[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   
File: 606 KB, 2000x1000, 1408036652280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1826737 No.1826737[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

how the fuck do I learn and practice values?
I've been having trouble with them for a few years now and I don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

>> No.1826748

work in grayscale, graphite, pencil, gray paint or whatever medium you use
you can grayscale photos if you want or get one of those gray value sheets and punch holes in it

>> No.1826757

>>1826748
Seconding this guy.

>> No.1826762
File: 673 KB, 2111x1300, Shishkin_DozVDubLesu_114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1826762

Maybe you have poor study references. Try analyzing/checking masters' paintings. It's also that you're trying to paint lighting circumstances that are hard to pull off since the values are so close to each other.

>> No.1826770

>>1826748
addendum
punching holes in the gray value sheets allows you to look through them at a subject or part of whatever you're studying and more readily match their tone with whatever gray you have, when working outside or just from life in general.

True black and white film photography is top tier for this as well. It renders value differently than grayscaled color photos.

>> No.1826781

>>1826737
Paint in grey scale/monochrome. Values are more obvious with obstructing colors

>> No.1826821

>>1826748
i understand why people would suggest this it seems logical but i disagree.

value is part of a colour. if you want to do value in colour you need to treat it that way. if you do a bunch of grey scale stuff all the time you'll start to think of value as grey-scale. which it isn't.

then you'll come to rely on extra steps to work out value, using greys for comparison, doing special thumbnails just for value etc.

i think the best thing to do is paint accurately, if the colour is right the value is right too.

>> No.1826826

>>1826821
never give advice again

>> No.1826829

>>1826821
As the other anon said; it's time to hang up your keyboard.

>> No.1826831

>>1826826
>>1826829
not him, but what part of what he said do you disagree with, and why?

>> No.1826832

>>1826831
>making his samefag too obvious

top kek

>> No.1826833

>>1826832
I didn't even voice an opinion on whether or not he was right. You know what's worse than a samefag? a plain ol' fag who goes around crying 'samefag' at every turn.

>> No.1826834

>>1826833
>he
>me

FTFY

>> No.1826838

>>1826834
So are you actually able to express why you think the statement is incorrect, or or you incapable of forming a thought? Because we can go back and forth with your samefag whining all night.

>> No.1826841

>>1826838
>Because we can go back and forth with your samefag whining all night
>wasting time

no wonder you give bad advice

>> No.1826844

>>1826841
I'll take that as a firm "no." Carry on crying then.

>> No.1826846

>>1826844
bad advice makes me cry :'(

>> No.1826847

>>1826846
Maybe it is bad, I still haven't given my opinion. But it's really sad that you can't even explain why you think the advice is bad, and you have to troll and change the topic instead.

>> No.1826849

>>1826847
yes I'm just trolling, the advice is sound and good, be sure to follow it!

>> No.1826851

>>1826849
I'm not even arguing with you, just asking you to explain your position.

>> No.1826886
File: 30 KB, 360x201, 1315.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1826886

>>1826821
>value is a part of color
No, no it isn't. Put either of the color paintings above in gray-scale and they still work perfectly as images on a basis of values; the absence of color does not obviate the quality of those images.

Good god some of you people are rock-stupid. Please go and study art for a change before you bandy about your dumb-ass opinions.

>> No.1826888

>>1826886
oh my

>> No.1826893

color + value is incredibly hard in tandem. working only in value for a while is absolutely recommended.

>> No.1826895

>>1826886
that's not absence of colour that's absence of hue, there's no such thing as absence of colour.

if you can see it it's a colour.

>> No.1826903

>>1826895
>that's not absence of colour that's absence of hue
Yeah, semantics-nazi that's what we meant, and that's what the poster I replied to meant, as he was complaining that working in grayscale, ie a lack of color other than black and white, was erroneous as color, ie other colors than black and white, were integrally part of value.

>if you can see it it's a colour.

Man, thanks for this, that just blew my mind.

>> No.1827011

>>1826903
that was me. that's my point.

remember when i said that you can fall into the trap of thinking value is something separate from colour..well buddy, you're in it.

value is a part of colour. not even that really, value is an emergent property of colour.

in learning to colour well you will learn to value well. it's a metaphysical impossibility to not know value if you can colour. just as it's impossible to have the whole without having all it's parts.

and in my opinion as you've got to learn about colour at some point you might as well learn it all at once. i think it's an easier and more natural way to learn, allowing you to 'travel in colorspace' all the faster.

perhaps i'm wrong. but if you recall my actual advice was only, "i think the best thing to do is paint accurately." and i stand by that.

sorry to go on and on.

>> No.1827017

>>1827011
Problem is that "hue" and "colour" are used interchangeably in everyday life, while colour is the combination of hue, value and saturation.
>desperate for a definition of "hue" that doesn't use the word "colour"
>anyone?

>> No.1827063

>>1827017
yeah you're right it was super dumb of me to assume people would all use colour in an artistic context (not sarcasm).

i don't think it's really possible to define hue without colour. in the same manner as it's impossible to define a particular hue without mentioning colour, unless you reduce color to it's definition.

so you can say 'a hue is a position on the spectrum of visible light whereby it has maximum intensity given the wavelength' or whatever, but it's pretty fatuous to say the least.

i think, and i might be misremembering, that etymologically it actually originally referred to complexion. but um, well i think it's interesting anyway.

sage for off-topic bullshit