/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2596818
>>2596957

Before anything in the way of an explanation, you've answered your own question in a few different ways. If anything short of reverse engineering won't help you learn how to go about these things, why not reverse engineer it? Anything you learn will be infinitely more valuable because you took the time to figure it out, and in this case it's doubly important because implication of detail is useful to know with any subject. What are some steps to take when you do reverse engineer it? You said it yourself; don't draw every individual blade of grass. You know that Mullins didn't, but it looks like he did, which only leaves a few possible outcomes of what he actually did. Luckily for you, it's all right there in front of you if you've a fresh set of eyes to see it with.

I won't take a chance to learn away from you, but there are a few things you can watch out for. Learning the exact technique he used is besides the point - it makes as much sense for a writer to memorize really great sentences from his favorite books to use in his own, word for word. Instead, try to take into account the purpose of each area before you learn from it; the bottom-right in the segment that you posted, for example, is of middling importance to the piece. It's not the focal point by any means, but it is the foreground, and it will go a long way to set the stage for the rest of the environment. It's rendered appropriate to it's importance to the piece, as opposed to other areas which range from being looser to more refined - he does the exact same thing with the figures.

With that in mind, here's something small from the same piece. All I did was blur out the high lit portions. Take from that what you will. For comparison, look at the full piece from what you posted, and the stock photo here. Look at the photo, squint your eyes heavily, then lightly, then not at all, and then look at the Mullins bit. Don't squint at the Mullins bit. Connect the dots.

Best of luck!