ITT:Loomis Anyone currently studying Loomis post their work and get feedback from others. Let's see how everyone is doing. Also feel free to post your old drawings too.

File: 98 KB, 686x459, Loomis_funpencil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 08:33:12 2014 No.1636269 [DELETED]

ITT:Loomis

Anyone currently studying Loomis post their work and get feedback from others.

Let's see how everyone is doing.

Also feel free to post your old drawings too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 08:38:28 2014 No.1636272 lomis is crap i wanna learn how to make realistic not cartoon shit dropped on day 1

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 08:40:58 2014 No.1636273 >>1636272 He starts with the basics though and then introduces more and more complex elements that will help you construct realistic drawings.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 08:41:28 2014 No.1636274 >>1636272 Most likely bait, but I'll bite. It's more about seeing things in 3D rather than caricatures.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 09:12:28 2014 No.1636279 File: 51 KB, 595x842, 1374020949220.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1636272 Then read the books where he teaches realistic drawing and not the one book where he does cartoon shit, you dumb fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 09:44:47 2014 No.1636302 don't die thread, i want to see T_T

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 09:52:47 2014 No.1636309 >>1636302 /ic/ is rather slow anyway. i will be posting my shitty drawings soon anyway. i hope they are at least concept-wise more or less correct because they look like shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 10:13:18 2014 No.1636323 File: 897 KB, 894x566, 243141231243.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1636309 and here it is what i did today. looks like shit. i tried using a fountain pen to do the outlines and that doesn't work very well. gotta get a fineliner soon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 10:32:47 2014 No.1636334 I tried out Loomis but I don't seem to grasp the things he tries to teach. I moved on to Betty Edwards and I like it so far, but the cunt keeps talking about brains and repeats her shit over and over. I will finish it though and try Loomis again.

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 10:44:47 2014 No.1636338

>>1636334
Edwards instructs you on how to actually see what you're drawing instead of falling back on mental symbols, which is great, but Loomis waay more useful if you're looking to draw from imagination. He actually teaches you how to construct forms in 3D space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 11:07:47 2014 No.1636355 File: 840 KB, 1622x1593, loomis_jan_14sml.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I've been trying to do daily sketches using Drawing the Head and Hands.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 11:20:47 2014 No.1636362 >>1636355 not bad, but try to spend more time on the eyes, because those are the real focal point of the portrait.

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 12:14:24 2014 No.1636416
File: 46 KB, 500x357, listen here noob.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

FWAP blows compared to just learning linear perspective from Scott Robertson or anyone else

Start with FDFAIW or Successful Drawing with Head & Hands on the side.

Creative Illustration is archaic and irrelevant to today's industry so I'd only look in it for fun.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 12:37:25 2014 No.1636431 File: 1.52 MB, 3264x2448, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Recent Loomis practice. I'm just starting out the book.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 12:39:55 2014 No.1636435 File: 666 KB, 2048x1536, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1636431 And more Loomis

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 13:33:13 2014 No.1636471 >>1636416 creative illustration is best book you nit. skip : fun with a pencil, successful drawing,

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 14:07:43 2014 No.1636496 >>1636471 i should explain why i think that. it mostly covers ideas on composition and picture making. none of that has changed really since the start of time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 14:59:13 2014 No.1636537 >>1636431 How long have you been practising your Loomis? I tried a few of the face and mind turned out like absolute shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 15:00:14 2014 No.1636538 >>1636537 That's because Loomis is shit. Fight me niggas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 15:03:13 2014 No.1636540 >>1636538 i agree with you. loomis has a weird way to draw. even though mine looks like shit, i try to at least get the concept right.

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 15:12:44 2014 No.1636543
File: 252 KB, 1343x1607, line drawing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1636269
This is a question targeted at more advanced loomiers i guess.

But i completely skipped fun with a pencil as suggested by someone when i was first starting, should i go back and read it? any useful information? '

>pic somewhat related i did this a couple weeks ago.

but to be honest i haven't done portraits or construction in over a year so it's a simplifed version of the construction i remember.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 15:16:43 2014 No.1636549 >>1636537 I just started last night lol I have been drawing for a while but my drawings lack fundamentals and aren't that great, so I decided I could use some help.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 15:19:43 2014 No.1636555 >>1636543 no, fun with a pencil is for children. people only recommend it because they're dicks,

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 15:57:37 2014 No.1636596
File: 265 KB, 749x623, 1390337838929.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1636269
Never really studied Loomis, specifically. Posted this in a draw thread and was told to stop studying Loomis.

>>1636537
I feel most people, when studying any artists that breaks things down like this, begin to focus too much on each individual step rather than drawing as a whole. They compartmentalize everything, leading to a stiff, rigid, and awkward images. The parts become more important than the whole, when the parts and the whole are equally important.
That may or may not help anyone directly, but being consciously aware of something you're doing wrong can help.

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 16:14:39 2014 No.1636618

>>1636269
I'm at the part where I'm supposed to draw the Doohinkus mannequin (or whatever it was called), but it feels like I'm not actually learning anything and that my drawings look inaccurate and shitty. Any advice on what I should focus on, or am I overthinking this and should just grind out drawings?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 16:16:09 2014 No.1636622 >>1636555 so for a total beginner what book or tutorial would be the best

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 16:20:39 2014 No.1636624

>>1636618
Look, here is the deal you don't have to necessarily follow Fun with a Pencil like a bible however the idea behind all his practices is to understand how forms are affected by perspective, and how to describe these same forms in space. Pick up what you learn from drawing his funny faces and use the same techniques to draw the head on anything else.

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 16:26:39 2014 No.1636629

>>1636622
I wouldn't recommend you adhere to one tutorial. Pore through the sticky and pick out what looks like it would help someone at your skill level the most (i.e. basics and fundamentals, gestures, etc). Also of course study references and practice a lot. Try to draw loosely too, drawing too stiffly trying to make the shape perfect is a very common problem that can be hard to break out of, you want your figures to be loose and natural even if they're in a static position.

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 16:54:27 2014 No.1636651

>>1636624
on some of the "later" pages( i think atound 30 to 50) he goes into more realistic faces anyway.
i think those will be more usefull than his weird comic-ish heads. as for now, i am trying to understand the concept of his drawings and just do his tasks, as shitty as they look(my normal work doesnt look as bad). when i get to the more realistic heads i will actually try and apply it to my own drawings.
also i will be using that big head/planes reference and look at how others(e.g. hampton) draw heads. from there i will move on to the whole body.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 16:57:26 2014 No.1636654 >>1636629 thanks for the advice i appreciate it. but i'm still wondering are there any /iv/ approved youtube channels that would be helpful for beginners

Anonymous Tue Jan 21 17:18:26 2014 No.1636661

http://imgur.com/a/4fWqp

This is the album I've been putting up together for every piece of paper I've drawn on since I started doing Loomins.

The other album I have on this account is about Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain... I don't read that book anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 17:19:27 2014 No.1636662 QQ

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 17:20:26 2014 No.1636664 File: 1.20 MB, 358x216, darksoulslol.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1636661 You were only supposed to get the DotRSotB workbook. If you seriously sat there and tried to read her pseudo-science you got trolled

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 17:20:56 2014 No.1636663 File: 284 KB, 1920x1128, Sketch1921501.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1636662 Image, plz show up this time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 17:32:26 2014 No.1636671 >>1636664 Where the fuck did you get SotRSotB from?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 20:30:30 2014 No.1636830 >>1636431 Congrats, this nigga got it. Move on up

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 20:31:30 2014 No.1636831 >>1636538 >damage control

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 21 20:32:30 2014 No.1636834 >>1636654 >ProkoTV

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 16:31:52 2014 No.1638047 File: 182 KB, 813x246, 12441232413.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] how am i suppossed to figure out how to draw these?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 16:34:52 2014 No.1638051 >>1638047 read the words fuckstick

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 16:36:22 2014 No.1638054 >>1638051 i did. he never explains how to draw them. he is just like "yeah, just draw them". well i don't know how because he never explains how to figure them out.

>>	Rhoop !!hotPtWIGJed Thu Jan 23 16:42:22 2014 No.1638059 >>1638047 you draw a rough circle and then draw some curved lines on top? I really dont know how to make this simpler for you.

Anonymous Thu Jan 23 16:50:52 2014 No.1638064

>>1638059
the ball itself is not the problem.
how to figure out the perspective is.

the one little line he puts on top of the ball that goes through the middle of it, how do i figure its position out?
just look at the 4th ball. how does he even know he has to draw it like this when he wants to have that position?
why does this ball have 2 (more or less) horizontal lines? they others only have one horizontal line and a vertical one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 17:11:11 2014 No.1638077 >>1638047 Imagine a basketball, anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 17:15:11 2014 No.1638078 File: 277 KB, 371x344, 1386499351740.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1638077 10/10 tip and don't forget kids: next time you are trying to draw a ball, imagine a basketball

Anonymous Thu Jan 23 19:24:04 2014 No.1638182
File: 290 KB, 800x1280, fghrty6yu58.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1638047

There are a few ways to do this, but they require special tools and probably aren't relevant to art where you don't need high precision. Instead, try to understand what's going on here. You should practice drawing spheres, ellipses, and boxes until you can visualize this intuitively.

