Post by: Eregyrn on March 04, 2011, 08:30:17 AM
Actually, it was hard finding the right vocabulary to convey this -- and I would be happy to change the title of this thread, if people come up with something that is clearer.
What I would call rough sketching/blocking as a first stage of a drawing is a technique I've seen encouraged in various "how to" books, but I couldn't easily find tutorials about it online when I went looking. Plus, I imagine that each artist works out a system and technique that works best for them, so there's no one "right way" to do it. I regard the spirit of this thread to be more about artists who use such a technique sharing what works for them, and that we might get a variety of examples.
Are folks here generally willing to do this? And would people find it helpful to see?
In this top post, I also wanted to include links to examples elsewhere, and I'll be happy to update this if people post more below.
* Examples of how Wendy Pini goes from rough sketch to finished piece:
http://www.elfquest.com/fun/Sketches1.html (http://www.elfquest.com/fun/Sketches1.html)
http://www.elfquest.com/fun/Sketches2.html (http://www.elfquest.com/fun/Sketches2.html)
* Sweetwind's page with tips and some illustrations re. how to approach drawing EQ elves:
http://home.earthlink.net/~sweetwind7/arttipsf/art_tips.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~sweetwind7/arttipsf/art_tips.html)
* An anatomy tutorial on deviantArt with an example in the lower left of going from blocking out a human figure in rough shapes, to a more finished figure:
http://odduckoasis.deviantart.com/art/Anatomy-Tutorial-27484310?q=boost%3Apopular%20human%20tutorial&qo=3 (http://odduckoasis.deviantart.com/art/Anatomy-Tutorial-27484310?q=boost%3Apopular%20human%20tutorial&qo=3)
Post by: Afke on March 05, 2011, 03:20:13 AM
Post by: Eregyrn on March 05, 2011, 03:01:05 PM
Post by: Eregyrn on March 07, 2011, 05:45:03 PM
As originally discussed in the comments on the "Darie" piece by Cometduster, I was trying to explain the idea of blocking out a figure first in rough shapes, in order to work on positioning and proportions and how the elements of the figure relate to each other, before beginning to refine it. Drawing lightly and using simple shapes creates a low-investment first step that will help you avoid running out of paper, or at least make it less work to redo if you find you ARE running out of paper.
To be honest, though... I can't remember exactly when I first ran into this concept. And I'm not sure what it's properly called. So I had trouble finding tutorials and examples of what I mean. Working on something recently, I made myself stop and scan each stage of the drawing before moving on with it, in order to give a sense of the technique and how it develops.
Also seen on this progression is the method I've seen a lot of places suggest for roughing out where to place features on a head. I'm not sure what the "term" for this is, either. But it's the technique of dividing the oval of the head in half vertically and horizontally (which is where the eyes go), and then dividing the remaining lower half horizontally in 3rds (the tip of the nose hitting at roughly the second line down, and the mouth at roughly the bottom line).
(Click through to "Details" to see the largest size. ETA: the first pic, with the inked "simple shapes" - see discussion below.)
The lefthand figure is, obviously, the real illustration of the "rough blocking out" technique I was trying to talk about. The rest is just refinement of what's there, although as I go on with a drawing, I may continue to find that something I originally blocked out isn't quite working (this happened with this figure's left hand, which I ended up putting in a different position in the very final version).
Further progression of this figure, to finished ink, can be seen here (http://www.elfquestfanart.com/index.php?action=media;sa=item;in=2645).
Okay, next! :) I'm really looking forward to seeing how others approach figural work.
Post by: Razzle on March 07, 2011, 06:01:37 PM
I'm not quite sure I'm following the "simpler shapes" in the example with the first three figue stages -- to me, it looks basically the same between 1 and 2, but 2 has had the breasts added?
*is enjoying/benefiting from this thread IMMENSELY, btw*
Post by: Eregyrn on March 07, 2011, 07:20:15 PM
What I posted there was kind of a cheat -- I'm going to go back and fill in a piece, which I'll post here too, which may make the "simpler shapes" part stand out better. As I remarked to Afke above -- I started out fully intending to stop and scan each "step", but discovered that I had already gotten to the second-stage figure above without realizing it. So I recreated the first stage, but it's kind of faint.
