Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 187
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts

    Brianworx sketchbook

    A kind of intro: I have been drawing and painting on and off for ages. Of late, I have even managed to sell some paintings - this sort of thing (hmm, is there any way to upload more than one file at a time, I wonder - doing it one by one is taking ages...):

    Name:  17-14 Conversation oil on board 18x13cm.JPG
Views: 3185
Size:  174.5 KB

    Name:  17-15 Drizzly Day  oil on board 13x18cm.JPG
Views: 3172
Size:  170.0 KB

    Name:  18-2 Mustard and tomato oil on board 15 x 20 cm (= about 6 x 8 in).JPG
Views: 3148
Size:  234.6 KB

    Name:  18-3 Three figs oil on board 15 x 20 cm (= about 6 x 8 in).JPG
Views: 3154
Size:  244.6 KB

    I remain frustrated, because pretty paintings or not, the sad fact is, my drawing sucks. With this sort of impressionistic "daily painting" thing, you can to some extent get away with it. At least, most naive viewers don't notice anything "off," but dammit, *I* do! Hence my decision to try to improve my drawing, and no better way to do that than to surround oneself with illustrators and concept artists rather than "fine" artists (well, some of those are very good, but the field as a whole has no real standards and the message boards are crawling with amateurs like, er, me).

    Furthermore, partly because of my natural inclinations, but partly also simply because I suck at it, I have tended to avoid figure drawing. But once again, it is the ultimate challenge, and therefore the best way to learn drawing in general. In the 19th century, all art students learned it, including the ones who ended up specializing in still life or landscape. That is partly why they were so good at still life and landscape!

    Over the years I have now and then visited ConceptArt and looked through the threads, and I have seen many examples in the sketchbook threads of individuals who started out clueless, and then hugely improved, some even to the point of professional art skills, simply by regularly practicing and posting. Starting a sketchbook thread sort of puts you in the habit of regular practice, even if you get no feedback. That is my main purpose here.

    And thus, without further ado, on to my early attempts. Some figures drawn from reference photos, just to create a (sadly very, very low) baseline:

    Name:  2018 0519_152743.jpg
Views: 3154
Size:  361.5 KB

    Name:  2018 0528_102430.jpg
Views: 3141
Size:  171.8 KB

    Horribly awkward and out of proportion, but then, if I already knew how to do everything, I'd be running a classical art atelier instead of being here.

    As far as I can work out, the Loomis books come highly recommended, so I am slowly plowing my way through them. They are indeed good, though to some extent frustrating, because he is not always clear on what he means and assumes too much prior knowledge from readers. But based on threads I have seen here, one should not pay too much attention to such - just draw, draw, draw. A very big part of the learning process is to stumble up blind alleys, and this cannot be prevented. Put a different way, you learn to understand what Loomis means by first misunderstanding him, with pencil in hand.

    Thus, for the moment, the plan is to post sketches here and do self-critique, to see if this leads to improvement and better understanding.

    Loomis starts out with basic body proportions. He says not to try to get all the details of anatomy right for the moment, but to just focus on broad proportions, so that is what I did:

    Name:  2018 0528_114048.jpg
Views: 3146
Size:  167.3 KB

    I think my freehand-drawn proportions are probably a bit off, but I don't want to use a ruler for these, because without practice my proportions will never improve. Well, that's the theory for the moment.

    Enough for the moment - let me first make sure this post will be approved and that everything is working before spending hours on a whole autobiography...


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Flat figure in perspective, after Loomis' method:

    Name:  2018 0529_080526.jpg
Views: 2046
Size:  148.7 KB

    I go it all wrong: the figures are way too stretched out. One of those cases where Loomis assumes I understand, but I have never quite understood how to do squares in perspective, and how to prevent them from looking too stretched out or too compact. For the moment, I am not worrying too much. I want to get through a few chapters and get an overview before solving individual issues.