Anonymous Thu Jan 23 19:33:34 2014 No.1638184

>>1636334
Betty Edwards is unnecessary, and more importantly she doesn't teach you any actual technical skills. Her book basically comes down to, draw what you actually see. Doing a handful of exercises and copying pictures will accomplish the goal of her book without her scientifically inaccurate rambling about the nature of the human brain. Probably in less time too, since you won't have to read that nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 19:59:37 2014 No.1638201 >>1636323 like early r crumb

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 22:15:31 2014 No.1638326 File: 442 KB, 1200x1600, loomis2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] am I gonna make it, /ic/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 22:58:31 2014 No.1638356 >>1638182 Listen to teal guy. Remember, the ellipse's long axis is perpendicular to the 'poles' he has drawn.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 23 23:05:01 2014 No.1638365 >>1638326 yes (no)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 03:42:02 2014 No.1638467 >>1638182 thanks

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 05:38:38 2014 No.1638527 >>1638182 >apply what you know about the behavior of ellpises i know nothing about ellipses

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 05:55:25 2014 No.1638531 File: 2.16 MB, 3264x2448, IMG_20140124_115319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How am i doing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 06:08:25 2014 No.1638536 >>1638531 good effort but they hair goes at the top

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 06:31:43 2014 No.1638544 File: 1.79 MB, 3264x2448, 41141243.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1638531 i flipped it. makes it easier to see his mistakes

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 09:20:18 2014 No.1638615 >>1638527 also how do you tilt the ball without messing up the perspective?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 11:03:40 2014 No.1638649 File: 618 KB, 1200x1600, vghgfuhjtyu5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1638527 >>1638615 >how do you tilt the ball without messing up the perspective? Intuition and boxing the sphere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 11:09:40 2014 No.1638652 >>1638326 yep.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 11:12:40 2014 No.1638654 >>1638544 Your old people look good. So do your females. All it needs is some chiseling

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 11:14:40 2014 No.1638656

>>1638649

This should be implicit if you understand the exercise, but I'll just point this out. If we can think of the short axis as the direction the circle plane is facing, then we can think of the long axis as the points where the circle wraps around and disappears behind the horizon/silhouette of the sphere. Understanding these two things alone is pretty much all you need to freehand poles/equators believably.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 11:51:43 2014 No.1638682 File: 168 KB, 600x600, loomis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Fun With a Pencil is really fun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 12:09:13 2014 No.1638699 >>1638656 i still can't wrap my head around it and it's kinda starting to piss me off. i don't even know where to start after drawing the fucking circle. no offence

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 12:33:16 2014 No.1638716
File: 93 KB, 364x327, 41212431234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

does this look somewhat right?
i know it's not a perfect circle but you get the idea.

i cant get the 2 lines of the ellipses that are suppossed to meet at the bottom of the ball somewhere.

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 12:39:45 2014 No.1638723

>>1638699

It's not supposed to be easy to understand. It's supposed to take time. The rules aren't many, so you can learn them quickly with a basic perspective book. But it's going to be a while before it becomes second nature. Many people can recite these exact things, but not know how to apply it. Some can draw when they have something to copy from, but draw a blank when asked to turn their drawings without reference.

You don't need to know the science of this down to the nitty gritty, only know that the science is there. In a way, it's like language and grammar. Most people cannot explain the difference between the imperfect past and perfect past tenses, yet they know when to use "have/had". They know when something "sounds wrong," and this just comes with constant exposure. This is the ideal for the artist, too. Draw cubes and spheres with equators enough until you can draw them well intuitively, and keep these little rules in the back of your mind. One day, things will click, and you'll appreciate the freedom of drawing with shapes and perspective.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:04:15 2014 No.1638743 File: 200 KB, 364x654, cgkakpj7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1638716

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:07:45 2014 No.1638746 get a fucking styrofoam sphere or any ball and shove a pencil through it ffs you morons.

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:37:15 2014 No.1638763
File: 1.10 MB, 3264x1840, Loomis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I've got the shapes down and all but i'm just not sure where to put the added facial features without looking. Is that something that should be noticed from reference or just randomly put lines and shading till it feels right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:40:15 2014 No.1638764 >>1638763 >just randomly put lines never ever ever never ever ever never do this ever.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:42:45 2014 No.1638765 >>1638764 Should it be from reference?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:55:15 2014 No.1638771 >>1638743 damn nigga thats helpful. thats like math for artists

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:56:45 2014 No.1638772 >>1638765 meaning think before you place a line think decide on a goal the lines you place should be taking you toward not away from this goal

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 13:57:45 2014 No.1638773 >>1638772 and draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw repeat

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 16:25:13 2014 No.1638873 >>1638773 That's a given man.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 17:18:45 2014 No.1638903 File: 367 KB, 800x800, 1385570072127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1638773 >and draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw >tfw never know what to draw and when I know what I want to draw I'm 1800% sure that it's gonna be shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 17:30:45 2014 No.1638916 >>1638903 The Structure of Man has been working pretty well for me and I'm a beginner. The guy's a bit boring but easy to follow, I'd recommend it if you've got nothing else to do/draw.

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 18:37:17 2014 No.1638986

>>1638649
That's not an accurate way to draw a circle in perspective. You're still guessing, so some of your steps are no different than from you freehanding to begin with. You're just reifying your quess into redundancy.
Read:
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect5.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 18:38:18 2014 No.1638988 >>1638903 >and when I know what I want to draw I'm 1800% sure that it's gonna be shit That's when you most need to draw, anon. so that you learn and understand why you are shit.

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 18:40:17 2014 No.1638990

Seriously people... do you guys have some previous experience drawing, or am I just bad?

My drawings look like 12 year olds drawings (perhaps worst in many cases), I didn't have previous experience with drawing watsoever before this book tho...

Am I doomed? Should I just be trying to copy from the book first?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 18:42:47 2014 No.1638993 >>1638990 >Seriously people... do you guys have some previous experience drawing, or am I just bad? i do have some experience drawing. i am far away from being good though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 18:58:17 2014 No.1638998 >>1638990 Post your art and stop complaining about it, everyone has had their art look bad at one point or another. I used to draw as a kid, even made a several chapter long comic by hand, and my drawing are still shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 19:05:17 2014 No.1639002 >>1638990 keep practicing with them circles man, you'll get it. i drew a lot of pages worth of circles and 3-D spheres before I started drawing the faces.

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 19:30:53 2014 No.1639012

>>1638047
i was struggeling with this too and i came up with a pretty simple and acurate measuring technique, that doesnt involve imaginary cubes and the likes. (its pure logic though, im sure many people before me have done it that way. (i havent researched it, and i dont care tbh).

its already pretty late where i live, so i wont make a tutorial on it right now. but if people here are interested in it i could make one tmrw and post it. let me know

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 19:33:23 2014 No.1639013 >>1636596 What'd you study? I'm shit at faces and I like where you're at

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 21:30:59 2014 No.1639092

>>1639013
>What'd you study?
I just drew. Didn't consciously study anyone or anything in particular until recently. I grew up seeing a lot of Leyendecker and other graphic illustrations that are visually similar (Loomis, of course), though I have no idea why or where anymore (I'm only 23). It's fair to say that influenced me quite a bit.

Dunno if this will help anyone at all, but I personally pay a lot of attention to angles, especially when drawing from reference. Again, that may originate from Leyendecker-esque influence. Sorry I can't be of much help.

Side note: It might be me, but drawing shapes like Loomis suggests really makes things more difficult. It just adds too much visual clutter at times and throws me off, so I more often than not just visualize the very basic shapes. Maybe common sense to some people, but I've noticed people before that have similar issues but feel they're doing it wrong if they don't draw the basic shapes all the time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 21:33:59 2014 No.1639093 >>1639092 >i'm only 23 i wish i had that outlook :)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 21:39:29 2014 No.1639097 >>1639093 :)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 21:43:59 2014 No.1639101 >>1636431 I'm in the same boat as this guy. However, the guide on the sticky confused me. Should I learn to draw from reality before Loomis?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 21:47:29 2014 No.1639106 >>1639092 Do you know of any websites/photodumps of faces online?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 21:52:59 2014 No.1639111 >>1639106 Uhh... Google? I don't know of any in particular but it shouldn't be hard to find at all. I use to do studies from facebook and random fashion blogs all the time.

Anonymous Fri Jan 24 22:48:32 2014 No.1639142

>>1638998
To be honest my scanner isn't working and I don't have an easy way of showing you my work, but yeah... it looks terrible.

