[ 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: 75 KB, 1024x640, linran.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3255114 No.3255114 [Reply] [Original]

How do I separate between areas in light and areas in shadow when drawing from imagination? I don't have much problems with other fundamentals, but when it comes to this I really get stuck. Whenever I try and paint light on a surface it feels wrong and I never seem to get it right

I have trained with basic forms like spheres etc. but I have a hard time applying those to the human body

Any resources that I shoud check out on this specifically?

>> No.3255134
File: 503 KB, 1254x885, 1365690727561.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3255134

Look at the image I've posted and think again about how you say that study sphere and boxes. If you can do that and understand that you're painting masses from a single light source - than all you're doing is painting more of those boxes and circles from at various degrees and angles. What I suggest is after you have your sketch done, apply a light source anywhere on your drawing and direct your light like you would your contour, or even apply your shadows on top of your previously established contour drawing. Taking note also where forms touch together (occlusion) or where on form overlaps another (cast shadow).

>> No.3255135
File: 254 KB, 1600x940, 1368132083518.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3255135

>>3255134
another good reference

>> No.3255650

>>3255114
>How do I separate between areas in light and areas in shadow
By using different values for the light and different for the shadow.

Break them down into big abstract shapes. The lightest value in the darks should still be darker than the darkest value in the lights.

>> No.3255677

>>3255134
How to render a box like the one at the top?

>> No.3256535

>>3255135
tight

>> No.3256539

>>3255677
Use gradients so that the lighter part of one would connect to the darker side of the other

>> No.3256566

Rendering in value is so fucking easy when you understand local values.

An easy way to think of it is:
Every object has their own inherit value according to their color. Reds are usually very 50% grey, blues and purples are 70% or so, and yellows are 20% roughly. Now that you have this value, you average the distance to your blackest value to get your shadow.

So let's say your object was a 4 on a 1-10 greyscale. The shadow value would be a 7 and the highlight/specular would be around 2.5.

In your image, the front figure has a darker inherit value, so the lightest part of her will -never- reach the value of the other figure's lightest value.

Foreground figure could be a 3 - 5 - 7.5 value range and the background figure would be a 2 - 3 - 6.5 (the darkest part is under her nose).

Also remember that the less highlight you show, the better. Let the interaction between the midtone and the shadow do most of the work. On that foreground figure's face, there's only five little spota of highlights, and the rest is two values.
The background figure is almost only just two values.

What makes this impressive apart from the technical skill is the exertly crafted edge transitions and utilization.

>> No.3256571

>>3256566
To elaborate on highlights:
Highlights act as an opposite core shadow.

Core shadows indicate a "corner" that transitions into shadow with reflected light. Highlights indicate a "corner" between two planes in the light.

So if you have two midtone planes that are bent slightly away from the light, but not enough to be in shadow, the resulting corner would be a highlight.

The softer the edge of the highlight, the less glossy the material is.

>> No.3256572

>>3255114
i just think of everything as a bunch of weird shaped eggs, works for me.

>> No.3256579

>>3256566
>Rendering in value is so fucking easy

Post work

>> No.3256687

>>3256579
Pathetic

>> No.3256691

>>3256687

Making a claim that anything in art is "fucking easy" is truly pathetic.

>> No.3256699

>>3255135
reilly method tho. never liked that

>> No.3256722

>>3256691
>continuing to try and argue instead of helping out op
Yeah right, and I'm the bad guy here?
If you think you can give better advice then let's hear it.

>> No.3258354
File: 206 KB, 529x836, 1510922988418.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3258354

>>3256566
you reminded me of this pic

>> No.3258356
File: 208 KB, 1024x1325, 1474132203536.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3258356

have a relevant tutorial

>> No.3258595

>>3258356

Not OP but thanks for this.

>> No.3258649

>>3255114
who dis by??

>> No.3258822

>>3258649
it's a study of a statue by Lin Ran.

>> No.3258833

>>3256566
wrong

>> No.3258835

>>3258833
Your turn?

>> No.3258848

>>3258835
rendering =/ lighting m8 so u have no idea what youre even talkin about not even worth it

>> No.3258849

>>3258848
Then correct me, so we can further get along.

>> No.3258867

>>3258849
rendering is literally just having a clear and concrete representation of what is being reproduced. lighting is how objects are *affected* by light. what you were babbling on about are natural frequencies of objects when affected by light. that is why we can see any color and value in normal light. the reason its difficult to understand lighting is because people are not trained enough to see just how dark values can be so dark and how light values can be so light. to compare both, rendering is a lot more complex because of how everything just doesnt have the same edges and cleanness as other objects and can be a lot more tricky to repoduce, thats why drawing is much harder than painting.