    Name:  2018 0529_111213.jpg
Views: 2041
Size:  144.7 KB

    Loomis method for quick setup of figures: divide upper half into thirds. Once again he is a bit unclear about how to use this setup, but it looks like it might be useful. I was a bit sloppy on the measurement. I don't want to use a ruler, because one had to learn how to do it accurately freehand.

    Name:  2018 0529_112916.jpg
Views: 2034
Size:  259.9 KB

    Loomis provides a neat way to relate standing to sitting figures. If you do the measurement in sloppy manner, like I did here, you end up with grossly distorted figures! And thus we learn not to rush through an exercise too frantically.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    As far as I can work out, the Loomis books come highly recommended, so I am slowly plowing my way through them.
    Looks like you are going too fast, as you skipped Loomis section on beginner mistakes, where he warns against an abundance of small fuzzy lines. You better spend some time with http://www.drawabox.com first.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    Flat figure in perspective, after Loomis' method:

    Name:  2018 0529_080526.jpg
Views: 2046
Size:  148.7 KB

    I go it all wrong: the figures are way too stretched out. One of those cases where Loomis assumes I understand, but I have never quite understood how to do squares in perspective, and how to prevent them from looking too stretched out or too compact.
    Can you explain to me why your foreshortened squares are elongated? You can spend days trying to understand the finesse of constructing squares in perspective, but it looks like you don't get the most basic notion of perspective: foreshortening. I suggest you go back to basics and work yourself through a perspective manual, like Norling's.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    Looks like you are going too fast, as you skipped Loomis section on beginner mistakes, where he warns against an abundance of small fuzzy lines. You better spend some time with http://www.drawabox.com first.
    I have indeed started working a bit on draw a box. Looks very useful. The problem I have is that Loomis' own lines tend to be fuzzy and unclear, so I can't always see what exactly he is doing. Perhaps also a bad habit of mine? I have always had to "search" for the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    Can you explain to me why your foreshortened squares are elongated? You can spend days trying to understand the finesse of constructing squares in perspective, but it looks like you don't get the most basic notion of perspective: foreshortening. I suggest you go back to basics and work yourself through a perspective manual, like Norling's.
    They actually looked more foreshortened to me than they turned out to be. Old problem: I simply cannot see errors until the whole thing is complete! But I have also never been able to work out by how much squares should be foreshortened.

    Anyway, thanks for the feedback. For the moment I'll not panic too much - I am still sort of feeling my way around. My sketchbook thread thus looks like that of a bazillion other beginners that I have seen on this board. :-)

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Some Draw-a-box ellipses. They are far more tricky than one would think...

    Name:  2018 0604_103710.jpg
Views: 2021
Size:  112.7 KB

    And Loomis manikins. I am struggling my head off to even copy Loomis' examples; I'm going to have my work cut out for me ever drawing them from imagination. Plus, Eezacque tells me my lines are too fuzzy and unclear, thus another thing to keep in mind for future reference.

    Name:  2018 0601_095625.jpg
Views: 2021
Size:  231.8 KB

    Tried the same ones again:

    Name:  2018 0604_123337.jpg
Views: 2021
Size:  159.4 KB

    And others after Loomis' examples:

    Name:  2018 0604_123345.jpg
Views: 2011
Size:  113.1 KB

    Name:  2018 0604_123400.jpg
Views: 2007
Size:  118.4 KB

    I have no idea how to "play around" with the Loomis manikin, as he advises, because my ability to visualize things is rather limited. But it occurred to me that it might be useful to use reference photos of poses, and then try to visualize the Loomis pseudoskeleton inside them, and draw it, which is what I tried here:

    Name:  2018 0604_123407.jpg
Views: 2005
Size:  135.1 KB

    Not too clear on how to draw lines without "feeling" for them, leading to more fuzziness. Another issue I notice: I struggle to get the proportions right, even when the figure is just standing, but much more so when anything is foreshortened, or the figure is bending in somewhat unfamiliar fashion. I do think more practice will help to resolve that.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Yes, work from reference, and translate pictures of real models to the mannikin. Also, keep your pencil sharp.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  11. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    612
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 213 Times in 167 Posts
    For the proportions to look right you must make sure that the blue line here is roughly at least 3 times the length that it is now. Here is a rule of thumb: make the first square look more "believable" (i.e. similar to the way you usually see a tile that's close to you in real life), then it will look right. Now it looks like a pretty long rectangle consisting of at least 2 squares (or rather 3) so hence your figures look stretched out.