I think the thing I notice the most is the lack of detail and "credibility" in my drawings as opposed to Loomis. But I guess I'm going to GitGud eventually if I keep at it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 23:16:32 2014 No.1639154 >>1638544 Damn anon, I wish I could figure out that top row of females like you have. I can't do hair worth a shit or lips

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 23:20:02 2014 No.1639155 Just learn basic perspective, OP. Marshall Vandruff's dvd is a good starting point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 24 23:40:49 2014 No.1639162 >>1638615 You don't. No one has perfect perspective. They just have a reasonably accurate eye for it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 03:30:15 2014 No.1639292 >>1639254 >>1639222 What about these?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:17:32 2014 No.1639305 >>1639012 sure

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:00:04 2014 No.1639331 >>1638743 the thing with the equidistant seems to be actually really helpful. i never thought of it before. thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:16:52 2014 No.1639366 >>1638743 >>1638649 >>1638182 How is this not common knowledge?

>>	follow insta: _royal_0ne Anonymous Sat Jan 25 19:01:09 2014 No.1639876 Hey i juist started my instagram. Please follow i have alot of drawings hand dope stuff to show. Instagram: _royal_0ne

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 19:32:09 2014 No.1639897 >>1639331 You've never thought of overlaping

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 21:45:14 2014 No.1639988 >>1639876 Not your personal blog buddy

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 03:27:21 2014 No.1640162 >>1639897 i thought of overlapping, i just tried to guess it though which never really worked. i never noticed the equidistance thing. yes i am stupid

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 04:20:39 2014 No.1640175 >>1636272 do both

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 04:33:09 2014 No.1640180
File: 94 KB, 599x604, tmp_1389892609824-169971986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1636334
that same reason why she talks about mental stablebilty and imagination health most of the time because you are soposed to be rediscover thoughts from childhood memories. Learn from nature and /x/ also about human mentality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 04:51:09 2014 No.1640182 >>1639012 Yes

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 05:00:09 2014 No.1640183
File: 758 KB, 1920x1080, tmp_13892248203781752010288.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1640180
Basically what I said about childhood is to be able to have an imagination of a kid because in their nature of play to try out all sorts of things that are appealing to them. Assuming this is 4Chan in a nutshell try to build a mature imagination from stable ideas and knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 05:16:59 2014 No.1640190 >>1640183 interestingly enough, the way we teach our selves how to draw, with all its rules and shit, is more on the left side of the brain instead of the right one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 05:32:59 2014 No.1640195 File: 34 KB, 242x208, shagface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Jesus christ, I just completely lost it with all the perspective stuff.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 05:52:31 2014 No.1640200 >>1640195 which "perspective stuff" are you talking about? the one mentioned in the thread about the ball or actual perspective stuff

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 06:07:01 2014 No.1640202 How can some of you be so infatuated with drawing a ball in perspective? It's ridiculous, the level of scrutiny you're putting into it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 06:12:31 2014 No.1640204 >>1640183 >programmers >not creative top lel m8.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 06:16:31 2014 No.1640208

>>1640204
things are never as simple as these pics portray them.
in fact, probably most of what humans do is a mix of both brain sides.

people like extreme positions because it's easier than accepting that there are many things in between. in the same vein one could make a reference to WWII where not all americans where good and not all nazis were evil. in fact many people who fought for germany during wwII did so because they had to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 06:21:01 2014 No.1640211 i am currently drawing one of the loomis heads and it's pretty fun. i am a bit struggeling with perspective but i think i am getting the hang of it. (who would have guessed that spending more than 5 mins on a single head would yiel better results?)

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 06:21:31 2014 No.1640210 >>1640208 OY GEVALT!! This ANTI-SEMITE is implying Nazis could be GOOD... you are literally HITLER... OY ZIS IS A HOLOOCAUST!

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 06:28:47 2014 No.1640212
File: 62 KB, 288x386, GroHemp4War.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1640210
funnily enough, america was pretty racist back then too. hell, they heavily discriminated mexicans in the 30s and afaik one of the reasons why they made pot illegal back then was because all the mexicans immigrants where smoking it and the american population feared they would take away their jobs, so they had a reason to put them in prison.(other factors are that industrial hemp is a competitor for nylon which they invented back then. hemp has many advantages, one of them being that it's really cheap. in fact it's so cheap that even though they also banned industrial hemp when they made weed illegal, they really needed it during WWII). they also mistreated black people a lot back then and it was never just germany who hated minorities. it's been pretty much all countries.

anyway, kinda off topic

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 08:00:51 2014 No.1640247 File: 224 KB, 521x337, 13212132.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What do you think?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 08:31:51 2014 No.1640258 >>1636596 Got a tumblr?

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 11:13:09 2014 No.1640314
File: 213 KB, 521x337, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1640247
Lack of detail and the nose seems tacked on (see my fix). Other than that I would advise you to get used to hair. I'm at about your level and I really think we should be thinking about hair at early stages.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 11:34:40 2014 No.1640323

>>1640314
yeah that actually made it better.

>Lack of detail
>Other than that I would advise you to get used to hair.

just trying to get the basic perspective right. i don't like the ball shape. i think it looks weird. i will solve those 2 problems later when i am at the chapter with the more realistic looking heads

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 11:58:09 2014 No.1640335

>>1640247

Forget about copying, or drawing tightly. At this stage, learn to draw loosely, and draw *through.* Draw the entire circle. Draw the entire cross contour line as if you're drawing a transparent head. Draw what you don't see, so that you can better position the parts you do see.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 12:00:09 2014 No.1640338 >>1640335 i did. that's what's leftover after erasing all that

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 12:01:09 2014 No.1640340 >>1640338 also i didn't copy, except for the position of the ball

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 12:23:09 2014 No.1640352 >>1640338 Then don't erase. It'll be easier for everyone, including yourself, to analyze and see the issues. You'll better see what worked for you, and what didn't. Don't worry about polish at this stage. Erasing is polishing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 13:30:45 2014 No.1640385 File: 185 KB, 931x981, Scan0001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Do you guys think I have any potential? I'm pretty sure there's bound to be major flaws in this, but here goes anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 13:45:15 2014 No.1640392 >>1640385 try coming up with your own character instead of copying loomis' drawings 1:1. if you do that i will be able to tell you if you have potential

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 13:47:45 2014 No.1640394

>>1640392
I came up with a couple (they weren't very good), but that drawing is when Loomis tells you to draw the mascot - so I just thought you were supposed to copy it. I'll try and make up some others of my own - although the thread may be gone by then.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 13:50:45 2014 No.1640398 >>1640394 >although the thread may be gone by then It's a slow board, no need to worry

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:03:15 2014 No.1640411 >>1640385 if you have working hands and eyes, you have potential. You'll realise it if you have drive

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:04:15 2014 No.1640413 >>1640385 Everyone has potential if they're willing to bust their ass

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:04:45 2014 No.1640412 >>1640398 one of the slowest boards in fact. at least you can sage thread without others getting mad for "downvoting" posts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:09:15 2014 No.1640417 >>1640412 Is it really one of the slowest? I don't visit many of the other 'niche' boards so I don't know about those but I've always felt that this board rolls on at a very comfortable pace >inb4 moot nukes the board because it's too slow

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:09:45 2014 No.1640416 File: 1.39 MB, 2550x3509, img023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm studying Drawing the Head and Hands. Here's a drawing I made at the beginning of this month, and then another drawing from yesterday, after working through the book some.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:10:15 2014 No.1640418 File: 1.53 MB, 2550x3509, img078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1640416

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:11:20 2014 No.1640419 File: 56 KB, 500x700, tumblr_mdwio1UBx51rrdwy8o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1640418 Ref. I'm going to work on horizontal proportions today, I think.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:14:48 2014 No.1640423

>>1640417
i think so.
i think i saw a pic once that showed /ic/ as being among the slowest boards.
for my taste /ic/ could be a bit faster. i spend, when i am at home, most of my time infront of my pc and browse /ic/. you often have to wait several hours for a person to reply.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 14:51:18 2014 No.1640472

So I'm seeing either people who picked up Loomis in their 20s, like myself, and are putting out abject mediocrity. (No offence guys I'm bad at this too)
And I'm seeing people who've just been drawing all their lives without touching a single book in their life putting out godlike work.
Has anybody at all from the former camp 'made it'? Is there anyone who picked up drawing at like 24 and made it to be pretty good? I just want to know there's some hope.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 15:01:48 2014 No.1640476

>>1640423
Well that's the downside of it being slow. I like how you can actually take time to think before replying and many others seem to do the same. Also it reminds me of the older times when there weren't as many people browsing 4chan and I wouldn't miss a lot by being away for a day

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 15:05:18 2014 No.1640483 >>1640476 yeah that's nice. also the fact that people often reply to older threads.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 15:07:48 2014 No.1640485

>>1640472
Dude, there is always some hope. Technically it's never too late to start something new. Especially not if you are only 24 years old.
Important is that you are having fun and want to do this. Especially if you want to work in the industry sooner or later

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:08:05 2014 No.1640980

>>1640472

I'm nearly 30 and I know how you feel, but as discouraging as it is to see others who are so much more advanced at younger ages, it does not mean that its "too late". For example there is a family friend who didn't start drawing until his mid-30s (while working as a doctor and raising 2 kids) and still managed to become a very talented medical illustrator in only a few years.
Also keep in mind, you may look at these young people with envy but there are often times where you will find out just because someone is talented at drawing does not necessarily make them mature or professional. I can't even count how many young talented artists Ive seen who are in their late-teens early20s who have burned bridges in childish temper tantrums, fail to market themselves properly, or can't make a deadline to save their life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:06:44 2014 No.1641227 >>1638746 But it's too haaaard, how do I know whether it's a sphere or a cube, what grade pencil should I use, which end of the pencil should I sharpen, waaaaah waaaaaah

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:08:14 2014 No.1641228 >>1640472 you pretty much nailed it. 0.1% of people actually make it, the rest work in mcdonalds

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:13:31 2014 No.1641229

>>1640472
To be honest, it's mostly the exact opposite. When you look at the utterly shit tier artists on places such as Deviantart, you will always see that the most terrible shit comes from the camp of people who "have been drawing all their life". Meanwhile most of the people who improved incredibly fast and became really good were those who picked up art in their late teens or early to mid 20s and did focused studying and work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:17:31 2014 No.1641235 >>1641229 this guy kinda makes a point and here is an even better one: life isnt as black as white as you think. everyone has a chance at being successful, wether they are old or young.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:19:01 2014 No.1641238

>>1640472
>>1641229
also, chances are very high that you have actually no fucking idea just how hard those "godlike" people who you believe never touched a book have actually worked on their art.

