Biggest thing I think you need to work on is faces, hands, and general anatomy/posing. I'm... I'm sorry, but you seem incapable of drawing attractive people...
I disagree. Not everyone in art needs to be a supermodel. I think the less-than-perfect people give it a grittier look.
That isn't Radar's point. If you look at what I said about his drawing techniques, the faces are unattractive not because they're unattractive people, but because they're drawn poorly. The noses are wrong, the mouths tend to be two dimensional, the proportions are unattractive, and all-in-all the features are poorly rendered and rely too much on lines which are not appealing aesthetically.
Depictions of unattractive people can still be aesthetically drawn.
Poorly stated, I'll admit, but yes, srsizzy hit the nail on the head.
Godfather's right on the fundamentals. I mean. Talking on the phone? Draw some hands. Sitting on the bus? Draw some lips. The toilet? Draw some feet. In the shower? Get out of the shower and draw something.
Yeah, there are a lot of fast things to do when you only have a few minutes. If I have 30 minutes between classes instead of going home and back I head to the closest lounge area and draw people sleeping and doing homework and stuff.
Man! So many comments! Cheers fellas. i guess the only way to show my appreciation is to spend the night doing some studies! Pics will come soon. I swear
You need to add value to your thumbnails. Line is for drawing and thumbnails are about composition which is value and shape and color relationship.
These studies are not something you half ass. They are more important than the portfolio work. Not in terms of presentation but the intensity/ seriousness of them. What you have above looks half ass.
A thing that might be new to you- Draw through your forms. For example the heads where you keep adding that cross thats suppoused to be a form line? draw it wrapping around a sphere vs two lines on a circle
Kendeathwalker on
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I agree with Kenny, they do look half-assed.
Take a look at Ikage's studies, even though they're studies they still have a sheen of professionalism.
They display a keen desire to understand the figure, where as yours just look like you're doing them because we told you you should be doing them. I'm not saying that your stuff needs to be at Ikage's level, but you do have to aspire to be as good or better. At the moment it just looks like you rushed your way through them so you could tick a box.
Aye i admit, they are kinda half arsed. Though as messy as they are, ive actually placed quite a bit of thought in those environment thumbnails and that drawing of the store front. I really want to practice interiors, because ive done waaaaay to many city street scenes. Thanks for the crits fellas.
NOW, this is a final piece for one of my uni assignments (character development). This was due tomorrow, but its been extended by a week. Any chance for some quick crits? I know the forms/gesture/weight are a little off, but if anyone has some thoughts on what might make them a little bit better, i'd like to hear. *oh and im still working on those god damn hands!
She has a sack of small potatoes where her breasts should be.
Is she a potato smuggling raider?
Also why light from the side like that? Why are the no strong lines to help illuminate the form of stuff? The two strongest lines are on the butt of her pistol. Everything else has this mushy confused hazy hesitant quality that totally bugs me. Are these digital?
Have you done any exercises in like, simple rendering of spherical shapes? I feel it would help, because she doesnt look like she has any volume at the moment, except for the potato boobs, and even they aren't exactly busting out, as it were. Everythings so flattttt.
If it's digital, take some risks and experiment and see if it helps.
Cheers man. Yeah they're digital. I'll try adding some harder lines.
My tutor was telling me last week that my technique at the moment looks more suited to watercolour, because it looks like everything bleeds together (perhaps similar to what you pointed out with it being mushy/hazy), though i cant use watercolour
Have you done any exercises in like, simple rendering of spherical shapes?
Havn't tried it in digital. I've only just started doing some in pencil using one of those wooden anatomy dolls (with a desk lamp for light source).
I reckon im still having issues with the whole greyscale method and understanding values.
changed some of the shapes a bit, also added some shadding to the arm that should be hidden by the shaddow of the torso, also, you have the shading on the bag on the left the wrong way around... opposite to the rest of the light source. kinda tired, cant spell hope this helps... kinda changed one of the legs and the foot, it just looks wrong. I think mine might look a 'little' more correct but its still not there. gah. also.. i didnt really address it but the foot/ leg behind the bag looks like its mangled/ not at the right angle.