    Name:  Untitled-1.jpg
Views: 1998
Size:  143.9 KB

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by onemax View Post
    For the proportions to look right you must make sure that the blue line here is roughly at least 3 times the length that it is now. Here is a rule of thumb: make the first square look more "believable" (i.e. similar to the way you usually see a tile that's close to you in real life), then it will look right.
    This is precisely my problem: when I make the first tile, I cannot decide whether it looks believable or not. The ones I made in that sketch looked believable to me until I put the figure in there. But this is of course one reason why the Loomis book is good: quite apart from figure drawing as such, it shows up all manner of other misconceptions in my head. I'll draw the flat figure in perspective again, and this time round maybe not make the same mistake. And if I do, I'll damn well draw it over and over and over again, until I get it right, if it takes me a thousand drawings to do so! (That is what usually happens: I know from personal experience that it typically take me ten times as long to learn anything, in any subject, as it takes anyone else.)

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    Yes, work from reference, and translate pictures of real models to the mannikin. Also, keep your pencil sharp.
    I was following Loomis' example; it seemed to me he used a rather blunt, very dark pencil. I wonder if I should actually switch to a pen; it tends to force me to think before I draw! I suspect though that it actually matters little what I use, as long as I get in lots of practice.

  14. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    612
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 213 Times in 167 Posts
    I believe you mean this looks like a square
    Name:  sq1.png
Views: 1978
Size:  187.4 KB

    and not this, which is what should look like a square in perspective,
    Name:  sq2.png
Views: 1972
Size:  193.9 KB

    because it correspond to this square here.
    Name:  sq3.png
Views: 1968
Size:  87.7 KB

    Otherwise just study how they look in real life.
    Name:  image.jpg
Views: 1964
Size:  72.5 KB

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to onemax For This Useful Post:


  16. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    I was following Loomis' example; it seemed to me he used a rather blunt, very dark pencil. I wonder if I should actually switch to a pen; it tends to force me to think before I draw! I suspect though that it actually matters little what I use, as long as I get in lots of practice.
    For most, it is easy to produce good quality with pencil. I don't think Loomis used a blunt pencil, it is hard to see as his pictures are reproductions, probably at a smaller scale than the original. Anyways, a good draftsman can draw well with a burnt match stick, but it is not optimal for learning to draw.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  18. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by onemax View Post
    I believe you mean this looks like a square
    If truth be told, I cannot remember now just what the hell I was thinking! Anyway, I'll redo it and see if I can get it to look a bit better. Thanks for the input!

  19. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 195 Times in 192 Posts

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to RandAlThor For This Useful Post:


  21. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Some draw-a-box scribbles for warm-up:

    Name:  2018 0605_084339.jpg
Views: 1901
Size:  129.1 KB

    These are fun but also challenging; I am definitely going to work my way through the whole lot.

    I redrew the Loomis flat figure in perspective:

    Name:  2018 0605_090703.jpg
Views: 1901
Size:  65.5 KB

    I think I got the blocks better, but now the figure somehow looks too broad; I'm not sure what is going wrong here. Will have to revisit this until I get it right. It does bring this to light: I have no idea how to foreshorten. In the past, I have drawn plenty of foreshortened things from reference or from life, but if I don't have a reference handy, it is very difficult to decide what kind of distortions will be introduced by foreshortening. It's one of those cases where I can see something is off (or at least, it looks that way to me) but can't decide what it is.