This inked-over version of the pencil lines should show more of the original polygon (with a few curved lines) version, which is always my first step. (This scan also shows what the blue pencil I work in actually looks like. In order to post a pencil sketch, I always have to scan in color and then change the hue of the blue to make it darker and more visible.)
I always begin a sketch with that hourglass torso shape in the center, and then build out from that. Speaking of running out of paper -- you can't tell from the scans, of course, but the actual feet on this figure were like a half-inch from the bottom of my paper, and I had like 2 inches above her head. I always forget to compensate for there needing to be more below the torso than above -- I tend to center the torso on the page and then, oh whoops, legs are long, I'm out of paper again, time to start over...
Anyway -- stage two in the 3-figure progression above does start to show some refinement of the lines. Breasts get blocked in for general placement and size, before getting dealt with in more detail. But I think it's more noticeable in how the lines of the hips and legs are more rounded, and there's an actual knee there instead of a circle, etc.
The other thing apparent in the 3-figure progression is that I no sooner lay down rough shapes than I erase those lines and draw more refined lines over them. Erase, refine, erase, refine. Even after lightly erasing, the blue pencil leaves a faint enough trace on the paper to serve as a guideline for the next refined line. It doesn't erase completely (as the clothed sketch in the second image shows, with the faint outline of the body beneath still visible), but I don't mind, because once I ink over it, it's easy to make the blue sketch lines disappear in Photoshop.
Post by: Razzle on March 07, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
Post by: Saree on March 08, 2011, 10:44:57 AM
I guess I will give this "drawing a body with geometric forms" a try.
I am not sure if it fits into this thread, but I am always curious how big the elves are others draw. Holly, you wrote you fill nearly the whole paper for a figure from head to toe. What size does it have? A4?
I tend to draw my figures way too small (maximal A5) because I strangely believe anatomical mistakes would not be so obvious then. I shy away from using A4 because I fear to lose the overview, the wholeness... ahrg, do not now how to put it. Does anyone understand what I mean? Bigger pics are harder to draw than small ones... for me, at least.
Post by: Razzle on March 08, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
Post by: Eregyrn on March 08, 2011, 02:28:50 PM
A4 = 210 x 297 mm = 8.27" x 11.69"
A5 = 148 x 210 mm = 5.83" x 8.27"
Meanwhile, 8.5"x11" is the standard letter-paper size (and thus, copier/printer size) in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
8.5" x 11" = 216 x 279 mm
Meaning, the standard A4 sheet in Britain/Europe is a little narrower and a little longer than the standard American sheet.
To be even more confusing... in the U.S. at least, paper intended for artists and sold in tablets is often sold in 9"x12" (229 x 305 mm) size, which is part of a standard used by architects and the entertainment industry.
See the Wikipedia page for fun with comparative paper sizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size).
These days, I tend to do my sketching on 9x12 paper, because I bought pads of art paper made for inking, which only comes in that size.
Peggy -- yeah, ideally, when I'm trying to do a sort of basic elf figure, I tend to make the figure nearly as big as the page I'm working on (the 9x12" paper; which will just fit on my scanner). When I do multi-figure pieces, I usually draw each figure (or sometimes pairs of figures) separately, and then put them together after I've inked and scanned them. (I think that this is a technique that has its flaws...) On occasion, I've tried to do a bunch of characters all on the same page, requiring each of them to be correspondingly smaller, and thus, lower on fine detail. The size of the figure affects how much detail I'll try to put into it, and what inking technique I'll use. (The calendar piece that I did for River Twine's calendar this year was a rare example of me drawing all of the figures together on the same page.)
Something for folks to think about, since I'm not sure it's widely known these days -- when you look at most comic books, I believe including ElfQuest, you have to realize that the artist usually draws the original page at a much larger size than the final printed comic book, and then the linework was photo-reduced for printing. I think I've read that comic artists do the originals on 11"x17" paper, or, typically twice the size of the finished product.
