/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.5025092]

Why I can't fit the spheres like in the loomis drawings? It's driving me crazy.

[Anonymous No.5025094]

>>5025092
You gotta slice off the sides of the sphere for the front view

[Anonymous No.5025097]

>>5025092
?

[Anonymous No.5025099]

[Anonymous No.5025101]

>>5025092
draw a circle, hang a face off it. stop even thinking about features till you get the proportions. as in head-face ratio. look at what you actually draw, look at real heads. most people have a fucked up perception of scale when it comes to heads because youre used to focusing on certain things. this is why begs draw eyes the size of tennis balls. the face is smaller than you think.

[Anonymous No.5025105]

>>5025094
Yes but how much he cuts off the sphere isn't right. Also in his drawings the chin protrudes way more from the sphere in front view than in profile. These inconsistencies drive me crazy in drawing books. I can draw pretty well already. But I wanted a method that removes as much as possible guesswork .

[Anonymous No.5025131]

>>5025105
scott eatons facial anatomy course is going pretty great for me, would recommend

[Anonymous No.5025137]

Well first of all OP, the 2 images you used weren't even aligned or of the same scale, so it's no wonder putting the same circle over it didn't work.
Secondly, 3D models aren't perfect, and this one has a cranium that's too big, which is why you ended up with a sphere too big. If you want to breakdown a head into your standard loomis head, I suggest you work from photos.
Lastly, the circle/sphere is a guideline, not an absolute.

[Anonymous No.5025142]

>>5025137
Most books and I'm pretty sure loomis too describe the head as being as long as it is tall so yours should bee to short.

[Anonymous No.5025154]

>>5025137
I'm aware it's a guideline but when teaching such proportions and construction you should be working from an idealised model. And his drawings and most art books are all over the place when it comes to teaching construction and it's maddening.

[Anonymous No.5025162]

>>5025142
I dunno anon, it's been a while since I read loomis so I looked it up and based it off this pic. Isn't the head usually slightly longer than it is wide?

>>5025154
I personally find his method to be rather consistent for construction of the head, hope you find something that works for you, anon.

[Anonymous No.5025172]

>>5025162
long=\=wide

[Anonymous No.5025179]

>>5025172
Most books use these proportions

[Anonymous No.5025182]

>>5025179
I see what you mean anon, thanks for the clarification. I take back what I said about the 3D model then, but I still think working from photos could work better for OP. Thanks anon!

[Anonymous No.5025515]

>>5025179
Based long forehead skull

[Anonymous No.5025519]

>>5025101
Hollywood doesn't help. Popular actors have fucked up proportions and usually have tiny foreheads and massive faces.

[Anonymous No.5025698]

>>5025142
>>5025162
from top to bottom of the head is longer than from front to back if you dont include the nose.

[Anonymous No.5025718]

LMAO HJAHAHAHAHHAHA YOU NIGGAS BE LIKE OH THE SPHERE LOOMIS GOTTA SLICE THE HEAD
ROFL WHILE THE JUST DRAW CHAD IS JUST DRAWING BETTER THAN YOU
BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAYEAH GO TRUST A 70 YEARS OLD BOOK

[Anonymous No.5027700]

>>5025718
Why do people trust 200-year-old equations from newton? If it works, then it works? or thousands of year old trig formulas?

[Anonymous No.5027779]

>>5025092
why do you want it to be spherical? circular really but whatever. why do you care so much about this particular 3d model or what it is, and loomis? just draw heads the way heads look and stop worrying about it. look at real heads, dont follow guides and tutorials

[Anonymous No.5027801]

>>5025092

drawing "perfect" spheres isn't the point of loomis. just eyeball it. as you develop your drawing, you might add or chop off bits. don't act like your drawing hinges on your ability to make a perfect loomis sphere or something.

[Anonymous No.5027935]

>>5027801
>drawing "perfect" spheres isn't the point of loomis

It isn't but I can see how he might get to that assumption. A lot of tutorials have people pulling it off with a perfect sphere. It can actually trap you if you're a beginner

[Anonymous No.5027953]

>>5025092
Try Reilly

[Anonymous No.5027957]

>>5025179
what book is this?

[Anonymous No.5028183]

Can someone tell me who would be the other option to go for head-construction?
Loomis method seems a lil bit boring for me and when drawing in perspective, it's inconsistent, a box is much more reliable, atm..

[Anonymous No.5028329]

>>5025519
That’s really interesting

[Anonymous No.5029718]

>>5025092
Cuz Loomis is old hat and better methods have been thought of since.

[Anonymous No.5029742]

>>5028183
draw from life and analize. You'll come up with a personal method

[Anonymous No.5030568]

The sphere or box are just mental conceptions used to place the head in a 2d space or to begin the modeling in 3d, is not gonna fit perfectly, you need to adjust it. Of course you mongoloids never understand this simple concept.

[Anonymous No.5032400]

>>5025092
Anon...

[Anonymous No.5032836]

>>5025105
>These inconsistencies drive me crazy in drawing books.
All idealized forms a just a base that you use as a guideline. Your still going to have to tweaks things based on the individual.

[Anonymous No.5032840]

>>5025092
not everyone has the same size for the head

[Anonymous No.5032890]

>>5025105
>These inconsistencies drive me crazy in drawing books.


basically that's just for a general look. With different head sizes you'll have to alter it