    I searched around online for lots of figures in various poses. On Pinterest there are bazillions, if you search for images of such things as dancers, models, fighters, people doing parkour etc. I then tried to visualize the Loomis pseudoskeeton inside them:

    Name:  2018 0605_103532.jpg
Views: 1894
Size:  92.9 KB

    Messed up the proportions a bit; it is difficult to take notice of absolutely everything. This time round I used a ballpoint pen to draw, with the theory that it would make me look more carefully before scribbling. And it did, but I still find it very difficult to find the line without searching for it. I might have overstretched myself a bit in picking quite contorted figures. Might be better to start with more straightforward poses? I am not too sure.

    Some exploratory doodles and scribbles, battling it out with the pelvis:

    Name:  2018 0605_111318.jpg
Views: 1892
Size:  85.3 KB

    I'm having a very hard time indeed trying to make sense of the pelvis seen from various angles. Even Loomis' two disks have me completely stumped, and I'm not sure what else to do. I suspect the draw-a-box exercises will eventually help a great deal with this, but I haven't reached the actual box bit of that site yet!

    For the next bunch I used a simple bowl shape for the pelvis. For the moment it will have to do:

    Name:  2018 0605_124108.jpg
Views: 1894
Size:  95.6 KB

    When I can get that bowl fairly consistently right, I'll move on to a more complex visualization.

  22. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    I redrew the Loomis flat figure in perspective:

    Name:  2018 0605_090703.jpg
Views: 1901
Size:  65.5 KB

    I think I got the blocks better, but now the figure somehow looks too broad; I'm not sure what is going wrong here.
    It looks too broad because you made the head way too small.

    I'm having a very hard time indeed trying to make sense of the pelvis seen from various angles. Even Loomis' two disks have me completely stumped, and I'm not sure what else to do. I suspect the draw-a-box exercises will eventually help a great deal with this, but I haven't reached the actual box bit of that site yet!

    For the next bunch I used a simple bowl shape for the pelvis.
    That could work, you may want to consult http://www.proko.com for how to draw the pelvis, make sure you tilt that bucket!
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  23. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    It looks too broad because you made the head way too small.
    Ah, now I see what went wrong: I unconsciously tried to preserve the upright oval shape of the head, because it "looks right" that way. Facepalm! I assume it should in fact be horizontally flattened. I'll go redraw the thing again and see.

    That could work, you may want to consult http://www.proko.com for how to draw the pelvis, make sure you tilt that bucket!
    I looked around on the web for pictures of skeletons. Can't quite work out whether the pelvis is tilted forward a bit, or whether the upper bit just slopes down to the front. Perhaps it depends to some extent on how the body is positioned.

    When I did my looking around, Proko's work came up; I see he even has a whole video on constructing a pelvis from just the kind of bowl shape I used. But it looks a bit more complicated than I can deal with at the moment, I think. :-)

    Not much today; I was rather busy with other matters, but I try to make a point of scribbling at least something every day, five or six day per week.

    As always, some draw a box things:

    Name:  2018 0605_153716.jpg
Views: 1818
Size:  90.3 KB

    Name:  2018 0605_154451.jpg
Views: 1816
Size:  99.3 KB

    And another sheet of Loomis manikins, abstracted from reference photos of people. Something I noticed: these are vastly easier to make sense of and do when the figures are nude or semi-nude, so that there are at least some "landmarks" on the surface to suggest the skeleton inside. I have to go look around for a good source of bazillions such photos, but how the heck to avoid the endless porn sites?

    Name:  2018 0606_152455.jpg
Views: 1815
Size:  88.5 KB

  24. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    Ah, now I see what went wrong: I unconsciously tried to preserve the upright oval shape of the head, because it "looks right" that way. Facepalm! I assume it should in fact be horizontally flattened. I'll go redraw the thing again and see.
    Another issue is that you didn't take the effort to correctly divide your 2 by 8 grid in perspective. The middle of this grid should be at the intersection of its diagonals, which is not the case. Take your time, carefully construct everything.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  26. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    Something I noticed: these are vastly easier to make sense of and do when the figures are nude or semi-nude, so that there are at least some "landmarks" on the surface to suggest the skeleton inside.
    This is why the nude is for beginners, while the costumed figure is for the advanced student.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  28. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    Another issue is that you didn't take the effort to correctly divide your 2 by 8 grid in perspective. The middle of this grid should be at the intersection of its diagonals, which is not the case. Take your time, carefully construct everything.
    I'm not too sure what you mean here. With the first two of those grids, it seems to me that they were done correctly. The last one not; presumably I was a bit careless or hasty. I would think that if I work neatly enough on the individual blocks, it should all work out correctly, but of course, checking whether my middle division arrived at in this way coincides with the intersection of the larger block's diagonals is a neat way to check whether I am doing it right. Thanks for the input!

