozasaurus somewhere next Sautrday, Sunday, or week after next, but you've given me a whole new window into titanosaurs!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
It should not be more than 75 ft. long, even for the biggest known specimens. Keep that in mind. It's a giant by any modern standards for sure, but not compared to things like Futalognkosaurus, Puertasaurus, etc.
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ah, not much o a titan....but Drusilasaura would be respectably big.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
About the same size as Mendozasaurus actually.... I've compared the bone sizes, it's in the Mendozasaurus range. Although it's shaped more like Puertasaurus from the looks of things...
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011
very good :D but its inaccurate in one way: This Argentinosaurus as you depicted him would have fallen down, because sauropods espeacially bigger ones, must have had 3 , or at least, 2 legs in diagonal , on the ground. Yours has the left hind and front leg in the air, meaning he would fall.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
It's not meant to be an actual snapshot of the animal in motion in real life, but rather its typical extremes of leg movement. A sort of "Da vinci" diagram if you will, as is the case with most skeletals and schematics. In real life it would indeed have 3 legs on the ground at any one time.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011
ah, ok.BTW how long does it take to make such a picture.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
It's around a week to measure and draw, but the research and digital revision progresses over a month or so. And it could continue being revised for longer if new data is discovered.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011
wow, it takes me with research around just a day. But my pictures arent as good as yoursof course. But one month, that really long, but as i can see its worth!-your pictures are amazing, what will you do next , a Turiasaurus maybe?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Well I'm working on titanosaurs at the moment, so Turiasaurus isn't really high priority right now... I can see why people are into it, but it's a bit overhyped IMO. It may be big, but it's mostly tail anyway, not much neck. I'm actually in the process of heavily revising my Puertasaurus and also completing a new titanosaur image (you'll find out which species soon enough).
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner May 22, 2011  Hobbyist
Fantastic as usual...
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner May 18, 2011  Hobbyist
Very nice
Reply
:iconaloxamax:
Aloxamax Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2011
even if Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus were giants, the biggest (or at least longest) creature that ever lived is aparently Amphicoelias fragillimus with a lenght of 50-60m...that's big.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
True, it was probably the biggest. But I'm mainly talking about the biggest dinosaurs we still have fossil evidence for. With Amphicoelias fragillimus, we only have measurements and a drawing of one bone from one angle. Cope was rumored to have also found a giant femur (or two) from the beast, which was NEVER accounted for.

So I'm not doubting its authenticity (if it was fake, then Cope's rival March would have had a field day humiliating him over it, and he did no such thing). And it probably was far longer than Argentinosaurus or even Puertasaurus. But it's gone and we can't study it any further. I'm just working with dinosaurs whose type material still exists today, that CAN be studied in detail.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2011  Professional General Artist
I saw a pic of the putative limb material and downloaded it. Where it is, I do not know, but if I find it, you want it? The pic was a drawing comparing the limb sizes with modern day counterparts--crocodile legs I think they were--and those limb bones were HUGE!

Who drew them? I have no idea. They had appeared, if I remember correctly, in a science journal from those times.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes, I'll be glad to have that pic. I remember seeing it too, but a LONG time ago and I didn't download it :( The location or even existence of that femur is even more mysterious than the vertebra.
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2011  Professional General Artist
It might take a while, PK. Ain't got no idea where it is, and I have a LOT of stuff backed up. I'll see if I can find it on the web, then post it here. Should be no problems with copyrights?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
Oops, I mean Marsh, not "March" :D
Reply
:iconbabbletrish:
babbletrish Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
Gorgeous!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks! :)
Reply
:iconbensen-daniel:
bensen-daniel Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2010
I love the Greg Paul-esque wrinkles down the body
Reply
:iconbrooksleibee:
BrooksLeibee Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010  Student Photographer
Outstanding anatomical features!!
You have some of the most realistic and beautiful paleoart, other than Gregory S. Paul...
Wait! Are you Gregory S. Paul?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
HAHA no, I'm not Greg Paul ;) Though I admit it's pretty cool being mistaken for him! Thanks for the compliments!