Maybe they didn't read Loomis or other recommended literature, but they sure as hell don't have any magical ability that makes them understand perspective, anatomy, lighting, composition etc without fucking learning and exercising it.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:49:41 2014 No.1641846
File: 1.62 MB, 1200x1169, loomistraining1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I want to learn to draw properly too, looked at the one-stop beginners guide and as Drawing with the right side of the brain and Keys to drawing reaches my doorstep from amazon I'm trying the free loomis downloads too.

here are my first attempts at Fun with a Pencil

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:51:06 2014 No.1641897

>>1638047
Id say, while using>>1638182 and >>1638649 as diagrams, there are two other ways to do it.
1. (The hands on approach)Get a ball, and mark the top and bottom points, maybe add a small stick or something to make it seem like the picture. Then draw the lines on the ball, and view it in different ways, observe it, and learn from it that way.
2.(repetitive, slow process, can be used with 1) draw lots of circles. Use a compass or round object (bottle cap, etc.) for studying purposes. Then, starting with the face-on view, slowly mark these circles with different perceptive lines. Continue doing this until it becomes second nature. I suggest looking at the diagrams while doing this for extra help.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:19:52 2014 No.1642053 File: 996 KB, 2048x1536, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:24:52 2014 No.1642058 >>1641846 A good start but let's see some iteration. Draw something of your own while utilizing the knowledge you just got. That's the most important part of any artbook or study, never forget to utilize what you have learned

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:32:52 2014 No.1642069 >>1642058 it's also much more fun. i find it a lot more rewarding to not draw these from references. sure it takes longer but i like it and i am having fun.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:37:52 2014 No.1642076 File: 2.66 MB, 3264x2448, IMG_0180.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Trying to draw original characters too

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:05:42 2014 No.1642187
File: 147 KB, 374x366, 412341232431.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1636323
>>1640247

here.
someone said i should get used to hair.
well here is my (shitty) take on hair.
also someone said i shouldn't erase the lines from the ball i used as a base.(i only removed part of the ball)

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 19:54:19 2014 No.1642780
File: 1.29 MB, 1200x1261, loomistrainingtwo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1642058
Here are some tries from my mind.
Even if they aint that great I am surprised at all that I'm drawing. Its why I started all of this, I was in some massive block that would not allow me to draw. Reading the intro of "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" and seeing people draw seemed to have unlocked something (even thought it doesnt last long).
So far this has been the greatest decision I've done since forever.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:44:19 2014 No.1642809
File: 2.93 MB, 1612x1128, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1642780
I notice that you're using a circle but you're just drawing a head over it without really thinking about what the circle means. For example, page 26 shows a few faces with expressions. In all of them, the eyes are at/below the eye line. That helps you make a correct forehead instead of the tiny ones you're drawing.

>>1642076
Same for you too. While apparent in both, it's more obvious in yours that you're kind of cheating the construction of a person. Flipping it horizontally reveals that you're not really constructing them with a sense of 3 dimensions. Also, you have a habit of curving the mouth/chin area too much.

For both of you, try to re-read the sections you've gone through and understand it better. Look at what he's doing and try to figure out why. Copy some to understand if you have to. If it helps, you can also use a reference and use that to see how a face is really constructed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 21:50:49 2014 No.1642866 File: 70 KB, 1152x864, Artist_Unknown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1639012 Please do it, I don't want to end up like squidward

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 29 01:49:07 2014 No.1642985 File: 1.17 MB, 1296x968, lewmiss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Never realized just how fun Loomis heads were until now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 29 04:22:42 2014 No.1643032 >>1642985 damn

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 29 05:05:42 2014 No.1643059 >>1642809 Thanks for the feedback, I'll try going over this section more carefully then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 29 06:00:12 2014 No.1643082 >>1642187 any critique or tips?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 29 11:54:17 2014 No.1643270 File: 328 KB, 935x809, ballpointshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] random girl

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 30 08:42:44 2014 No.1643959 how can I draw loomis heads if I can't even draw circles

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 30 08:54:02 2014 No.1643963 >>1643959 /ic/ in a nutshell

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:00:02 2014 No.1643965 File: 28 KB, 620x400, Based Lil J.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1643959 This is some Jaden Smith shit right there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 30 09:26:03 2014 No.1643985 >>1643963 Amen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 10:57:42 2014 No.1645043 File: 1.48 MB, 1136x852, 12442311243.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i should get a thinner pen. 0.5 is too thick. and yeah those didnt turn out too well. i hope i get at least the basic concept somewhat right

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 14:59:09 2014 No.1645147 Did anyone ever post an easy way to draw spheres with inside contours? I'm not the guy who originally asked, but I'm interested if anyone has a good way to draw the spheres, or even visualise the contours.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 15:42:14 2014 No.1645176 >>1642985 Those are very good.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 17:02:32 2014 No.1645227 >>1645147 You guys were told to practice drawing these freehand, but you want more accuracy. You were shown a way to draw it more accurately, but now you want an "easier" way. How about learning to do it right, first?

Anonymous Fri Jan 31 17:09:02 2014 No.1645232

>>1645227
I honestly don't mind if it's harder, it's just that the guides posted are about visualisation, and some guy said earlier that he had his own way to do it. I was wondering if anyone knew a way to draw the spheres that was more methodical - as I've been trying to make my own methods for a while now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 17:16:02 2014 No.1645237 >>1645043 >i should get a thinner pen. >0.5 is too thick. No, you need bigger paper and a bigger utensil. You have to learn to throw the line with your shoulder and to do that you need to draw BIG.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 18:08:02 2014 No.1645269 File: 377 KB, 1000x1000, cvhfyh4r5uy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1645232

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 18:14:02 2014 No.1645273 >>1645269 Thanks a lot, I was trying something like this a while ago, where I drew axis and put dots on them, but this is much clearer and correct, unlike what I was doing... Really, you've helped me out a lot, those spheres always annoy me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 18:39:02 2014 No.1645285 >>1645043 you can grind the lead into more of a point by using the side of it for bigger softer strokes and switching grips to a more on-point grip when you're doing small stuff.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 31 22:10:45 2014 No.1645387 ITT: too stubborn to learn perspective

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 12:37:03 2014 No.1645798
File: 157 KB, 614x818, whyamiwrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1638649
I'm so fucking lost! forgive me for bringing this up. I don't mean to question Teal, but in step 6 he has drawn in midpoints for the box in perspective and perpendicular (outer points?) for the ellipse preparatory crosshair. So in total he has marked 8 points. In his example is he trying to say he hit 8 points to draw the ellipse or is he just showing us the box midpoints(maybe forgot to erase them?) Also wouldn't the major axis line up parallel with the width of the box?

I drew one where i thought the major axis would lay it's not perfectly aligned, but i made sure i got a 90 degree crosshair. Believe me i'm trying my damndest to understand this, so I don't mind marking myself off as a fool just to learn it. Please help me understand why I may be wrong!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 12:52:03 2014 No.1645820 >>1645269 ignore all this it wont help you are too stupid and it is overly complicated. get a ball. draw some lines on it. draw it. now stop posting

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 12:54:33 2014 No.1645823

>>1645798
dont think about it too much.

when i try to draw the ball i do it like this:
>i start with a circle
>then i will draw the "eye line" which is horizontal. it's pretty much always in the same spot
>then i will draw the "middle line" and depending on where it is, i will find the "ear line"(see loomis page 21 for reference)
>once you have the middle line, the line that will be between the eyes, you draw a line through the ball, starting from the point where middle and eye line meet
>the line should go through the ball to the other side where eye and middle line meet again
>now you know where the middle of the elipse(eye line) is
>now try to guess where the ear line starts by cutting the elpise(of the eyeline) in half again(you should have an elipse with 4 pieces that are all about the same size)
>and that's it

i hope it makes sense, if it doesn't i will try to make a picture of this later.
also my english sucks, especially when it comes to explaining mathematical shit

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 13:08:33 2014 No.1645841

>>1645798

>In his example is he trying to say he hit 8 points to draw the ellipse

You must hit the midpoints on the box. The other set of points are just estimations. The orientation of the ellipse crosshair is more important than the correct length/width of of the major and minor axis.

