[ 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: 152 KB, 409x474, loomis Ref 3 faces.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2498916 No.2498916 [Reply] [Original]

Want to create a thread for people who are currently or have study the Loomis method. New to the method and want to incorporate it into my process in a efficient matter. If you have worked with this method your feed back is very welcome. If you post your work in here please show your reference material.

>> No.2498920
File: 1.26 MB, 1536x2048, Drawing Male head 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2498920

>>2498916
This was a 44 minute study, try to work quicker focusing on larger shapes rather the detail.

>> No.2498921
File: 135 KB, 667x768, ref Drawing Male head 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2498921

>>2498920

>> No.2498931

Anon, i haven't read Loomis but i am drawing portraits from over three years.
And i can tell you that these two peraons don't look the same.
The proportions are not at all same. And in my opinion details of measurements and proportions matter and yes that of shading is a sexondary thing.

>> No.2498933
File: 284 KB, 750x750, loomis_portrait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2498933

amidoinitrite

>> No.2498939

>>2498920
either the face is too big or the cranium mass is too small.

compare the overall shape between the drawing and the ref.

>> No.2498964

>>2498920
why is it so stiff? what paper did you draw it on?

>> No.2498982

>>2498964
i don't think it's the paper.
The edge control needs work.
He has firm edges where there should be soft ones and vice versa.

>> No.2499029

>>2498933
needs less Loomis

>> No.2499056
File: 1.10 MB, 1536x2048, Touch up.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2499056

>>2498931
OP Here, you are right looks nothing like it, wondering why I even posted. (touch up pic)
>>2498939 Defiantly, I took the wrong measurement, embarrassed I did not catch it,
>>2498964
Newprint,
>>2498982
You are correct, this was more of a structure study then a value, but will have a greater awareness for value in next Drawing.