So if you are ever looking at a page of ElfQuest (pre-SATS), and you are thinking, "How did Wendy manage to do such tiny figures on the paper, with so much detail and such fine linework?" The answer is: she didn't, she originally drew them 2x that big.
If I had a scanner that could handle paper larger than 9x12, I'd probably draw bigger originals, too.
Post by: Windrider on March 08, 2011, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: Eregyrn
Something for folks to think about, since I'm not sure it's widely known these days -- when you look at most comic books, I believe including ElfQuest, you have to realize that the artist usually draws the original page at a much larger size than the final printed comic book, and then the linework was photo-reduced for printing. I think I've read that comic artists do the originals on 11"x17" paper, or, typically twice the size of the finished product.
So if you are ever looking at a page of ElfQuest (pre-SATS), and you are thinking, "How did Wendy manage to do such tiny figures on the paper, with so much detail and such fine linework?" The answer is: she didn't, she originally drew them 2x that big.
This is exactly true, as I can attest to personally. IABB was done at around 11x17. This is why I have an 11x17 scanner, but Wendy didn't at the studio, so I remember scanning the originals in two pieces and splicing them in PS. This meant that they had to be put on the scanner perfectly square or the two pieces didn't line up - what a pain.
My usual sketch pad is 11x14, but I am not particular as to what I sketch on for preliminary ideas; faculty meeting agendas, grade sheets, margins of newspapers, etc. My first thumbnails are always very tiny, sometimes less than 2 x 3 inches. This is to get composition and lines of motion ideas on paper without getting bogged down by anatomy and other details. Even when I am just sketching, my artwork tends to be rather "idea" driven, although of course I also do character studies and such that don't require much in the way of composition. Still, no matter what size piece of paper I sketch on, I am always aware of the edges of the paper and fit the composition to that full space - this is probably a relic of being an art student where such things are emphasized. I find it difficult to do a drawing that only fills half a sheet, because that other half is always THERE and I NEED to fill it and make it part of the composition!
I will have to see if I have any examples of how I block in figures. My approach is somewhat different than Eregyrn's only in that when I start drawing a figure, the first lines are all about the lines of movement: gestures and body posture and how those fit into the movement of the composition as a whole (if any). So the first step often looks something like a more sophisticated stick figure. Then I block out the body mass of the figure as 3D forms; spherical and ovoid forms for head, ribcage, hips, etc. I always use curved forms - I don't think I could draw a straight line if my life depended on it. With male figures, once I start refining the forms I will add more angular lines then.
Okay, I looked and I seem to have thrown out the sketches for my last calendar cover, but I'll keep looking to see if I have anything even if it isn't EQ related.
Post by: Eregyrn on March 08, 2011, 06:16:04 PM
Somewhere around here I think I still have the tiny studies I did to work out the layout for my EQ fan calendar piece of 2010. (Man, I never throw anything away.) If I can find it, I'll scan it in.
Also a YES to sometimes doing even a pre-blocking-figure sketch that is almost stick-figure in its simplicity. I didn't even think about that part of the process when preparing this, since I'd decided to do the stages scanning of a very static standing-figure piece. But yeah, I've done some of those that were just all swoopy lines and ovals at first.
Post by: Razzle on March 08, 2011, 09:25:49 PM
For some odd reason, I find it easier to draw the pictures smaller. When I do a full-page portrait of a face, for example, I find that it tends to skew out of proportion and just overall look really... weird. =P Something I'm hoping to improve with, but there you have it.
Post by: Saree on March 08, 2011, 11:42:04 PM
Quote
For some odd reason, I find it easier to draw the pictures smaller. When I do a full-page portrait of a face, for example, I find that it tends to skew out of proportion and just overall look really... weird. =P Something I'm hoping to improve with, but there you have it.Yes, Razzle, exactly my point. :D But therefore I have to pay the price of less detail...
Thanks for the summary of paper sizes, Holly. I forgot about the differences between US and Europe.