>I drew one where i thought the major axis would lay it's not perfectly aligned

Your major and minor axis are oriented incorrectly. Look at your ellipse. Does it look like it's sitting flat on that square plane? Does it look like it's in perspective?

Follow the steps. Determine the minor axis first. The minor axis is the direction the square plane is facing. This was determined earlier by drawing the complete cube and estimating the 3rd vanishing point.

Look, you guys need to understand that you are doing freehand drawing. Unless you are making engineering drawings and using tools, you don't need a high degree of accuracy. Your main concerns should be scale and orientation of the ellipse. The square provides you with scale that you can easily repeat in perspective. Cubing the square will give you the proper orientation of the ellipse. That's it. That's all you need. You're over-complicating this. I could spend a good 2 or 3 paragraphs trying to explain to your what the major and minor axis truly are and why they work this way, but you don't need to know that to draw ellipses. For now, just accept that's the way things actually work.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 13:19:03 2014 No.1645866

>>1645841
>Look, you guys need to understand that you are doing freehand drawing. Unless you are making engineering drawings and using tools, you don't need a high degree of accuracy

This.

Also what really helped me guessing if my ellipse is correct is this post:>>1638743

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 14:22:03 2014 No.1645951 File: 1.15 MB, 3936x1592, 1364993964309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] if anyone is having trouble this pic will help you. don't copy it, draw your own characters and if you need help with the angles then this pic will help you

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 14:23:03 2014 No.1645952
File: 413 KB, 1400x1800, fghfhr5y457fgu56.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1645798
>Also wouldn't the major axis line up parallel with the width of the box?

No. The major axis is actually how the circle is spun, relative to the viewer. This is why, on a sphere, the major axis determines where the equator crosses the horizon of the sphere.

I don't know of an easier way to explain this. If you cannot understand this, then you simply have to accept the rule for what it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 14:30:03 2014 No.1645962 >>1638771 fuck i need a book titled as this

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 15:04:13 2014 No.1646007 >>1645962 loomis x vilppu = git gud

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 15:08:43 2014 No.1646014 >>1638771 >math for artists >>1645962 It's called "Geometry". If you want to be more precise study Projective geometry and Descriptive geometry.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 15:16:46 2014 No.1646022

>>1645952
I totally understand that. But thank you.

>>1645841
Thank you for the explanation. I am aware it looked wrong. I am drawing many ellipses in perspective to understand further. Please don't take it the wrong way, it is easy to draw ellipses correctly now, even freehand ones. No need to explain further I get it. I'll keep hammering away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 15:23:15 2014 No.1646031 >>1646014 dude you rule. i was just thinking about how i wish there was something like descriptive geometry, and it turns out there is, but i wouldnt have found out about it until now without you cheers

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 15:25:15 2014 No.1646032 >>1646014 >tfw C's and B's in algebra. >tfw A's in Trig and Geometry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 15:57:45 2014 No.1646065 >>1645952 You do realize that all this modeling with ellipses is only good if the convergence of orthagonals is too slight to notice or not there at all? Why do you consistently waste everybody's time with all this needless sundry of axioms?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 16:01:45 2014 No.1646070 >>1646065 The convergence of orthogonals/perspective distortion doesn't matter in this case, it just increases the distance between the visual center of the ellipse and the true center of the circle. The shape doesn't change.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 16:09:45 2014 No.1646088

>>1646070
Lol nope. More convergence distorts the symmetry on the major. Foreshorten circles aren't all ellipses. But that's all beside the big point here: you're wasting too much time with all that superficial modeling. We're drawing cartoons here, not modeling conics.

And don't try to draw some proof. You have a reputation of self fulfilling prophecy

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 16:12:15 2014 No.1646094 File: 79 KB, 1400x1000, bnjry457yhgfj675i.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1646088 It's self evident.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 16:43:45 2014 No.1646126 >>1646088 son i think you've been told by >>1646094

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 16:56:02 2014 No.1646142

So I don't have a big circle template, but realized I could mark 0/180 on a protractor and draw a perfect circle. I noticed there was also a hole conveniently placed so i can mark a midpoint. and I was having a blast making circles and drawing subdivisions, when I started to make a wireframe on some circles. so I marked points along the circle with a protractor. then I was shocked to realize that the circle itself was 90 degrees down the middle, I'm like holy shit I could make my own ellipses any angle and size I want. [I don't have an ellipse guide yet] I could make angles with the numbers, crudely. I feel retarded. But this is fun as fuck. Feel like I'm on my way to understanding all this perspective shit that's been troubling me.

I'm going to have to test myself with a nice drawing with perspective challenges.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 16:57:02 2014 No.1646145 >>1636323 Seeing stuff like this reminds me how much I've improved, because thats what I drew like when I started studying loomis. I still suck though.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 18:36:06 2014 No.1646227
File: 42 KB, 648x486, cirellipse 24.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1646126
>>1646094
Stop same fagging.

Like I said, you have a problem with being bias and short sighted for sake of appearing to be right. Just can't let anyone show you up, huh? Anyone who has taken Drawing in college will tell you not all foreshorten circles behave like ellipses.

I can see you're upset about it being pointed out how you waste time with all that meticulous procedure for finding a major axis. But that's only because it is a waste of time. You really think all that background knowledge is necessary for doodling a cartoon head? Do you honestly believe knowing where the exact center of a sphere is accurately will suddenly make your cartoon head perfect?

I don't think you have a solid grasp of efficiency, or can honestly distinguish the useful from the unnecessary. You seem to let unimportant technicality take too much responsibility and forget about drawing. If you can't see that, then just drop it. There is no communicating with you. You're dead set in being ingrain with such a wasteful way of thinking, so I'll leave you to that.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 18:44:36 2014 No.1646230

hey guys, got a question regarding loomis.
Before doing that actually.
The initial trick is to grind myself on doing shitloads of lines and circles and ellipses, right?
I am becoming better on that and my shoulder hurts a bit without rest (fuck you neck hernia).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 18:45:36 2014 No.1646232 File: 62 KB, 401x486, ellipse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1646227 >not all foreshorten circles behave like ellipses Looks like an ellipse to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 18:55:36 2014 No.1646240 >>1646227 All that typing, and your own image disproves you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:09:37 2014 No.1646251 File: 49 KB, 1339x547, circle.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:12:11 2014 No.1646253
File: 7 KB, 296x170, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1646232
Do you even know the definition of an ellipse? It's not a circle in perspective. It's conics, it's a type parabola. It's just used in drawing because of its history in drafting.

Why the sudden change on accuracy though? One moment you're hung up on being exact, and next you're suffice with things looking good enough. You learned how much time you been wasting or what?

If your initial pic in >>1646094 is universally true, then that would mean there would be the same convergence as the circle tilts, that the ellipse could represent a range of degrees the circle is tilted. But that would go against every rule that is applied to the rectangle in linear perspective--which houses the circle.

And you're still missing the point here. All that detail for finding axi and the like is a waste for something simple has doodling. Knowing it won't improve anyone doodling. It would just give comfort knowing. It's a nice trick but pointless for the the given topic. Perhaps you have an issue with being criticized? And you're only doing all this because you think you HAVE to be right about things always.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:23:41 2014 No.1646269 >>1646253 Take a step back from wikipedia. The ellipse of the conic section is an ellipse when viewed straight on. The visual ellipse of a circle is a different concept, and it is more important to artists and freehand drawing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:29:42 2014 No.1646273 >>1646227 lol most embarrassing post of the year

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:34:11 2014 No.1646278

>>1646251
>>1646240
>>1646232

How exactly is showing one instance of an ellipse disproving anything? You're just showing an ellipse and reiterating what's already been established. I never said an ellipse ISN'T a circle foreshortened. I only said not all foreshortened circles are ellipses.

And again this is all beside point here. Getting hung-up on knowing the exact parts of a sphere accurately is time wasting for the task of doodling. You're not going to instantly improve. Knowing the major precisely does what exactly to your doodling prowess?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:38:11 2014 No.1646281 >>1646278 >And again this is all beside point here. Because you're wrong? >Knowing the major precisely does what exactly to your doodling prowess? Draw a sphere and cross contours that doesn't look like shit, for starters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:39:11 2014 No.1646283 >>1646278 pls example of a foreshortened circle that isn't an ellipse

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:39:41 2014 No.1646284

>>1646273
>>1646269
Are you that wounded you can't let shit go and have to samefag to save face on an anonymous board? Nobody said drawing circles in perspective is unimportant. I just pointed out that going into too much detail about the parts is wasteful. And also implied you could run into some problems if try to tack all instances to one idea of a circle in perspective. Get over yourself. If you can't take criticism just let it go already.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:52:11 2014 No.1646295

>>1646283
Why? What are you looking for? What's your definition of an ellipse? If your thinking you can bisect whatever I show, that won't prove anything. You're just making a foreshorten circle into an ellipse after the fact and ignoring two crucial things: 1. the major doesn't help with drawing in perspective because it's a bisection only relative to it's flat projection. 2. you're only discovering the major after the fact, after you already drawn the circle.