But I have met him in person (twice now...) The one main thing I have in common with Greg Paul is that I edit my work to reflect the latest research. But he and I have many differing views on the specifics of anatomy of many dinosaurs, including sauropods, but others too. To my knowledge he's never had a DeviantArt account. Also you can tell his work by his signature, and the human figure he uses is different too (his is probably Raquel Welch, mine is Eugen Sandow).

I learned a lot from his art and published papers, but my illustrations are done 100% from scratch and from the original published diagrams and photos of the actual bones in scientific papers, I did not use Paul's stuff for reference. Any resemblance to the work of Paul or any other artist is purely coincidental, except where otherwise noted. My Futalognkosaurus skeletal is radically different from his (and I didn't even have access to his version when I was doing mine), and he's never even restored Andesaurus, so mine is the first scientific restoration of that creature.
Reply
:iconbrooksleibee:
BrooksLeibee Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010  Student Photographer
Woah!!! Big reply XD
I didnt know how much of a difference between both of your styles had from each other...
but now i do. :3
And no problem im pretty sure that this isnt gonna be the last time you will be mistaken for a great artist, like Greg Paul.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks! I expect I will be mistaken for him many times in the future too... a lot of artists are. John Conway, David Peters, and many others have similar styles to Paul's. A lot of my stuff does end up roughly resembling Greg Paul's, but that's because he's so good with the anatomy. If I really wanted to be hasty and go for quantity above all else, I could just trace his skeletals.

But I want to be original and not simply imitate others, and also I want to study the dinosaurs myself because I suspect even Greg Paul makes some mistakes in his restorations now and then (which is why he "corrects" them so often). So I look for as many photos of the bones as possible, and if feasible, find the original description papers of dinosaurs with the scale fossil diagrams. I use these along with my knowledge of dinosaur anatomy to do restorations. Sometimes they come out looking basically similar to Greg Paul's interpretation, sometimes they come out totally different. That's the anatomy though, not the style per se.

I am trying to make my textural style more different from his, but so far it's been hard to do that without adding stuff that's not so accurate to the fossils and skin impressions. One thing I do differently is put more emphasis on shading and light, though that's still a process I'm fine-tuning. Look at "Macronarians of the Morrison" for a better example of this. Also all of my skin patterns in every work are my original ideas. To my knowledge, Greg Paul has never done a life restoration of Argentinosaurus so I don't have a clue what patterns he would use.

I'm planning to continue my "Forgotten Giants" series with more titanosaurs that have, for the most part, never been accurately illustrated (most of these are species that Greg Paul and most other artists have never touched with a 50-foot pole, so there's no question that my interpretations of them will be original and pioneering works).
Reply
:iconbrooksleibee:
BrooksLeibee Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010  Student Photographer
Well, for the skin texture, you could try a "Brett Booth" Style.
I know a few people who do use the style and once i even asked if they were Brett XD
Hm.. Idk, you'll think of something, with how well you do your dinos, i know that you'll do just fine.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2010  Professional Traditional Artist
Hmmm.... I like Brett Booth's work for its originality, but I can't say I agree with the style. A little too comic book-ish for my liking with all the fanciful warts and spikes. Though I'm definitely up for testing out different skin textures. With horned dinosaurs I'm already using different horn textures than the rather plain polished one Greg Paul uses. For scales things could change too. At least for those scenes close up enough to show scales.
Reply
:iconbrooksleibee:
BrooksLeibee Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2010  Student Photographer
yeah!
Reply
:iconorcbruto:
orcbruto Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2010  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
Wow! Looks like the Argentinossaurus is going to play soccer with the tiny human there =D

Really impressive :eager:
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Photo




Details

Submitted on
October 15, 2010
Image Size
2.2 MB
Resolution
4872×3532
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
46,324 (3 today)
Favourites
253 (who?)
Comments
147
×