And thanks for all the information. :)
Post by: Afke on March 09, 2011, 02:56:27 AM
I tend to draw my figures way too small (maximal A5) because I strangely believe anatomical mistakes would not be so obvious then. I shy away from using A4 because I fear to lose the overview, the wholeness...It is easier to keep an overview on small pictures, that's true. Figuring out the composition first by doing mini sketches like Holly and Carol explained, do help with that. But for proportions; while sketching, stop and hold the paper at least an arm's length away from you -- the drawing will then appear "smaller" and you may be able to spot mistakes you don't see when your nose is on the paper while drawing.
For me, paper size is an element that can vary due to the plans I have with the picture. Elaborate drawings like the calendar pages I do on A4, while the sketch meme pictures are usually done on A5.
When I do multi-figure pieces, I usually draw each figure (or sometimes pairs of figures) separately, and then put them together after I've inked and scanned them. (I think that this is a technique that has its flaws...)I don't like drawing the figures seperately, if they're supposed to be all in one picture. I feel like proportions may vary way too much if I don't see all figures in one drawing at the same time. You get, like you said in the description of you example image, that things like heads need to be resized afterwards. So I prefer to do them all in one drawing.
The more figures, the larger the paper indeed, but it's been years since I did an actual "whole tribe" picture. But 4 or 5 figures together is no problem on an A4.
Perhaps for my example I could do a group shot?
Post by: Eregyrn on March 09, 2011, 07:04:38 AM
It is easier to keep an overview on small pictures, that's true. Figuring out the composition first by doing mini sketches like Holly and Carol explained, do help with that. But for proportions; while sketching, stop and hold the paper at least an arm's length away from you -- the drawing will then appear "smaller" and you may be able to spot mistakes you don't see when your nose is on the paper while drawing.
Yes! I sometimes prop up a sketch so that I can go and view it from several feet away. I've also found that if I scan a sketch (or later when I scan inks), I will spot things that are off about the drawing when I see it on my computer screen, that I couldn't seem to see when I was just looking at it on the paper.
Quote
I don't like drawing the figures seperately, if they're supposed to be all in one picture. I feel like proportions may vary way too much if I don't see all figures in one drawing at the same time. You get, like you said in the description of you example image, that things like heads need to be resized afterwards. So I prefer to do them all in one drawing.
The more figures, the larger the paper indeed, but it's been years since I did an actual "whole tribe" picture. But 4 or 5 figures together is no problem on an A4.
Oh, totally. I've just gotten used to making all kinds of corrections to my inks after scanning them. I have to anyway, because I actually do not have the steadiest hand any more, which results in a lot of mistakes in my inking that I need to clean up. That's another reason I tend to try to work on as big a figure as possible -- the unsteady hand makes inking fine details a frustrating process.
I really do need to make the attempt to do more multi-figure pieces on the same paper, though.
Quote
Perhaps for my example I could do a group shot?
That'd be great!
Post by: Jeb on March 10, 2011, 02:41:49 PM
It's interesting to hear about the sizes people like to work with. When I was in high school, I asked my parents for a blackboard. So for Christmas I got an 8 foot by 4 foot chalkboard and that's where I did most of my drawing for several years. I like a large piece of paper and think one of my problems with drawing is that I do most of it by moving my arms instead of my wrist. It also makes trying digital art frustrating since all I can afford is a little tiny tablet to play with.
Post by: Eregyrn on March 10, 2011, 08:52:23 PM
These two were 3.5" x 5" sketches I did on the same piece of paper, as the very first step in working out how to do my calendar entry for the 2010 fan calendar. I had an overall idea but wasn't settled on the composition or how the figures would all fit into it, or how exactly they'd be posed. I think the reason I did the top sketch in the non-photo-blue pencil (here unadjusted in color), but did the second in graphite, was that the first was kind of hard to see as well. I wasn't all that hung up, for these, on proportions and stuff.
I can see how I did the first sketch, and didn't like things about Pike's figure or the orientation of the wolf. The second changed things around a bit, and it's pretty much what I stuck with, as you can see in comparison with the final product:
Post by: Razzle on March 10, 2011, 10:59:40 PM
Post by: Eregyrn on March 11, 2011, 07:07:23 AM
Interesting! It looks like, among whatever other things, that in the second sketch you would've been missing part of the wolf's head if that had been the actual picture when you were blocking it, and those rectangle lines had actually been the edges of the paper, am I right?