  29. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    This is why the nude is for beginners, while the costumed figure is for the advanced student.
    So I am now learning via harsh experience! :-)
    Not too sure where I'm going to get hold of enough nude reference pictures, but I find that models in swimsuits or tight ballet clothing or that kind of thing also work reasonably well.

  30. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    I'm not too sure what you mean here. With the first two of those grids, it seems to me that they were done correctly.
    A correction in red:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  32. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    Not too sure where I'm going to get hold of enough nude reference pictures, but I find that models in swimsuits or tight ballet clothing or that kind of thing also work reasonably well.
    On http://www.proko.com you will find a good selection of model references, and, indeed, swimsuits and leotards work, too.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  34. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    On http://www.proko.com you will find a good selection of model references, and, indeed, swimsuits and leotards work, too.
    Alas, I don't have that kind of budget, but not to worry, I have found a site that has a huge selection for free. I downloaded a hundred, and will go through the lot. First, as usual, I did a few box exercises:

    Name:  2018 0607_094833.jpg
Views: 1744
Size:  91.9 KB

    Name:  2018 0607_124521.jpg
Views: 1741
Size:  73.5 KB

    Let me not post them all; it will get tedious. I had another go at the flat figure in perspective, this time carefully drawing the rectangle with a ruler. But I still cannot get the large diagonals to cross in the middle, and the figure still looks awkward.

    Name:  2018 0607_102541.jpg
Views: 1741
Size:  90.2 KB

    If I cannot get it right with a ruler, I despair of ever getting it right free hand! But I think Loomis puts the cart before the horse with that anyway. If I cannot draw a figure at all yet, it's perhaps a bit early to worry about drawing it in perspective.

    I started digging into my collection of nudes, trying to see the Loomis pseudoskeleton inside them. It goes easier with the nudes than with clothed figures, though at this stage it's all still extremely awkward. I notice that I tend to get the proportions all wrong, for one thing. And I find it extremely hard to visualize even very schematic and simplified skeletons in there.

    Name:  2018 0607_110304.jpg
Views: 1737
Size:  97.3 KB

    Name:  2018 0607_150846.jpg
Views: 1737
Size:  96.9 KB

  35. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    Alas, I don't have that kind of budget, but not to worry, I have found a site that has a huge selection for free.
    A lot of proko material is free, if you subscribe to his newsletter you will get a sample pack for free.

    Let me not post them all; it will get tedious. I had another go at the flat figure in perspective, this time carefully drawing the rectangle with a ruler. But I still cannot get the large diagonals to cross in the middle, and the figure still looks awkward.
    What is your problem? Draw your box, draw diagonals and find your middle.
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:


  37. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    A lot of proko material is free, if you subscribe to his newsletter you will get a sample pack for free.
    I'll probably do so sooner or later. His YouTube vids also look good; will watch them in due course.

    What is your problem? Draw your box, draw diagonals and find your middle.
    I am misunderstanding something. Drawing the diagonals and finding the middle is easy enough. But I can't get this middle point to coincide with the middle found by constructing the individual squares. It apparently requires me to work more precisely and neatly than I am presently capable of.

  38. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    3,484
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 1,315 Times in 1,045 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by brianworx View Post
    I am misunderstanding something. Drawing the diagonals and finding the middle is easy enough. But I can't get this middle point to coincide with the middle found by constructing the individual squares. It apparently requires me to work more precisely and neatly than I am presently capable of.
    Ah, I see your problem. Although you can construct squares really precisely in perspective, it is not the most practical way to construct the figure in perspective as seen from extreme angles: for this, you better shoot your own reference. This also helps the problem of drawing, say, the head from extreme angles, something for which Loomis projection method isn't really suitable.