Good luck dude, Im kinda pissed about the art course i was going to go to got cancelled im thinking of going to some local life drawing classes at mitcham, they are 12 bucks a pop on thursdays BUT no instructor *sigh*
I just did this. Took about 10 minutes. Not detailed, or accurate, but adding a rim light and a faint second light source, and also some reflective light kinda helps build the forms a little better. Rather than this exactly on the side overcast light thing you have going. Also tried to make that gun-arm look less tube-like. I AIN'T NO BACON, K?
Leggraphics: Cheers dude. I like what you did with darkening her jacket in the left pic. The shadow on the bag may help add a little depth too.
desperaterobots: I like your paintover and it does help (even though you're no Bacon *joking*). I'm not too sure about that faint light source (running across the shadows over her legs/chest). it looks great, but im thinking that may imply too much 'mood' for a character design turnaround. I do like the harder and crisper lines around her. I'll see what i can do
This image has a good solid feel about it. Maybe you've oversimplified the left eye, and that's why it seems flat? If you used a reference, could you post it here? Also, be aware that the nose will often obscure part of the eyeball from an angle, for example...
I think the reason the eye came out flat, is you shifted towards more of a frontal positioning, where the one in the ref is more of a 3/4 shot. Notice how in the ref the inner side of the eye is mostly represented by the spherical shape of the eye itself, where you have not drawn the tear duct receding into space.
On second look, you've done it with both eyes. Round 'em out!
no.. really the reason the eye came out flat is he hasnt studied the structure of an eye and doesnt understand the concept of the lids wrapping around the sphere of the eyeball. Not to mention how value describes a form. Rather than coloring with a pencil to make dark patchs where he thinks they should be. Every single eye drawn on those pages demonstrates that.
Copying photographs isnt going to make you any better at drawing the figure. You have to study a photograph. Study the forms creating those shapes you are copying.
Do you think the various people in this thread encouraging basic fundamental studies are lying to you wck? Studying from a photograph is actually a rather advanced exercise in terms of the number of fundamentals it requires to do it. Fundamentals that you repeatedly demonstrate you dont fully grasp.
Im done.. I like your work ethic but your insistence on repeating the same mistakes again and again despite being told about it is .....................
I just realized how harsh that sounds, sorry.. you are doing studies just you are going about it ass backwards most of the time. Really.. just copy eveything Ikage is doing..
I started working up a redline of your study of this guy to mark up and show you how certain things were off, before I realized it was pointless because basically the whole drawing was off.
I think you may need some recalibration in order to properly realize just what level of attention to accuracy is necessary to apply to study of an object in order to get a good reproduction of it. Especially at a beginner level where it can be a struggle even with complete focus to get a good drawing out.
For a time, a casual observer might chalk this up to simply being quickly little studies, but from what I have perused in this thread I have not seen a single drawing that shows you really have a grasp of observation, and the sorts of studies that might be able to correct this, like the head study in question, are not given anywhere near the adequate level of care and diligence that are necessary to serve their function.
I think you should try this drawing over again all by itself as a focused study, or find another good face that has a nice contrast of values like what Flay posted. Spend several hours on it at least. Pay excruciating attention to how far apart from each other the features are, their relative size. Pay attention to angles. If it doesn't strike you as looking exactly like your reference then something is wrong. Try to figure out what it is. If you can't, post it up and we'll look at your ref and tell you what went wrong.
When trying to learn accurate observational drawing, taking your time measuring is essential. My personal go-to technique for measuring is triangulation. How triangulation works is, you start off by picking two points on the model. Top of the head to bottom of the chin, usually, for a head drawing. You hold up your pencil to the model, and match the angle between the two points with the side of the pencil. Then, draw a line at that angle on the page, starting and ending where you want the points on the model to be on your finished drawing. You now have one accurate line- which, if you've done it right, will allow for accurate measuring for the entire drawing.