Right. But, the two sketches shouldn't be taken... literally, if that makes sense. 3.5"x5" isn't quite the same proportions as 8.5"x11". So the rough sketched rectangle already wasn't accurately proportioned, it was just meant to give me a conceptual idea, "here's the wider-than-it-is-tall space that you want to fill". It wasn't really meant to tie me down. The solution to the entire wolf-head not fitting in the composition-sketch was to overall make sure on the real piece of paper that there was room horizontally for the whole wolf head. (And to make sure that there was enough vertical room for the "flashback scene" -- which, obviously, I didn't even try to address on these sketches except for outlining an arched area where it would go in relation to Pike's figure.) As I said, the purpose of sketches like this isn't correct proportions, it's relationships of figures to each other and trying out rough poses (like Pike's cross-legged sitting posture, with different arm gestures, in the first sketch, versus the leaning-back attitude o the second).
This was also a year when we needed to work in a portion of the picture that would have a simple background, because poetry text was put directly on the pictures in the final calendar. So that's why there's a weird squarish shape above the wolf's head in the final version.
Post by: Foxeye on March 11, 2011, 12:01:02 PM
I wish I could provide a useful strategy for blocking out, but my workflow is a pretty messy hybrid of circles, lines, and near-finished forms; an amalgam of the different blocking techniques I've read about over the years, and which I cobbled together to what works for me.
I may try to craft something where I go a little slower, but this gives you an idea of my stages. Is not especially logical or follow-able. :(
(http://cdn.junglefire.com/jf/concepts/viiprocess.jpg)
Post by: Treefox on March 18, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
Thanks for all the great insights to your work!
Post by: Wildfire on March 25, 2011, 10:19:59 AM
I usually start sketching something and then in the end it turns out nothing like it was supposed to xD
Post by: Startear on September 07, 2011, 09:26:45 AM
Post by: Afke on September 08, 2011, 12:24:52 AM
Post by: Treefox on September 22, 2011, 12:11:12 PM
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o161/Matschauge/th_strip1.jpg) (http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o161/Matschauge/?action=view¤t=strip1.jpg)
1. I start with an oval and as you can see I am already searching for the right shape with lots of pencil strokes. ::)
2. I draw lines on the face to help me get the eyes, nose and mouth in the right positions. One vertical line that parts the face into two sides roughly the same size. One horizontal line in the upper third of the face on which I will place the eyes.
3. Roughly at the point where the jaw line ends, I am adding the neck and these neck sinews, because I love 'em so much. :D
4. I start adding the details: more defined face shape, I start placing eyes, nose and mouth. This is where I also start bringing his character to life. In this case, he is a lively, young and mischievous guy, so I am going for a broad, slightly slanted smile and make his eyes tilt upwards. I also add the one-eyebrow-down cliché mischievous look. ;D
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o161/Matschauge/th_strip2.jpg) (http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o161/Matschauge/?action=view¤t=strip2.jpg)
5. I keep refining and adding details, my drawing is getting increasingly messy. :lol I gave him a quite long, a bit Cutter-esque nose, because I thought it was cute. To make the eyes more even, it can be good to add one line between the eyes for the upper end of the eyes and one for the lower. I hope it shows through on this mess. Now I add his cheek bones and some grinning lines.
6. I add ears and clothes. If you have trouble to get the ears to be the same length, you can try to draw a straight line between them to make the height easier adjustable.
7. I add hair (according to the doll from Reyes Lord).
8. Finally I add the iris and pupils and rework everything one more time, like adjusting his eyes a little bit to reflect his smile.
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o161/Matschauge/th_strip3.jpg) (http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o161/Matschauge/?action=view¤t=strip3.jpg)
Just to make it complete:
9. I very thinly and very roughly ink the picture. I do this deliberately, because I want to color the picture and I want the black lines to be as subtle as possible.
10. I color the picture with mainly Copic markers, acrylic white and water colors.
Hm, I am just wondering if there is any neater way to post pictures in a message...
