/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4835515]

>grinding loomis for 16 hours everyday

[Anonymous No.4835518]

GMI

[Anonymous No.4835523]

>not going full 17 hrs
NGMI

[Anonymous No.4835604]

LINGLING is grinding 40h a day, NGMI

[Anonymous No.4835612]

>>4835604

[Anonymous No.4835614]

>>4835515
AHHHHHHH IM LOOMINGGGGG AHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.4835676]

[Anonymous No.4836672]

I'm going through Loomis's head and hands book right now (just focussing on the heads though). Can I please get some advice?

[Anonymous No.4836680]

>>4835604
Of you can draw slowly, you can draw quickly.

[Anonymous No.4836688]

>>4836672
You shouldn't really copy drawingsfrom his book, you should study them

[Anonymous No.4836696]

>>4836688
beg here. what does that mean? why is drawing them not considered studying them?

[Anonymous No.4836700]

>>4836688
when doing a study of a painting you copy and breakdown the painting, don't you? Is it different with pencil drawing?

[Anonymous No.4836719]

>>4836672
reading through it now too.. hate how this nigga is so good

[Anonymous No.4836723]

unironically how many hours per day should you be drawing if you want to git gud within a few years?

[Anonymous No.4836735]

>>4836723
5-6 hours
-- Feng Zhu

[Anonymous No.4836748]

>>4836672
once you have the planes do the shading

[Anonymous No.4837040]

>>4836672
I did a few more studies from some of the illustrations he does while using the ball and cross method. If anyone has any advice I would really appreciate hearing what you think.
>>4836719
Yeah some of his example drawings are not very instructive. It's clear that he has a very strong short hand that skips over some bits, but I appreciate his ability to strip the key drawings back to their essentials
>>4836748
thanks, I did some drawings from his breakdowns of the planes of the face. I'll try doing his shading examples next
>>4836688
I am curious about this too, is it that bad? I saw some posters in another thread mocking others for doing "150 floating Loomis heads" but I'm not sure how to study them without at least drawing them in some way. There was also someone deriding another poster for being an "/asg/ copyfag". Surely copying from reference is at least better than nothing?

[Anonymous No.4837052]

>>4836723
if you want drawing to be your job, you have to draw like it's your job

[Anonymous No.4837149]

>>4836723
you can easily get good in 2-3 years if you draw for 4+ hours a day (actually time it) and direct your study to an actual end. don't just mindlessly grind fundies

[Anonymous No.4837151]

>>4837149
>direct your study to an actual end
what does this even mean

[Anonymous No.4837171]

>>4837151
It just means having some kind of goal that your study is supposed to work toward or address. Something specific and tangible, like studying a certain lightning set up, studying the muscles/forms of the arm, studying bird wing anatomy, studying human teeth. As opposed to mindlessly grinding out 200 boxes in perspective for the hundreth time without any clear direction for what the study's supposed to help with

[Anonymous No.4837172]

>>4837151
It does mean that you have to set your archivements clear. Don't draw for 4-6 hours without any purpose. Check your goals and correct your mistakes. Learn, study, observe.

[Anonymous No.4837485]

>>4837151
loomis teaches you something now apply it

[Anonymous No.4837590]

>>4836719
He really isn’t though

[Anonymous No.4837768]

>>4835523
>sleep
ngmi

[Anonymous No.4837810]

>>4837040
Nah this is correct, you first copy them, then later you try to draw it again from memory and compare to see what you retained.
It is also good practice to try and draw it in poses not available in the references; if you capture the likeness of the face, it means you were successful.

[Anonymous No.4838369]

>>4836688
Copying is a means of study.

[Anonymous No.4838464]

>>4837040
here are some more drawings I did from Loomis's head and hands book. It's from the section about "modelling the planes" and adding value. Please give me some advice
>>4837810
thanks, I'll try doing some of his faces from memory tonight to see what I can come up with

[Anonymous No.4839736]

>>4835676
based loomer

[Anonymous No.4839779]

>>4838464
I did some more heads using the Loomis method. These are from imagination based on some of my studies from before. I think I draw the features too squished to one side sometimes, or the construction is too skewed. Let me know what you think.

[Anonymous No.4839804]

>>4835515
At even just 2 hours a day, a month would be enough to cover loomis, if not two weeks. Sign up for my mentorship for $75 a month and I’ll customize your training schedule for your needs and goals.

[Anonymous No.4839955]

>Come home after work
>Make three loomis heads, already tired
>They are pretty shitty.