With the two accurate points on the line, you can determine accurately any other point on the drawing. You simply have to measure with the side of your pencil the angle from the first point to the new point, and then the second point to the new point. Where these angles intersect is where the new point is supposed to go. And this new point gives you another accurate point you can use to measure off of. By measuring off the major points and angles, and cross-checking the measurements between points- browline, mouthline, tip of the nose, base of the nose, hairline, ear, jaw, etc. etc., you soon have an accurate framework to build your structure and form on top of.
As you can see in the .gif, the drawing is immediately off because you've straightened up the centerline of the head, and got the angle of the browridge off, which consequently set the entire perspective of the head off.
Although you can (especially in a photo, where nothing moves around) carry this technique to a point where you can achieve almost a very accurate finished drawing simply by measuring so many points that all that seems to be left is to connect the dots, this isn't a replacement for construction-based cube/cylinder/sphere thinking, but a compliment to it, because it encourages diligent observation which will pay off when you go to do construction based figures from imagination, because it will allow you to better see and figure out how and why your figures are going wrong when you're working on them. Playing construction and measurement off each other when drawing will create a greater sense of understanding than one or the other alone. A lot of advanced people I've seen will only use angle measurements at the beginning of a drawing to figure out where the figure will be placed, and then a few times to double-check specific things that look off, the rest of the time allowing construction and gesture to do the rest- but they can only do this successfully as a result of having spent their time on measuring on hundreds of previous drawings.
Sorry to sound like i'm kissing arse here, but thanks for taking the time for those in depth comments fellas. Really appreciate it.
I'll give that head another try tonight (though like scos assumed, i didnt really place much time into that initial one). I like that triangle method. Reckon i'll incoorporate that into it too.
BTW, is there something up with tinypic.com? My above post doesnt display images on neither my home computers or university ones. can anyone see them?
Incase somethings messed up with their servers, i uploaded them again on imageshack
When trying to learn accurate observational drawing, taking your time measuring is essential. My personal go-to technique for measuring is triangulation. How triangulation works is, you start off by picking two points on the model. Top of the head to bottom of the chin, usually, for a head drawing. You hold up your pencil to the model, and match the angle between the two points with the side of the pencil. Then, draw a line at that angle on the page, starting and ending where you want the points on the model to be on your finished drawing. You now have one accurate line- which, if you've done it right, will allow for accurate measuring for the entire drawing.
With the two accurate points on the line, you can determine accurately any other point on the drawing. You simply have to measure with the side of your pencil the angle from the first point to the new point, and then the second point to the new point. Where these angles intersect is where the new point is supposed to go. And this new point gives you another accurate point you can use to measure off of. By measuring off the major points and angles, and cross-checking the measurements between points- browline, mouthline, tip of the nose, base of the nose, hairline, ear, jaw, etc. etc., you soon have an accurate framework to build your structure and form on top of.
As you can see in the .gif, the drawing is immediately off because you've straightened up the centerline of the head, and got the angle of the browridge off, which consequently set the entire perspective of the head off.
Although you can (especially in a photo, where nothing moves around) carry this technique to a point where you can achieve almost a very accurate finished drawing simply by measuring so many points that all that seems to be left is to connect the dots, this isn't a replacement for construction-based cube/cylinder/sphere thinking, but a compliment to it, because it encourages diligent observation which will pay off when you go to do construction based figures from imagination, because it will allow you to better see and figure out how and why your figures are going wrong when you're working on them. Playing construction and measurement off each other when drawing will create a greater sense of understanding than one or the other alone. A lot of advanced people I've seen will only use angle measurements at the beginning of a drawing to figure out where the figure will be placed, and then a few times to double-check specific things that look off, the rest of the time allowing construction and gesture to do the rest- but they can only do this successfully as a result of having spent their time on measuring on hundreds of previous drawings.
omagad! bacon are you a teacher or something? anyways i tried this months ago at my figure drawing lessons (which are over) id always lag behind everyone else but my drawings were pretty accurate most of the time.
Posts
Poorly stated, I'll admit, but yes, srsizzy hit the nail on the head.