Post by: Wildfire on November 08, 2011, 06:02:02 AM
I start out the way most others do, with an action line and some circles and squares. And then I just sketch on top of that:
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/ihhk/1.jpg)
On a different layer I cleaned up the lineart. This isn't something I usually do in a particular step, it's more of a fluid process that's interchangeable with the other "steps"
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/ihhk/15.jpg)
I never really use flat colours, because I loathe working from them. So I just add some colouring somewhere to get a sense of the overall colourscheme!
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/ihhk/2-1.jpg)
I realized that the skincolour was very yellow so I adjusted it (though I realize now that it's a bit too red. Ah well)
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/ihhk/3.jpg)
Added the bangs and more contrast. I also decided on a different shade of green
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/ihhk/4.jpg)
I resized the head 'cause it was HUGE :lol And added more contrast to stuff.
From here on it's just small details like adding the gold baubles and stuff that needed tweaking. :D
Finished:
Post by: joselle on November 15, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
Post by: Treefox on November 21, 2011, 02:04:05 AM
Quote
I think that's where some people are having difficulty with this year's calendar. You don't get a good composition if you draw 3 separate pictures and then just try to stick them together at the last minute.
For me sketching the whole thing first really helps with that problem. I did give most pictures a lot of thought concerning composition before drawing. There's one though, I have to admit, where I liked the idea of the sexy pose so much that I just hoped I'd be somehow able to group the other pictures around. Thanks to Windrider that worked out in the end...
Post by: Tevokkia on December 06, 2011, 05:19:47 AM
I generally subscribe to the Loomis method of blocking out the figures, albeit skipping the wire frame. If I'm having real trouble, I'll actually go back and do the wire frame step, though ... some poses just don't come as easily as others. If there are environmental elements that the figures are interacting with, I'll generally block them in, too, so that I can get everything together in the sketch. I'm kinda' bad about not including backgrounds, so my characters spend a lot of time floating in white space.
It's funny, even though I color almost exclusively digitally anymore, I've had a lot of trouble making the transition to digital sketching. I just like the feel of the pencil in my hand, and I have the habit of turning my paper around while I sketch- it just doesn't work the same having to think about rotating the canvas in Photoshop. I did my forms and initial rough sketch for my EQ pieces digitally, but ended up tinting them yellow and printing them out to pencil and ink. (Which is how I messed up poor Willowgreen's second go-round and ended up with three very square elements).
I've got a tutorial on my process I've been working on for my deviantart and Gaia online peeps, since a few have asked, but I haven't finished it yet.
Post by: Eregyrn on December 06, 2011, 06:40:28 AM
Post by: Tevokkia on December 06, 2011, 08:56:10 AM
What's the Loomis method? Do you have a link?
http://alexhays.com/loomis/ (http://alexhays.com/loomis/)
Andrew Loomis' books
I use a rather lazy version of the divided ball method for faces that starts on page 40 or thereabouts in Fun With a Pencil, and an equally lazy version of the framing method that starts on page 60 for figures. (I suppose that a lot of other books have taught the same method since then, but these are rather old and will remain my favorite). Figure Drawing For All it's Worth is the real diamond among the treasure, though, as a general reference. Creative Illustration is a great book for those who want to bone up on composition.
Incidentally, I'd recommend Dynamic Wrinkles and Drapery by Burne Hogarth for anyone who needs help with clothing ... I don't know if it's available online, as I bought a paper copy.
Post by: Eregyrn on December 06, 2011, 09:06:40 AM
I had never heard his name before, but clearly he was one of the popularizers of this technique of starting with simpler shapes first and then building up the detail.
Post by: Foxeye on December 06, 2011, 09:08:34 AM
Post by: Treefox on December 06, 2011, 11:20:34 AM
Post by: Windrider on January 29, 2012, 08:08:18 PM
Stage 1: Tiny, scribbly thumbnails - no scans because I always throw those away and I forgot to save them for this thread. Most of the time, they are done in the margins of faculty meeting agendas and stuff like that. When I say tiny, I am taking about 2 x 3 inches. It is at this stage where I have the movement lines for the whole composition.