This all begs the question about how important is it knowing the major and minor. It's not really adding anything necessary since your just oodling head. So what would be the point? Or are you the kind that can't walk out the door without knowing the exact change in your pocket every 5 minutes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 19:55:41 2014 No.1646301 Usually at this point he posts some Mcdonald or vidya meme or something and tries to dismiss the whole thing like he is above it. What happen?

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:06:41 2014 No.1646316

>>1646295
i'm not the guy you were talking to you just sound nuts to me. i'm all like, 'wha? how can a foreshortened circle not be an ellipse, that sounds literally impossible!' so i was hoping you'd have a picture of a foreshortened circle that isn't an ellipse. but apparently it's some semantic thing, i was hoping to get my mind blow. :(

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:16:11 2014 No.1646323
File: 7 KB, 380x226, perspec6m.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1646283
Pic related its taken from Handprint: Perspective Distortions (Reprise). Thing to note that you're only able to bisect it like an ellipse afterwards, that's because an ellipse's parts are an image compressed in 1 dimension and has no value for the projection. And again this begs the question why the need to know the ellipse that if the construction never needed it? Just drawing an ellipse isn't actually "seeing" the circle in perspective. All your doing is drawing towards a visual appeasement. And if that's the real case here. Why do you need to know where the major is? It's doesn't predict anything accurately for you in the perspective your drawing in; and you can only get it accurately after the fact, after you drawn the whole thing.

http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect5.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:17:41 2014 No.1646325 Why are you even here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:20:11 2014 No.1646326 >>1646227 the top one becomes an an oval when it matters for foreshortening. Yet you've still shown an ellipse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:27:41 2014 No.1646332 >>1646323 still an ellipse

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:28:11 2014 No.1646334 >>1646283 >forshortened circle that isn't an ellipse a straight line

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:31:11 2014 No.1646336 >>1636269 Isn't fun with a pencil supposed to be "trolling" since it's outdated and irrelevant now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:38:11 2014 No.1646344 >>1646336 Uh, no. It's how I learned and the book made perfect sense to me and I use what I picked up from that book all the time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:38:41 2014 No.1646345 >>1646336 why would it be irrelevant?

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:39:12 2014 No.1646347

>>1646332
>>1646326

And you still haven't proven anything pertinent. So what? The dissection of the ellipse is irrelevant if your drawing in a perspective because it doesn't pertain to that perspective, which why I said not all foreshorten circles behave like an ellipse making the need to dissect an ellipse accurately a waste of time.

But hey! if you want go on believing you got some kind of upper hand on the guy that guesses drawing circles in perspective until it just looks appealing, then by all means keep wasting your time.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 20:44:41 2014 No.1646350

>>1646345
Because of the autistic ESL'er it drags around, and the fact that it's not particularly worth knowing outside of it being fun to do. It's cute knowledge, but that's about it. And it's nothing new. It's just a caricature of a bunch of other drawing methods.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 21:38:16 2014 No.1646380 >All of this arguing about what is and isn't an ellipse Jesus fuck guys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 22:44:36 2014 No.1646422 >>1646380 shut it kike

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 22:55:36 2014 No.1646429 I JUST WANTED TO HAVE FUN I HATE YOU ALL

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 22:55:36 2014 No.1646430 >>1646347 See this here? >>1645269 Draw some of those, but using your griding method. Draw it freehand, leave the process lines in, and post results if you can. I'd like to see which one works better in the real world.

Anonymous Sat Feb 1 23:47:06 2014 No.1646459
File: 25 KB, 818x788, bait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1646430
What does my drawing ability have to do with your autistic need to know where the major is beforehand. And the "grid method" isn't mine it's an old technique and was suggested as joke at how retarded it is some people worry about being precise. It was meant to be an overboard, just like your shitty diagrams--full of needless adherence to procedure, given the project at hand: drawing a silly cartoon head.

What are you trying to prove here? That you're well established in your ways. Well, good for you. I'm happy for you. But all that doesn't change the fact your "understanding" of how to draw an ellipse isn't a big deal. Most of your (thinking) process is mindless tedious work any way. You're just reiterating the same thing over and over, taking the fun out of this whole thing for everyone else. And worst you talk down to people when they don't get it. You only got one way at looking at drawing and think everyone else is doing it wrong, all the while you're oblivious to your own shortcomings (like your infatuation with the major axis).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 1 23:56:36 2014 No.1646464 File: 167 KB, 518x634, dick.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1646429

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:03:57 2014 No.1646469 >>1646459 Where's the third cross contour? How would you draw it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:14:56 2014 No.1646480 >>1646469 its there behind the black line

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:21:56 2014 No.1646488 >>1646480 That's a joke, right?

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:21:56 2014 No.1646489

>>1646469
Just like you see it, circle first, ellipses second, and an axle for no good reason other than that you seem to be in need of it. Why do i need to draw cross contours here? They would only needlessly reiterate what I already am thinking--it's a ball. So why would I draw lines I don't need, nor help anything new, if I already have a good enough understanding of what I'm doing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:26:26 2014 No.1646493 >>1646459 >autistic wall of text What the fuck point are you trying to make in 1 paragraph or less. Go. Holy fuck. Nobody fucking cares. Calm down and watch a fucking movie.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:30:26 2014 No.1646494 >>1646493 'i no read so good. u sum fo try make me read.'

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:31:57 2014 No.1646496 File: 79 KB, 300x600, delicious_bait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1646459

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:42:26 2014 No.1646500 >>1646459 >>1646496 REKT >inb4 m-muh samefag

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:43:56 2014 No.1646502 File: 27 KB, 450x300, 1385064932478.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This thread was physically painful to read

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:44:56 2014 No.1646503 >>1646502 It's an informative debate. Better to read than all the other garbage that gets posted in other threads.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:53:14 2014 No.1646507 >>1646503 >debate I think you're being a little generous there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 00:56:14 2014 No.1646510 >>1646507 Not really mate. You may take one side as wrong, but they're both debating what they know in detail and attempting to refute each other. That's debate.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:00:14 2014 No.1646511

>>1646510

It's one guy posting misinterpreted info, making personal attacks because he has an axe to grind, and doing this in several threads. If you think having a disagreement, no matter how facetious, qualifies it as a legitimate debate, then I'm afraid that standard is a little low.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:09:14 2014 No.1646512 >not being aware that one of our resident trolls has been paying us a visit ishysfmfcsddt

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:11:44 2014 No.1646513 >not being aware that one of our autistic trolls has been paying us a visit ishysfmfcsddt

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:17:44 2014 No.1646514
File: 44 KB, 1306x892, hook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1646496
>>1646500
No, you're still same fagging Teal. Everybody knows your game now. And the "x's" don't show anything. What impossibility? It's a ball, not a drafting project. ANY KIND OF OVERLAPPING WOULD BE SUFFICE AS LONG AS IT LOOKS PRACTICAL. You're just saying you don't approve of the orientation or some butthurt personal reason like that. So, what? You're not some drawing gatekeeper. You're just a shut-in that thinks he always has something important to tell us noobs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:19:44 2014 No.1646515 >>1646511 what threads?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:24:14 2014 No.1646517 >>1646459 >>1646514 not much of a bait if you name your filenames like that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:24:14 2014 No.1646518 >>1646514 >2014 >being this told

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:31:14 2014 No.1646519 >>1646517 it's just a filename why let that bother you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:33:14 2014 No.1646520 >>1640419 that's what your mom said

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 01:46:15 2014 No.1646528 File: 28 KB, 818x788, line.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >impossible placement

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 02:11:46 2014 No.1646536 >>1646528 I see a cross-contour for the xy plane, one for the yz plane, but none for the xz plane. No idea what you want to accomplish with that arbitrary third cross-contour you have there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 02:36:18 2014 No.1646544 >>1646536 that's cause they ALL are arbitrary. They don't really serve any point other than you wanting cartesian plane.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 02:42:19 2014 No.1646546
File: 33 KB, 898x1068, sinker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>imbosibruu braashment

Now, I'm finally ready to draw a fucking cartoon head. Hooray, you guys. I couldn't have gotten this far if I didn't spend hours trying to figure out these damn ellipses. Now for sure my shit will look like loomis's.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 03:23:05 2014 No.1646563

>>1646544
Considering this is a Loomis thread, I assumed the goal is to draw a head. In that case, the xy plane would be the browline (roughly), the yz plane would be the midline down the center of the face, and the xz plane would go down the side of the head, marking where the ear and jawline go. You've drawn two of those planes, and a third arbitrary plane that won't help any with construction.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 03:52:05 2014 No.1646568

>>1646563
A curve or two would suffice more easily. It's a cartoon head, not a 4 way valve. And if you actually bothered to read the book you'd surmize that if you can get one thing aligned pleasingly the rest will follow suite. But if you want to waste time with planes and coordinates keep choking that time waster all you want. Go waste your own time, not everybody else's. Have fun!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 03:58:05 2014 No.1646570 >>1646496 >>1646563 >>1646227 >>1646094 >>1645952 >>1645269 >>1645798 >>1645798 >be struggling with finding the top of the head and other elliptical stuff for 2 weeks >this thread >ignore bullshit >one step closer to victory Thanks, guys.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 04:49:10 2014 No.1646591
File: 199 KB, 1000x756, funwithatablet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I basically spent the last few years drawing anime stuff with no real base idea of form or anatomy, and I'm trying to get used to a tablet, so I'm doing some fun with a pencil stuff to start off.