Laughter is the best medicine for that
or are you just randomly making text boxes with varying sizes
facebook.com/LauraCatherwoodArt
you definitely got the drive, you just need to redirect your effort
ATM more like doodle, loose studies at this stage
Oh god these are bad. But im sure im getting something out of this... *keep in mind most of my time has been doing essays and other assignments
Some doodles i did while at the South Australian Museum - go see the Aboriginal exhibit. Really awesome stuff!
Quick sketch in the car
Loose, quick studies in class today
More doodles, looking out the window at some shops
Doodles in lecture today
Try to spot the michael jackson...
Not to say they in and of themselves are perfect, but rather, these perfectly fit what you need to be doing.
I think if you keep up sketch work like this, you'll be learning a lot faster than you are currently!
These studies are not something you half ass. They are more important than the portfolio work. Not in terms of presentation but the intensity/ seriousness of them. What you have above looks half ass.
A thing that might be new to you- Draw through your forms. For example the heads where you keep adding that cross thats suppoused to be a form line? draw it wrapping around a sphere vs two lines on a circle
Take a look at Ikage's studies, even though they're studies they still have a sheen of professionalism.
They display a keen desire to understand the figure, where as yours just look like you're doing them because we told you you should be doing them. I'm not saying that your stuff needs to be at Ikage's level, but you do have to aspire to be as good or better. At the moment it just looks like you rushed your way through them so you could tick a box.
NOW, this is a final piece for one of my uni assignments (character development). This was due tomorrow, but its been extended by a week. Any chance for some quick crits? I know the forms/gesture/weight are a little off, but if anyone has some thoughts on what might make them a little bit better, i'd like to hear. *oh and im still working on those god damn hands!
A larger size for more detail
*studies to come. Need to scan them
Is she a potato smuggling raider?
Also why light from the side like that? Why are the no strong lines to help illuminate the form of stuff? The two strongest lines are on the butt of her pistol. Everything else has this mushy confused hazy hesitant quality that totally bugs me. Are these digital?
Have you done any exercises in like, simple rendering of spherical shapes? I feel it would help, because she doesnt look like she has any volume at the moment, except for the potato boobs, and even they aren't exactly busting out, as it were. Everythings so flattttt.
If it's digital, take some risks and experiment and see if it helps.
My tutor was telling me last week that my technique at the moment looks more suited to watercolour, because it looks like everything bleeds together (perhaps similar to what you pointed out with it being mushy/hazy), though i cant use watercolour
Havn't tried it in digital. I've only just started doing some in pencil using one of those wooden anatomy dolls (with a desk lamp for light source).
I reckon im still having issues with the whole greyscale method and understanding values.
No. She's a budgie smuggler
Good luck dude, Im kinda pissed about the art course i was going to go to got cancelled
desperaterobots: I like your paintover and it does help (even though you're no Bacon
CHEERS FELLAS!!!
Anyway, you get the idea
All the really bad looking imags are done from memory. The half decent ones are done with reference
Posemaniacs and (i think) Hogarth
I set up one of my drawing dolls with a light source from a desk lamp. Worked really well
Those figure studies are done from memory. Really bad. The doodles at the bottom are quick 5 mins ones
I drink coffee in the mornings. So i decided to draw my coffee cup
The far chick on the left and the top dude on the right are reffed from photos
This dudes eye is a little flat.
MICHAEL JACKSON! - trying a little watercolour
This image has a good solid feel about it. Maybe you've oversimplified the left eye, and that's why it seems flat? If you used a reference, could you post it here? Also, be aware that the nose will often obscure part of the eyeball from an angle, for example...
On second look, you've done it with both eyes. Round 'em out!
Copying photographs isnt going to make you any better at drawing the figure. You have to study a photograph. Study the forms creating those shapes you are copying.
Do you think the various people in this thread encouraging basic fundamental studies are lying to you wck? Studying from a photograph is actually a rather advanced exercise in terms of the number of fundamentals it requires to do it. Fundamentals that you repeatedly demonstrate you dont fully grasp.