Stage 2: Full size rough sketch. This starts out almost as rough as the tiny scribbly stage, but bigger. Note that I already had started to refine his torso before remembering that I needed to do a scan at the rough stage. This pinup is a bit atypical for me in that there wasn't any background to rough in; I usually consider the background to be much more than an afterthought. I also didn't include any sweeping compositional movement lines here and I almost always do.
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/CWindrider/AurekProcess1.jpg)
Stage 3: Refining the sketch.
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/CWindrider/AurekProcess2.jpg)
Stage 4: Finished sketch. Well... I don't have a scan of that. I actually transfered the above sketch to the illustration board at that point and finished the refining process there. Then I forgot to scan it before I started painting. :P
Stage 5, etc: Painting. I didn't scan any of that, but that is also not what this thread is about. However here is the finished pinup. You can see that I changed his hands and arms a bit between stage 3 and 4. I often don't have the details completely worked out by the time I start painting - I like to let it evolve on the board a bit so it doesn't get boring.
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/CWindrider/AurekProcess3.jpg)
Post by: branchscamper on January 29, 2012, 09:07:31 PM
And I love your paintings Windrider. You said watercolour right? I have not been successful at all in using those.
Post by: Treefox on January 30, 2012, 12:59:20 AM
Post by: Windrider on January 30, 2012, 12:14:50 PM
This link is to the Lackadaisy web comic site, drawn by Tracy Butler. I have nothing but admiration for her as an artist - wow, she is like Wendy in her mastery of expression and body language. But this link shows her blocking and sketching - just as scribbly and messy as mine! (though not as smudged - yes, I do have an abnormal amount of smudging on sketches that I am not careful with).
http://lackadaisy.foxprints.com/exhibit.php?exhibitid=356 (http://lackadaisy.foxprints.com/exhibit.php?exhibitid=356)
Post by: Treefox on January 30, 2012, 12:23:52 PM
Quote
Now, my tiny thumbnails are often incomprehensible to anyone but myself since sometimes they are just a series of swoops, lines, and ovals.
Oh yes, same here!
Quote
But this link shows her blocking and sketching - just as scribbly and messy as mine! (though not as smudged - yes, I do have an abnormal amount of smudging on sketches that I am not careful with).
I also still smudge and wish I could reduce at least that.
Great link, thanks!
Post by: Eregyrn on January 30, 2012, 12:25:41 PM
Post by: Windrider on January 30, 2012, 12:34:34 PM
I have a non-photo blue pencil that hardly sees the light of day, but that is because I have a phobia about inking. LOL My "inked" work is often just Photoshop darkened pencils (as it was for IABB). I think I only have two pics in my gallery that are actual real ink. But yes, non-photo blue is a wonderful sketching tool for those who inking their sketches.
Post by: Eregyrn on January 30, 2012, 12:37:47 PM
Post by: Treefox on January 30, 2012, 12:42:56 PM
Post by: Windrider on January 30, 2012, 01:09:34 PM
I sketch on vellum, which is like a heavier tracing paper. Erases easily and doesn't get torn up. If the sketch gets too smudgy and dirty, another sheet of vellum can be laid over it and ya keep going. The vellum is why the scans above look smudgier than they really are - it often scans grey and I didn't do any correcting in PS.
There are two ways I transfer the drawing to the board, both extremely low tech and old school. If the drawing has a lot of detail to be transfered, I use a home made "carbon paper" method. I've got some sheets of vellum that I've covered in graphite. I have a chunk of soft graphite about the size and shape of a pink pearl eraser - a neat tool for shading large life drawing sketches, too - I just completely covered a few sheets of vellum with it. Put that on the illo board, the sketch on top of that, trace your outlines and voila! Drawing transfered. The sketch MUST be taped to the illo board while doing this. The home made carbon paper can be recharged and reused multiple times but is rather messy to store.
The pinups weren't very complicated, so I used an even simpler method for them. Flip the sketch on vellum over, trace drawing with a 6b pencil on the backside. Put sketch on illo board and use a burnisher to transfer the tracing to the board. You can also draw re-trace your sketch on the correct side with a hard pencil (I use a 7H) to transfer that 6B pencil to the board.