It was a bit bland until I realized I could draw wacky dudes instead of the older gentlemen Loomis was drawing. I know a lot of this construction stuff from art classes I've taken, but since these are based more on faces it's still sorta interesting.

Now I gotta figure out why my tablet sometimes draws weird squiggly lines like it's on a rough surface

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 05:17:26 2014 No.1646599 File: 8 KB, 205x246, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I used too think I understood FwaP >after reading this thread I don't know what to think anymore

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 05:25:42 2014 No.1646601 so much feel. them circles are not simple as they used to be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 05:27:42 2014 No.1646602 >>1646591 i'd generally recommend using it as much as possible. use it instead of your computer mouse. the more you use it the more you will get used to it

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 05:43:43 2014 No.1646609 File: 608 KB, 1000x1000, Fugly.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1645387 >ITT: too stubborn to learn perspective And being faggots towards people trying to teach.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 12:20:25 2014 No.1646824 >>1646609 >wasting time on needless shit >not being able to take criticism >not proving a damn thing Ittttttt

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 15:01:01 2014 No.1646957 File: 69 KB, 1400x1050, faec.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1636269 some critic?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 16:15:09 2014 No.1647000 you guys are getting this pissed off over circle philosophy? i now understand how ancient greeks lost their shit over the number 0.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 16:57:39 2014 No.1647037
File: 20 KB, 683x764, it always the same.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1646609
Why does a sphere have to be at eye-level to draw a line through it? It's completely isotropic. The ellipses can be at any angle to each other. There is no reason to believe they always have to perpendicular to each other. Wherever they cross is a point on the sphere, and sense the ellipse is symmetrical (like the sphere) the other crossing point will always be in symmetry (on the other side of the sphere)

All that was said was you're wasting time worrying about ellipses and their orientation. Most of the shit your drawing and thinking about aren't required to get the drawing done. Even Loomis said it doesn't need to be perfect. You're just drawing to the appearance. You're wasting time worrying about what can't be seen in the final drawing.

P.S. Stop browning nosing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 17:00:10 2014 No.1647039 >>1647037 I don't think geometry knowledge is ever wasted, especially in drawing and even if it isn't seen in the final product.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 17:32:39 2014 No.1647073
File: 14 KB, 380x226, not just shifted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For those not sure if the dimensionality of the ellipse gives important info for drawing a circle in perspective. The blue lines are the actual dimensions of the ellipse. The red lines are the dimension of the circle in perspective. Notice they are orientated differently, not just shifted. This is because the dimensions of the ellipse has no relevancy to the perspective, it's just showing the Major and Minor of a flat shape.

Could you have drawn the ellipse PRECISELY as the circle in perspective? Probably not. Close but not exact. But this is silly to worry about when all you're concerned with is if it looks good. So that all begs the question: Why are you so worried about the ellipse being exact?

The ellipse is a part of the guessing in drawing. Guess well enough and it helps. But being concerned about the backend of a sphere (a part the viewer won't see) is not all that helpful. And thinking about Major and Minors is a waste of time--especially if all you're drawing is a cartoon head for fun.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 17:38:39 2014 No.1647077

>>1647039
Never said it's all wasteful, just implied you shouldn't waste time on needless things. If you want to draft something, fine. Go all out! But if the the goal is to just draw a silly cartoon head, do you really want waste time establishing geometrical proofs?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 17:48:09 2014 No.1647090 File: 219 KB, 1224x792, openswim.fwap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1646599 I still don't undetstand fwap

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 17:52:39 2014 No.1647095 >>1647077 This thread isn't just about drawing cartoon heads. A few people asked specifically how to draw the equators on a ball that is more than guesswork.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 18:01:09 2014 No.1647098 >>1647095 >how to draw the equators on a ball And worry about what? Why all the indulgence with geometrical axioms? Where's the pertinent need to be autistically worried if the lines goes perfectly around the ball?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 18:04:39 2014 No.1647104 >>1647098 Why do you worry about what other people want to learn? Because you don't know how, you need to argue about it?

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 18:31:39 2014 No.1647123
File: 30 KB, 824x759, FWAP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1647104
Why are you so hung up on this? An observation was made: you're trivializing shit too much. Then some of you people want "geometrical proof" for that. What? Are you serious? And worst, some of you are acting like this trivializing bullshit is the only way someone can learn this.

A counter point was made. It was challenged and met. At this point it should be you letting shit go. If you want to waste your time trivializing things go right ahead, ignore me for all I care. I'm not preaching like I know the "secret", the ultimate way to draw. I just made the observation that you're trivializing some shit too much.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 18:59:02 2014 No.1647144
File: 913 KB, 366x432, 1350336042616.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1647123
I am the person who originally asked the question and i can't agree with this more. I learned that shit a few days ago and it's actually pretty simple. I learned it by ignoring most of the technical shit about ellipses. Only a few things are really important. And that's why i agree with this and similar posts.

FFS, stop asking this stupid question over and over again. You don't need to draw a mathematically perfect ellipse. That's not what the drawings requires and it wont make any of you better. Focus on drawing the fucking head in different positions and shut the fuck up about it. This thread got way too much derailed with all this useless crap.

I also happen to be the wanker who made that fucking thread and I am much more interested in seeing people working on Loomis, what their latest drawings look like, what they learned from it, their progress, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 19:03:33 2014 No.1647150 >>1647077 Yes, since it will be beneficial in the long run. But it's just my point of view: I don't want to be stuck drawing silly cartoon heads all my life.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 19:24:02 2014 No.1647173

>>1647150
Keep believing that in the longnrun. Or better yet don't draw cartoon heads since they won't help in the long run. You basically have two options really: learn what and when to use certain approaches, or keep doing everything and hope for the best in the long run.

I wonder which will be more productive? And which will burn you out from tedious repetition. best of luck!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 2 19:51:02 2014 No.1647204 >>1647173 Thanks mate. You too.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 20:02:02 2014 No.1647210

I could use a bit of help, I haven't been able to draw much last week due to college responsibilities, right now I decided I did enough of Loomins' "Funny Faces" and moved on to page 39-40 of Loomins' Fun With a Pencil.

This is an album of stuff I did last month: http://imgur.com/a/4fWqp, my guess is that I should just focus now on doing the Divided Ball and Plane drawings over and over again to set this into stone in my mind, but I'd like to know if I'm going the right way.

Will be uploading what I've done of the Ball and Plane in a minute.

Anonymous Sun Feb 2 21:55:53 2014 No.1647294
File: 1.61 MB, 1159x1500, mzGkqvL.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1647210
Fuck the ball, work on your linework. Everything looks stiff and forced--loosen up. You like draw it's a chore. Learn to be a little free-er and looser. Don't hold you pencil so rigid, use the side more. Think "free and loose" then worry about the other stuff

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 08:54:11 2014 No.1647618

>>1647294

Could you explain to me what you mean by "use the side more"?

Also for loosening up, just draw more of this, or anything else in particular? I used to do Gestures from that page with them, but I thought I was way too crude to get into them, because most of them were either a few sticks or horrible. Even 90 seconds weren't enough for me.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 11:51:20 2014 No.1647677
File: 221 KB, 887x488, How to hold the pen 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1647618
Keep your strokes light and loose starting out; meaning let your arm and hand do most of the thinking by feeling the shapes and forms. Some people hover over the surface practicing the motion before lightly touching down. Others lightly glide on the surface until they have something manageable. In either case you're not worried about exactness or immediately making the picture look complete, you're building up to that by starting vague (light and loose).

stupid Proko video for further reference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pMC0Cx3Uk84

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:07:37 2014 No.1647690 >>1638326 only you can say that, it's the difference between giving up and keepin on

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:10:07 2014 No.1647695 I know "You fags, will argue over anything" is kind of an old adage on 4chan, but I seriously never thought I'd see the day when you'd all argue over fucking circles.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:32:37 2014 No.1647707

>>1647695

It's not an argument over circles. More like some people arguing that a very basic drawing procedure that can be done freehand in seconds, is somehow too complex to learn or useless for drawing cartoons, when it's actually done in animation all the time. Because they think it's not worth it, no one else should learn it either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:37:37 2014 No.1647713 >>1647677 Thank you for the advice, I deeply appreciate it. Time to do everything I've done in January again, taking this into account.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 13:59:27 2014 No.1647747

>>1647707
>very basic drawing procedure that can be done freehand in seconds
Geometrical proofs aren't basic when it comes to doodling. There is a time and a place for everything. If the goal is to draw a round form to model into something else, and you're hung up on coordinate planes, where the major and minor axis is, and if things "truly" are perpendicular, you're going about it all wrong. You're investing in ideas not suited for the task at hand. This is cartoon drawing, not mechanical drafting.