Im done.. I like your work ethic but your insistence on repeating the same mistakes again and again despite being told about it is .....................
Being jailed doesnt allow me to edit things.
I love the honesty. Im glad you where unable to edit that post. That way I know what you’re honestly thinking.
old version i posted in the doodle thread. I think the newer version is better, but he looks kinda weird.
slow your hand down
Stuff i did this weekend
I started working up a redline of your study of this guy to mark up and show you how certain things were off, before I realized it was pointless because basically the whole drawing was off.
I think you may need some recalibration in order to properly realize just what level of attention to accuracy is necessary to apply to study of an object in order to get a good reproduction of it. Especially at a beginner level where it can be a struggle even with complete focus to get a good drawing out.
For a time, a casual observer might chalk this up to simply being quickly little studies, but from what I have perused in this thread I have not seen a single drawing that shows you really have a grasp of observation, and the sorts of studies that might be able to correct this, like the head study in question, are not given anywhere near the adequate level of care and diligence that are necessary to serve their function.
I think you should try this drawing over again all by itself as a focused study, or find another good face that has a nice contrast of values like what Flay posted. Spend several hours on it at least. Pay excruciating attention to how far apart from each other the features are, their relative size. Pay attention to angles. If it doesn't strike you as looking exactly like your reference then something is wrong. Try to figure out what it is. If you can't, post it up and we'll look at your ref and tell you what went wrong.
When trying to learn accurate observational drawing, taking your time measuring is essential. My personal go-to technique for measuring is triangulation. How triangulation works is, you start off by picking two points on the model. Top of the head to bottom of the chin, usually, for a head drawing. You hold up your pencil to the model, and match the angle between the two points with the side of the pencil. Then, draw a line at that angle on the page, starting and ending where you want the points on the model to be on your finished drawing. You now have one accurate line- which, if you've done it right, will allow for accurate measuring for the entire drawing.
With the two accurate points on the line, you can determine accurately any other point on the drawing. You simply have to measure with the side of your pencil the angle from the first point to the new point, and then the second point to the new point. Where these angles intersect is where the new point is supposed to go. And this new point gives you another accurate point you can use to measure off of. By measuring off the major points and angles, and cross-checking the measurements between points- browline, mouthline, tip of the nose, base of the nose, hairline, ear, jaw, etc. etc., you soon have an accurate framework to build your structure and form on top of.
As you can see in the .gif, the drawing is immediately off because you've straightened up the centerline of the head, and got the angle of the browridge off, which consequently set the entire perspective of the head off.
Although you can (especially in a photo, where nothing moves around) carry this technique to a point where you can achieve almost a very accurate finished drawing simply by measuring so many points that all that seems to be left is to connect the dots, this isn't a replacement for construction-based cube/cylinder/sphere thinking, but a compliment to it, because it encourages diligent observation which will pay off when you go to do construction based figures from imagination, because it will allow you to better see and figure out how and why your figures are going wrong when you're working on them. Playing construction and measurement off each other when drawing will create a greater sense of understanding than one or the other alone. A lot of advanced people I've seen will only use angle measurements at the beginning of a drawing to figure out where the figure will be placed, and then a few times to double-check specific things that look off, the rest of the time allowing construction and gesture to do the rest- but they can only do this successfully as a result of having spent their time on measuring on hundreds of previous drawings.
Twitter
Sorry to sound like i'm kissing arse here, but thanks for taking the time for those in depth comments fellas. Really appreciate it.
I'll give that head another try tonight (though like scos assumed, i didnt really place much time into that initial one). I like that triangle method. Reckon i'll incoorporate that into it too.
BTW, is there something up with tinypic.com? My above post doesnt display images on neither my home computers or university ones. can anyone see them?
Incase somethings messed up with their servers, i uploaded them again on imageshack
omagad! bacon are you a teacher or something? anyways i tried this months ago at my figure drawing lessons (which are over) id always lag behind everyone else but my drawings were pretty accurate most of the time.
Some re-colourising for my narrative project