See, I TOLD you guys I am an old school illustrator! ;)
Post by: DestinysGift on January 30, 2012, 06:31:57 PM
One way you could help with smudging, http://www.smudgeguard.com/index.htm (http://www.smudgeguard.com/index.htm) it may look like just a small item but I know some people who use it, I am trying to get one myself, they say it actually works pretty good.
I'll try to get my process posted soon, I don't really work out of my room and my scanner is down stairs. Hopefully I'll get my own desktop scanner soon.
Post by: Eregyrn on January 30, 2012, 06:41:11 PM
Post by: Foxeye on January 30, 2012, 08:39:36 PM
Quote
One way you could help with smudging, http://www.smudgeguard.com/index.htm (http://www.smudgeguard.com/index.htm) it may look like just a small item but I know some people who use it, I am trying to get one myself, they say it actually works pretty good.
I have one of those :) I <3 it, when I remember to put it on.
Post by: Treefox on January 31, 2012, 12:25:30 AM
Also that smudge guard looks interesting! Maybe they sell it here, too.
Thank you for all the useful information!
Post by: Pyreite on November 29, 2012, 11:30:40 PM
Basically I found the whole concept too confusing to actually be useful, and all of the various methods in use in the artbooks too complicated to follow. Some would start you off with the stick figure but not explain the sizing of the ovals, or lines, or blobs or whatever to actually visualize the overall image.
Useless in my opinion.
The only real use I got out of the lot of them was one book that went through the entire process from stick-figures, to using lines, and ball-joints like a doll's body or a mannequin to figure out the thickness of the arms, legs, and the proportions. The six or seven heads in height thing never worked for me. It's too damned complicated to understand I found, especially if you can't draw uniform circles, and haven't a clue about true realistic male and female body proportions.
Again, utterly useless.
The book I found was a guide on drawing fantasy characters in a more realistic style that appealed to me, which was fantastic. It also took you from the fleshed out stick-figure form to showing how to actually 'adapt' that basic figure to the sizing of a male or female, something that standard artbooks, or even basic manga guides and such for drawing don't do. I found that way more useful than any of the guides that I saw. I mean if I couldn't understand how to flesh out a stick-figure, how the heck was I supposed to understand how to adapt that shape to form the basis of the overall drawing?
Now basically I start off with a stick figure, block it out using the mannequin technique, head, body, torso, legs, and all that. I don't bother with the six or seven heads in height thing since I have a good enough eye to figure out if proportions are wrong. I do use guide lines alot for the face, the positioning of eyes, noses, and ears though, and I use them again to figure out where the joints are for the knees, hips, and elbows.
I've actually learned more about drawing and detail from doing non-human subjects like birds mostly, and drawing feathers, fur, or just plain abstract concepts of such things. People-art is something that I've done occassionally but have been incredibly bad at. I find people more challenging since by the look of them I can tell immediately if I've drawn something wrong. I had be more free with non-humanoid subjects, and that's mostly non-elven too. I've worked better drawing birds, beasties, and cats than people or elves.
More creative freedom, and I can experiment more with the artwork. I find people too limiting since they always have to have a nose, two eyes, two arms, two legs and so on to be familiar enough to be human-like, unless if course I was to draw a zombie. Than again I'd need to be more familiar with the human skeletal system for accuracy of bones, and all that stuff too.
I prefer a more realistic style than most artists, though I try to blend it out with contemporary since I'm not going for hyper-realism.
I also like to use plenty of photo-refs on various subjects to give myself references. For example if I need to draw feathers, I'll reference images of birds with spread wings and so on to give myself a better understanding of how feathers should look, be positioned on the wing, and should fold over and under. I'm not a fan of too abstract concepts or expressions of things like wings and feathers when birds are a real-world example I can follow for greater accuracy and understanding of the subject-matter.
I'm the artist that takes the long way round when it comes to arting something. I've found art-books only partially helpful, and learned the rest by teaching myself purely through observation. I'm still learning and will not be a grand painter, or Picasso, but I'm not striving for perfection, merely to learn so that arting for myself is a state of constant improvement. What I draw today I can do better tomorrow.
That's how I look at arting and for me it works.
Challenge is fun.
~ Pyre