[Anonymous No.4840027]

>>4839955
Hey man, I did a redraw of the bottom blook head. I think the trouble mostly comes from a misalignment of the features/the initial cross on the ball. It's a really tricky angle, even with reference, so good on you for attempting it. Just don't forget to actually look at and understand what you're drawing! Check the angles and the directions that the lines are going, and where your lines differ.

Here, you've got the shapes of the head right, but all the details are going down and to the right instead of up and to the right. I don't mean to pick on you, but I thought the nostrils in the second drawing were kind of funny. You've got them going horizontally along the nose as opposed to how they should be. Check out Betty Edward's book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, I think it goes pretty in depth with regards to 'drawing what you see' as opposed to drawing what you think you know.

The top head is actually pretty decent, for what it's worth!

[Anonymous No.4840075]

loomers unite!

[Anonymous No.4840154]

>>4836723
If you are smart you can get really good by merely drawing 1 hour a day.

[Anonymous No.4840216]

>>4836672
>>4837040
>>4838464
>>4839779
>>4839955
>>4840075

You guys gave me nostalgia.
I have studied Loomis 10 years ago. I attemps were worse, but i did learn a lot from him.
I might go through his books again and compare with studies i made 10 years ago.

[Anonymous No.4840255]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.4840281]

Jack Hamm is the ultimate redpill

[Anonymous No.4840316]

>>4840216
Pyw

[Anonymous No.4840318]

>>4840216
Pyw

[Anonymous No.4840399]

>>4840281
>1000s of drawings!
>bunch of curlicues you can copy paste to make ""ears""
>literally only covers front and side view
no thanks.

*seascapes and landscapes is god tier though

[Anonymous No.4840413]

>>4840027
Thanks a lot, I think I get what you say. I’ll make another attempt.

[Anonymous No.4840755]

>>4839779
I did some more Loomis studies of the example drawings in his book. These ones were harder to construct but I like his old school rendering style. Any advice for what to try next would be helpful
>>4840075
Wow, these look awesome! The values work super well on all of them, really makes the head feel solid. Even the ones with Xs on them looks nice
>>4840216
It's kind of fun actually

[Anonymous No.4841073]

>>4835515
Loomis is for losers!

Real artists copy and trace everything they see!

THAT is how you make it /ic/ crabs!

[Anonymous No.4841122]

>>4835515
what does art look like from someone who grinds loomis for 16 hours a day?

[Anonymous No.4841170]

>>4841122
https://www.artstation.com/nabetse/albums/all

[Anonymous No.4841303]

Wow I finally finished drawing every single one of Loomis' weird caricature people in fun with a pencil. I can't wait to try drawing from imagination and see the results of my hard work!

[Anonymous No.4841305]

>>4841303
Oh God what the fuck fuck you loomis

[Anonymous No.4841307]

>>4841305
soul
>>4840755
soulless

[Anonymous No.4841320]

I was practicing loomis in school and some girl approaches me and asks me why am I drawing robots... never did loomis ever again

[Anonymous No.4841936]

>>4840755
This time I did some portraits from photo references, to try and apply the studies I've been doing from Loomis's book. I guess these still count as studies though, not full independent application or whatever. Any crits? Right direction, wrong direction?
>>4841305
>study a bunch of active, swinging ladies
>applies it by drawing a sitting man
Lolll, but seriously keep at it dude. I think the face is the strongest part for sure. Look at the sitting Loomis pose you drew and try to apply it to your character, the legs especially

[Anonymous No.4841947]

>>4840755 (You)
This time I did some portraits from photo references, to try and apply the studies I've been doing from Loomis's book. I guess these still count as studies though, not full independent application or whatever. Any crits? Right direction, wrong direction?
Reposting because I forgot to resize
>>4841305
>study a bunch of active, swinging ladies
>applies it by drawing a sitting man
Lolll, but seriously keep at it dude. I think the face is the strongest part for sure. Look at the sitting Loomis pose you drew and try to apply it to your character, the legs especially

[Anonymous No.4841967]

>>4841947
I admire you just for your dedication alone. Gmi. Never give up.

[Anonymous No.4842187]

I can't get the heads right from the front facing view. This shit feels like a trap on some days!

[Anonymous No.4842233]

>>4835515
How do I study from this page?, I try to copy the drawings but they always end up looking like shit.

[Anonymous No.4843310]

>>4842233
I would draw some of the heads on the page, and then find references that are similar and try to apply the concepts. They're just studies, so they don't have to look nice. What's important is that you understand what's going on with the face at different angles