    For now, it works best to eyeball two squares, and use this to replicate two more in perspective. Repeat to get six and, finally sixteen squares. The following illustrates the idea, up until six squares.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Grinnikend door het leven...

    Sketchbook Blog

  39. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    859
    Thanks
    799
    Thanked 422 Times in 321 Posts
    OMG I need to redefine 'dedication' looking at what you have produced in a matter of just a few days!

    Yes, I'd also go for Proko's anatomy tutorials, learn the boxes by studying something like perpsective on objects, then sort of merge what you learned maybe?

    I really like your paintings, looking forward to see how far you are in just a few months from now

  40. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eezacque View Post
    Ah, I see your problem. Although you can construct squares really precisely in perspective, it is not the most practical way to construct the figure in perspective as seen from extreme angles: for this, you better shoot your own reference. This also helps the problem of drawing, say, the head from extreme angles, something for which Loomis projection method isn't really suitable.

    For now, it works best to eyeball two squares, and use this to replicate two more in perspective. Repeat to get six and, finally sixteen squares. The following illustrates the idea, up until six squares.
    Well, that is how I did it. The problem is that when I then end up with a big rectangle divided into eight sections, and I draw diagonals on that big rectangle, they don't cross in the middle where they should, presumably because I didn't work neatly and precisely enough. I since discovered a different approach: Start with the big rectangle, find its midpoint to divide it into two, then divide those two into halves by drawing their diagonals, etc. Then the big rectangle's diagonals will align with the middle division. Problem with that approach is to work out which shape to make the first big rectangle, so that I don't end up with the same mistake I made in my first attempt!

    Anyway, looks to me like I should for the moment not worry too much about it. I think I already learned a great deal through the exercise itself, even if my results were awkward. :-)

  41. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    135
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Trixtar View Post
    OMG I need to redefine 'dedication' looking at what you have produced in a matter of just a few days!

    Yes, I'd also go for Proko's anatomy tutorials, learn the boxes by studying something like perpsective on objects, then sort of merge what you learned maybe?

    I really like your paintings, looking forward to see how far you are in just a few months from now
    Thanks for the encouragement. I wasn't sure whether I was actually doing enough! Or, on the other hand, perhaps rushing through things too fast.

    But as I noted at the beginning: I have, over the years, now and then visited this board to look through threads, and I have noticed the same thing with almost all the sketchbook threads where people went from beginner to advanced: it doesn't matter that much what they did, as long as they did a lot, over a good period of time (usually ranging from months to several years). When you try to self-train, you inevitably stumble up blind alleys, struggle with wrong headed approaches, spend weeks doing something seemingly pointless, take three steps forward and two back, have "off" days or even weeks during which everything goes persistently wrong, etc. etc. It is pretty much an inevitable part of the learning process.

    Whether I'll be able to stick to it remains to be seen. Perhaps, after some time, I'll realize this is not for me. Also not the end of the world, because then I'll know where I stand, and stick to painting still life. :-)

    But for the moment I'm having a kind of perpetually frustrated fun, if there is such a thing. :-)

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SketchBook: Sketchbook, Sketchbook, Rolly Polly Sketchbook...
    By Teechan in forum Sketchbooks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 17th, 2015, 05:41 PM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: January 19th, 2013, 03:19 PM
  3. SketchBook: *MOD's please move to sketchbook section* Ulvdemon Sketchbook 030805
    By ulvdemon in forum Sketchbooks
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 18th, 2011, 12:07 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 27th, 2009, 11:38 AM
  5. SketchBook: Unknown Epiphany's Sketchbook/brand new sketchbook(Updated February 27th)
    By unknown_epiphany in forum Sketchbooks
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: February 27th, 2007, 10:43 PM

Members who have read this thread: 86

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Designed by The Coldest Water, we build the coldest best water bottles, ice packs and best pillows.