>is somehow too complex to learn or useless for drawing cartoons
Never said knowing geometry is detrimental, just pointed out that YOU are investing too much effort for the given task. Why draw a million draft lines when a few are more than enough?

>when it's actually done in animation all the time
Yeah because the complexity of animation calls for it. And to note even then, they either simplify it or use computers to help cut corners. Drawing a cartoon doesn't have that complexity. And if you ever watch a professional animator doodle for fun you'll notice they don't draw a bunch of axioms to get the job done.

>Because they think it's not worth it, no one else should learn it either.
Again, only said it wasn't pertinent. The big problem here is people like you, who don't want to hear ANY kind of criticism. It's not me telling others they shouldn't learn X, it's you telling others that X is the only way anyone should do it. By your selfish exclusivity you drown out all other voices and make this all about how you think everyone is suppose to draw. The problem really is people like you.

It's ironic that people like you are more than eager to point out the follies of others, but get buttfrustrated when others do it to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:25:27 2014 No.1647781 >>1645798 here i figured it out finally thanks to this post >>1645841 and watching marshal vandruff's video 20 times. It's just about where the VP is, like holding a lollipop, or barbell in the video.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:26:27 2014 No.1647784 >>1647781 i also want to add that Teal was originally correct. (Obviously) and it's actually a great guide for drawing ellipses.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:40:57 2014 No.1647800

>>1638064
not sure if that's several pages later but he does show you the ball with the back lines and temporary lines as well in that part of the book. if you're in the beginning try looking a few pages further or back. if you didn't see that picture yet he probably wants you to focus on structuring the face, not making perfect lines.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:50:58 2014 No.1647815 >>1640247 try making the structuring circles bigger. like, have them touch each other. after you draw the base sphere, just add circles and make a shape out of them, then figure out how to continue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:57:27 2014 No.1647820 just had one go at ops image what is this stuff?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:58:57 2014 No.1647822 File: 1.76 MB, 2448x3264, Photo 03-02-2014 19 50 04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1647820

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:59:27 2014 No.1647823

>>1647747
> It's not me telling others they shouldn't learn X, it's you telling others that X is the only way anyone should do it.

I presented several ways, to people who specifically asked for it, how to draw the equators correctly. You injected yourself into the conversation, whined a lot, claimed that drawing ellipses based on axis is incorrect, then later saying drawing ellipses correctly isn't important, then presented a method for drawing ellipses that isn't practical in "doodling", made personal attacks, and showed your limited knowledge by drawing several spheres incorrectly, making mistakes that are obvious even intuitively, and doodled a face that doesn't match the cross contours on a ball.

Which, really, is fine by me. It really is. My concern is not you. I just hope others take a look at the spheres you've drawn, which somehow are messed up even though you didn't draw them freehand, and think carefully what they ought to learn.

And to any of those people, if the basic premise of ellipses and axis are confusing, please, please go back to Perspective Made Easy. And Fun with a Pencil is *not* a book about cartooning.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 15:39:28 2014 No.1647880

>>1647823
>I presented several ways, to people who specifically asked for it, how to draw the equators correctly.

No you didn't, you reiterated the same stuff but in different ways. And when they weren't getting it you shrugged them off as if you couldn't dumb it down enough for them. (Which really shows how poor you are at communicating) You have a problem of seeing the situation only from your narrow mindedness. It never once occurred to you that this adherence to the equator is trivializing things too much.

I couldn't give two shits what you think about me or my drawings. I've told you time and again my points and it was up to you to either take it or leave it. All you've done is given perverted interpretations of drawing and over trivialized the most mundane features. You're shit at giving advice, you're just an elaborate promissory note with no real real substance, and get frustrated when you don't know how to communicate with others.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 16:08:19 2014 No.1647917
File: 59 KB, 679x516, Argument_Pyramid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1647880
You seem to be missing the point of being able to draw 3 perpendicular equitorial lines accurately, which has already been demonstrated in this thread.

>you shrugged them off as if you couldn't dumb it down enough for them
>poor you are at communicating
>your narrow mindedness
>You're shit at giving advice, you're just an elaborate promissory note with no real real substance, and get frustrated when you don't know how to communicate with others.
Pic related, and inb4 samefag

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 16:11:19 2014 No.1647921 >>1647880 >And when they weren't getting it That's strange, it seems you're the only one who doesn't understand these concepts. Other posters seemed fine with those explanations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 16:18:19 2014 No.1647925 >>1647822 Count Dooku

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 16:23:49 2014 No.1647927

>>1647880
>you reiterated the same stuff but in different ways.

All methods are reiterating the same stuff in different ways. You didn't actually present one. You just told people who specifically wanted to learn methods with higher accuracy that it isn't important, all the while drawing spheres with wonky contours.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 16:49:49 2014 No.1647952

>>1647927
>>1647921
Yeah you're still samefagging. But now you're also fishing for trouble.

And the problem has nothing do with accuracy, that's something you're droning on about. I basically said you're trivializing shit too much--worrying about accuracy too much. So I'm not going present a "better method" because that has no relevance.

This is amazing, you're so short sighted you can't understand a basic observation that you're giving too much consideration for a simple thing. But then again, why I should anyone be shocked when come in a FWaP thread and tell people, "And Fun with a Pencil is *not* a book about cartooning."

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:09:20 2014 No.1647982

>>1647952

>worrying about accuracy too much.

Reread the thread again. This was presented after someone asked for a more exacting method. I obliged. You came in to say it was wrong, then that it was too accurate. You need to make up your mind.

Again, you can feel however you want about it. I just hope others take a careful look at what's been presented. What works, what doesn't and what is a lot of hot air.

>So I'm not going present a "better method" because that has no relevance.

It's clear you don't have a method.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:13:20 2014 No.1647988

>>1647952
>I basically said you're trivializing shit too much--worrying about accuracy too much.

trivialize: to make (something) seem less important or serious than it actually is

You seem to be the one trivializing constructing equatorials across a sphere in perspective.

You don't seem to understand the relevance of concepts shown in this thread, and you only aim to disrupt others' learning without providing any counter-arguments. Stop shitting up a thread just because you can't into perspective.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:18:20 2014 No.1647994 File: 196 KB, 969x696, gesture drawings 02 03 2014.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] jebus, fuck geture

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:23:08 2014 No.1647997

>>1647952
> why I should anyone be shocked when come in a FWaP thread and tell people, "And Fun with a Pencil is *not* a book about cartooning."

And honestly, I really do appreciate your adherence to the Socratic method. It certainly got me spending more time here.

But for anyone else who is reading FwaP and possibly harboring this idea, do understand it is not a cartooning book. Rather, it's Loomis' clever way of getting people to construct and draw using primitives, who would otherwise balk at the idea of the traditional approach of drawing basic basic shapes and still-lifes first. So if any of the stuff on spheres and boxes seem at all foreign, then read Perspective Made Simple in tandem with Loomis. It will make the experience so much easier and faster.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:29:39 2014 No.1648001

>>1647982
>>1647988
I don't care why you stated your shit, I made an observation about you putting too much worry on accuracy.

If there's is any disruption here, it's you being ill equip to take criticism. You seemed to think you're some kind of authority over others, as if all learning has to go through you first.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:43:08 2014 No.1648008 >>1647997 Nobody cares about your shitty literary interpretations. You're not an authority on Loomis, and even if you think you are, it is still only a book about having fun drawing. Get over yourself.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:44:38 2014 No.1648009

>>1648001

It could have gone through you. It should have gone through you, if you knew how to do things well. And, seeing what little work you've posted, you pr5obably can do things well. But you didn't take the initiative to help. You didn't take the initiative to present a proper method. You'd rather spend time drawing spheres with bad equators that you somehow messed up on despite using the ellipse tool, and telling other people it doesn't matter.

But again, it's not about you. I just hope, for the people who actually reading Loomis, that you actually read it and move beyond the first few chapter. Stuff like this will come into play.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:57:55 2014 No.1648017

>>1648009
If all you wanted to do is put your thumbs in your ears and twiddle your fingers squeaking, "Nana boo boo I can draw better than you!" then go ahead. I told you once I dont give two shits about what you think of me or my drawing ability. I'm not the one going around expecting others to brownnose me over whatever shit I might pooh pooh. So go ahead and go through me all you want, it won't change shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 19:38:11 2014 No.1648099 >>1647104 because this thread isn't about how to perfectly draw a ball? Make a new thread.

Anonymous Tue Feb 4 15:44:43 2014 No.1648704
File: 1.87 MB, 2000x915, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So this is three days worth of drawings... I'm not sure if I got better or just more boring. I played with the levels to make them a bit clearer but I'll upload the original if it looks buggered on other peoples monitors.

Any advice? I have no idea how I'm this inconsistent.

Oh and one of the drawings on the first page is badly stolen from earlier in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 6 18:25:42 2014 No.1650990 just in case bump

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique