Monday, July 7, 2014

Social Profiling № 8: All in the Eyes

Well, this was embarrassing.  I'd started prepping for today's Social Profiling post, when I realised I hadn't written the last one! So now this is that and I'll write the new one later.  How did I miss one? Well, I painted it way back at the end of February, and as you may recall March was, well, a little full, so I honestly thought I'd already written the post, when in fact I'd not even prepped the images for it.   It's been that sort of year.

So, anyway, I'm getting to it now, just over 4 months later.  Oh, and I didn't post last week because it was a choice of painting the latest Social Profiling picture (not this one, remember?  I just mentioned that, try and keep up), or writing a post, and painting won.  Then I hurt my back, so that painting took longer than planned (in terms of days from start to finish, not actual hours spent).  OK, all up to speed now?  Good, lets look at this picture then.


And there we have her.  OK, all done, onto the next!




I'm kidding, obviously. Just because it's late doesn't mean I'm going to skimp on the coverage, though I've obviously forgotten some things what with it being 4 months since I painted it.  I'll do my best though.


Unlike the last one, or the next, I decided to actually do a sketch for this one.  'Save rework with repositioning things,' I said.  'Should be pretty easy to just measure it,' I said.  'What a complete idiot,' I said, two hours later.

You see I wasn't using a grid or just eyeballing it, but actually measuring things with my stylus, calipers and thumb.  I learned two important things: 1) Trying to measure from a photograph reliably without actually touching it is a mug's game (because the image is obviously skewed slightly in your vision, unlike a real thing, which isn't flat, so can't be skewed).  2) Lineart can be deceptive.  You see I thought that looked fine - I still think it doesn't look too bad there, but when I painted over it...  Well, see for yourself.


Arrrgh!  What have I done!  It is the end of times! The dogs are cuddling the cats! Rains of bloooood! Etc, Etc.  Yes, this didn't turn out right at all.  Was it because of the skewed photo effect?  Or a miss measure of a distance or an angle somewhere?  Don't know, don't care - the results are freakish either way.  Poor woman has had her head swelled up like a balloon!

See how deceptive that line art was?  Or can you see it even there (I can't, evidently)?  Well, anyway, I needed a quick fix.  Oh, how sad that I laid it out first to avoid rework later, for it was all for naught.


So, I threw up a big grid (4x3ish), and massaged things a bit.  The grid wasn't on the painting, it was mostly just to use to see what was lining up and where.  That helped a lot as you can see above, though her left eye was still slightly off (What is it and me with left eyes?), but I fixed that as I went along.  Oh, and remember last time I said about there being coincidences in these images (of course you don't, the last was in January)?  Well, two of them ended up being for people I've done images for before.  This one is of these guy's mother.

Just a good mid point to see a full image.  It was here that I think the most important part was painted too.  I really wanted to get her eyes right, and I think I got very close.  Lovely eyes, even on the original (fairly grainy) photograph, so I felt it vitally important to capture them as accurately as possible.


So here you can see more development in the face and hair.  I've broadened her jaw on the right image as it was a little flatter than in the original photograph, and was starting to make it look like she had no chin.  The hair I kept super rough - I felt that that way it wouldn't draw away from her face particularly.  Oh, and purple hair?  Totally badass.

After that I just roughed in her shirt and hoodie (not too much detail, for the same reason as the hair), and added her necklace.  I suppose I should go into how I painted this, as it wasn't my usual method.  I used ArtRage's oil brush (as usual), but this time I had it on a higher opacity paint (less thinners), but with very little pressure.  I thought that might capture some of the noise I was actually digging in the original photograph, and I think to some degree I succeeded.  Yay.

OK, off again now.  I have to send some text to someone that's been delayed by a week due to that bad back, and I also need to write another post  - but not for today, so don't come back too soon.

Really, I'm gone.  Try not to think of the balloon head stage when going to bed tonight m'kay?  Nightmare fuel right there.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Speeding Through It All

Whenever I do a speedpaint post I think to myself "Well, I only have 4 or 5 images to show, how long could writing that take?" and then I actually go an look and it's more like 6 to 8 images, so it's going to take longer than I thought.  6 to 8 isn't bad going, especially since it feels like I've barely set aside any time for them recently.  And I really haven't - most of these are very, very quick studies, for various reasons.

I still have a lot on my plate  over the next few weeks, but it's not always easy to find the time in between my day job, and the stuff I do for Dr. Sandifer.  Last week, as an example, I was working on an image for work in my spare time. It wasn't an official image, but I needed to demonstrate something at a presentation, and didn't have time to both write the presentation and do the artwork without working on it at home.  No, you can't see it, at least not yet.  Maybe one day, when what it refers to is no longer under wraps.

SO yeah, I've been falling behind on my art practice, and I'm honestly at a bit of a loss to where all the time goes, but it does go, and it goes fast.   Speaking of fast...


Time Taken: 35 Minutes
Software: Photoshop CC

 So I spent a while messing around with brushes and the new color picker I have for Photoshop.  This started in the last speed post, as you may or may not remember, but I carried on with that theme for a bit.  This is just a simple greyscale sketch with no reference used.  Not very exciting, but there's something I like about it anyway.  I painted the background with a fairly random brush, and then filled in the details with a more detailed one, basing those details on the shapes formed with the big random one.


Time Taken: 5 Minutes
Software: Photoshop CC

This might be the shortest paint I've ever done.  I was mucking around with brushes, did a scribble with this one, and could basically see this on the screen.  All I had to do was fill in the other tones.  Once I'd done that he looked Native American (or American Indian if you prefer, I know there's some contention over that), so I sketched in the feathers.  I quite like it, even if it is pretty rough.


Time Taken: 45 Minutes
Software: Photoshop CC

I feel bad about this, as I often do when I can't give an original source for an images reference, but I liked the photo and painted it because I was in the mood, and only discovered I couldn't find the credits after the fact.  Yes, I'm a terrible person, and no, a reverse image search didn't help much.  If you know who's photo this is, or who the subject is then let me know and I'll credit them properly, but until then, you can find the original here.  Very poor show on my part, especially so as it's one of two images with this issue this post.


Still, this was more messing about with Photoshop. In this case I went ahead and used the Gaussian Blur filter, because why not? And it gave the picture a nice depth that I wouldn't otherwise know how to achieve (not without spending longer on it than intended anyway).  After that I threw in two layers, one for the quick layout, and one for the actual painting.  I didn't add any additional layers after that, and when I was done I turned off the sketch layer.   Nothing too taxing, and I'm not a huge fan of the result, but I've done a lot worse.  Nothing too fancy about the method of painting; I picked colours and painted them - I really wasn't thinking about this one terribly hard, which made for a relaxing paint even if not the best result.


Time Taken: 65 Minutes
Software: Photoshop CC

More brush tests.  This time a spiky one, a noisy one, a flat one and a cloudy one.  I don't much like the results here, but I'd honestly be hard pressed to tell you why.  Is it the colour range (which I'm pretty sure is way off the source photograph, which was my own), or bad perspective, or what?  I think I need more practice on environmental paintings.  The clouds came out well though.  I like that cloud brush; I think it will prove very useful on occasion.


Time Taken: 90 Minutes
Software: Photoshop CC

Used another filter on this one, right at the end.  Ran sharpen on it and liked the result, so I left it.  This one is the other one with no direct credit.   Image search returns a Japanese term that apparently means Personality Hairstyles, which doesn't help much.  The original is tucked away here, but again I will gladly give credit where it's due.


So I quite like this one.  Again it was the result of mucking around with brushes, but I like the result.  For all that though it's a little embarrassing looking at the stages picture here because I didn't notice until quite late that I'd put her eye in completely the wrong place.  When I finally did notice it didn't take long at all to move it to a better location, but it does look a bit strange.  My original intention was to paint the whole thing with the spiky brush you can see I've used in the first stage, but I quickly realised that that was going to look awful, so I switched to a more traditional one for the rest of the painting.  I picked this one because I really like the graphic nature of her shirt,  I'd be tempted to make a more finished piece out of it if I had any idea who to give the original credits too.  Maybe I'll just do something unrelated, but use this as inspiration.


Time Taken: 25 Minutes
Software: Photoshop CC
Are you bored with these quick Photoshop brush tests yet?  Well, the good news is that the next one is in ArtRage.  This one is a wolf - hopefully that's self evident, but maybe not.  All done using one brush type (it's the spiky one again, only really big), and black and white.  There's not much else to say about it, I just let the brush do most of the work to be honest.  Yes, I had to provide some guidance, but it's the brush that provided the nice sketchy finish.


Time Taken: 90 Minutes
Software: ArtRage 4

After all that I needed a break from Photoshop (though I did convince myself that I might be able to do a finished piece in it at some point), and went back to ArtRage.  This piece is based on 'David 12' by faestock.  I liked the expression.  I wish I could tell you more than that, but I just fell into my old speedpaint habits for the most part.


Oh, and I cheated, sort of.  You can see there are some marks on the step by step stages above that disappear at the end; two on the right, and one in the middle at the top.  That's my "grid".  It's not much of a grid, especially since I eyeballed it, but it did help a lot with getting the layout worked out, so I may be doing that again.



Since it was done in ArtRage, and because I remembered before closing it, I managed to record a timelapse from my undo stages.  It's a bit jumpy right at the beginning, but it settles down before I paint the portrait proper.  You can even see me add those marks.

There you go, 7 paints for the price of 4.  I'll be back again as soon as I get time, but until then, arrivederci.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Sketching - October to December '13

Yes, I've managed to go almost another month between posts, and in all honesty I didn't get as much done in that time as I would have liked in order to share with you over the next one.  It's not that I've been doing nothing, just that not much of it is the sort of stuff this blog covers.  One thing that is related though is that I've been doing some general 'housekeeping', and I'll get into that further down.  Part of the housekeeping has been to actually start compiling the 8 months of sketches I'm behind on sharing, and that's the focus of today's post.  There are also some speedpaints for me to share, but that will probably be next week's entry.

I'm ditching the usual format of these sketching posts until I get caught up.  Usually I compile all the sketches for the time I've been lax and they're organized into different images by what they're of.  This time there's one image per month, with everything lumped in together.  It's marginally more manageable this way, so I'm more likely to do it.


October
It's been a while, obviously, but I don't believe I used reference for any of these, which means that I'm quite pleased with a couple of them (for a change).  Not all of them, and most of them have issues that I will now address.  One thing you'll see wrong with a few of the sketches here, and in the next two months below, is that I do a poor job at getting the angle on the far side of the head right.  You can see it here most obviously with the chaps head on the centre left there, and the girls next to him.  It's like the far side of their head is half as wide again as the side closest.  It's something I've been working on correcting, but it still happens an embarrassing amount of the time.  The  backside on the figure near the top right is also severely malformed, as is quite a lot of the unfortunate woman bottom left.  These things I know.  Things I'm happy with are the portrait in the top right (She's odd looking, but fairly believable), the girl in the bottom right (I'm really happy with some of the cloth creasing there, even though her nose is a bit strange), and the robot, because who doesn't like robots? Yes, this was long before the robot mania of March this year.  The rest all falls somewhere in between.  Oh, and the reaper?  Well, it was October.


November
I didn't sketch all that much in November, so this is actually a good percentage of what I did.  Not much to say, except the arm and shoulder area on the guy top right is appalling, but I really rather dig the hair on victorian dude at the bottom there.  The rest is just somewhere in between.  I guess I was getting better at the torso stuff here, but I've back slid since then, which is a shame.


December
Used some reference for some of these.  That's probably obvious given Luke Skywalker hanging out on the right there.  Two above him is a girl I found on Pinterest.  Sadly I have no idea who she is or who took the picture.  Reverse image search just returns "Dyed Hair," and sure enough she's on the top row of that image search.  It's not a great copy, but I quite like it anyway.  A couple of the other small sketchy portraits were done on the plane when we were going to my Mother's for Christmas.  Pretty par for the course, and this time I did barely any sketching while away because Christmas meant having surprisingly little time to do so.   To the best of my recollection the rest were with no, or minimal reference.

Housekeeping
You probably didn't notice, but there have been a number of small changes to the blog; specifically in the sidebar.  Mostly this was just some reorganisation, but under Pages you'll find two new links.

One is to my other "blog" The Art of James A. Taylor.  It's using Blogger and it's fancy new interface, but it's basically just a gallery of some of my work.  Some of what I consider to be the more successful pieces.  Each post has one image, and where relevant there is a link back to the corresponding post on here.  Not everything I do will go up on there, but what does go up might be up there before it's up here, but I suspect I'll partly be using it as an easy access index to the posts back on this blog.  I've had the blog and URL for ages, but only got around to adding anything to it a couple of weeks ago.

Secondly is the My Useful Links link.  This is more for me than you (in case I need to reach my list of links on a computer I'm not logged into), but it is public, so feel free to take a gander.  It was actually a surprising amount of work to organise it and make it presentable, but I figured if it was going to be public I should at least make it pretty.  If you have any links you think I should add, or that I might be interested in, let me know in the comments, where the tumbleweeds usually hang out.

Other than that I also started going through my Anatomy board on Pinterest and labeling things so they actually turn up when I search them.  I haven't made it very far through that yet, but it's a big board, so it will take a while.

And that's all I have for you today.  Back soon with those speedpaints, and maybe some other things I've been working on.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

A Four-Colour Psychochronography

I 'complain' that I'm busy a lot.  This is mostly because I am often busy.  I'm not always busy with art, or with my day job (although of course these two things combined account for the vast majority of my time breathing), but other things as well, like relaxing in front of the TV, trawling Pinterest for references, keeping on top of my messages (in various places), video games, reading, eating, and sleeping.  You know, life? It tends to add up. Fairly low on that list of priorities, but still a priority, is writing blog posts.

Phil Sandifer on the other hand, has blog posts as one of his main priorities.  Blogging, and subsequently making books from those posts (with many additions and edits of course), is his day job, so he blogs a lot.

Previously I've done book covers for his collections based on his still ongoing TARDIS Eruditorum series of blog posts, and also on the book he wrote about Wonder Woman (A Golden Thread), which didn't appear on his blog.  A series of books and a blog covering every episode and a huge amount of tangential material of the 50 year history of Doctor Who (with some of those episodes being covered in 12,000+ word essays) is not enough for Dr. Sandifer though.

Yes, he actually is a Doctor, in English, and possibly in awesome.  A doctorate of awesome would be a useful thing to have, come to think of it, I wonder where you'd get one.

With his blog rapidly approaching the present time of the show he's cast around for something else to cover when he catches up, and found it in the form of the passive feud between writers (and self proclaimed magicians) Alan Moore and Grant Morrison.  Now I can't pick sides there as I'm an enormous fan of both their works (though not enormous enough to have read everything by them), and Phil doesn't pick sides either.  His work is presented as the history of a war distant enough that there are no stakes in the winners.  Not dry and dispassionately though, but with a wink and some dry wit and humour.  The 'war' is really just a framing device for a vast and sprawling canvas; the actual chapters covering topics as diverse as the influence of J.G. Ballard, Robert R Crumb, and Edward Blake, to the narrative structures of aristotelian literature (and so on), as well as the works, and influence upon them by 'the war', of other writers, such as Neil Gaiman.

It sounds insane.  It is insane.  The good Doctor is a self proclaimed Mad Man With a Blog after all.

Writing blogs doesn't make money though - as a Day Job it's pretty low income stuff, unless you have a huge and sprawling readership and lots of ads.  Phil's blog has minimal ads, and a moderate following among a certain type of intellectual nerd (as well as less intellectual nerds like me, who just like his writing style), so he's running a Kickstarter to fund it.  And since (to paraphrase C3PO) he's worked with me before, he asked me to knock him up a nice banner for the jam-jar shaking.


Still here?  Oh good.  That may be the longest Cold Open I've ever written, so I hope it was worth the wait.  If it wasn't keep going, there's a mid-episode twist a little way down.  You can expand the images by clicking on them by the way - I'd recommend it for the one above.  And now back to our scheduled programming.

So, I could have just doodled some stuff, slapped a logo on it and called it a day, or thrown together a simple photo montage. There's no challenge in that though, so I immediately thought of doing charcoal portraits.  Because I'm such an expert in Charcoal! Right? Ha, hahaha.  This was decision was actually before I'd done the Robots for my son, so it's not like I really had any reason to be confident I could do it.  Anyway, he asked in The Time of Ultimate Busyness, so I had to tell him it would be a few weeks, but I'd do something in charcoal.  It was a week after that I started on the robots.


Anyway, eventually I sat down and did a preliminary sketch of what was in my head.  I had a photo of Alan Moore available, but I wasn't being terribly careful about the accuracy of the sketch.  I just wanted to firm up in my head what I wanted.   Obviously it's terrible, but it did it's job.


After that I wanted to see if it might be better served as a comic style rendering, so I did it again in a style vaguely reminiscent of Kevin O'Neil (who illustrated The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).  I liked it, but it wasn't going to work for what I wanted, so it was back to the charcoal idea that I was now less sure of, having done the robot pics.


This was my initial pencil sketch of Moore.  I used a grid to get the basic proportions and angles of his head right, with the rest of it just being measured with a pencil and a pair of dividers.  I'm hopeless at judging angles (as you may have noticed over the years), which was why I resorted to the grid.  Cheating?  No - but we'll get to that in an A-Musing post soon enough.  Other than his head I used about six different photographs as reference to get the rest of it down.  I left the medals blank, intending to put some references on them (such as one of them being a smiley face), but then I forgot completely, and they stayed blank until the end.


I then traced the sketch (with tracing paper - the first time I've used it in, well, since the Robots, but before that long enough that I don't remember using it before), and transferred it to the toned sketch  pad that I'd previously drawn robots on.  I wish there was some clever technique I could harp on about after that, but really it just boiled down to "Shading it in charcoal,"  which is fairly boring and not terribly informative.  I did try blending the charcoal here and there, and discovered the charcoal I was using was a little firm for it - I've bought softer charcoal since then, so I might try doing it some other time.  Also I did relight the picture of Moore I was working in, so all the shadows are a little deeper and he's lit more from the left (our right).


Phil was happy with this, so when I had the chance I did the same thing for Grant Morrison.  Here's the pencil sketch.  This was done in exactly the same way, with the only real difference being that I only used two references for his body (one of them being from a publicity still of a popular UK drama, so less said about that the better - I did change it a bit though).  I also drew his eye a little large - this is after I scaled it down slightly, but really, unless you were looking for it you wouldn't notice the difference it was that slight.


The actual shading didn't go as well though.  I tried to relight him the same way I had for Moore, but overdid under his eyes a bit (okay, a lot).    This looked fine on paper, so I fixed it with fixative and then scanned it in, but after doing so the darkness there was just overbearing.  I couldn't just erase the black, since I'd fixed the charcoal, and I didn't want to do it digitally or the whole point of having an actual original for a change would be lost.  My solution was to grab a Prisamcolor white pencil (waxier than a charcoal one, which I thought would be advantageous) and gently run it over the top of the fixed charcoals.  This took a couple of attempts, but as you can see it eventually worked fairly well.


Here's the finished Grant Morrison picture.  I think it's less of a likeness than the Moore one, but still recognisable.  Next time I do something like this I'm going to stick with the lighting in the original picture, I swear.

By the way, you may recall me lamenting a long time ago that my scanner had a tendency to skew things when I scanned them, but that I had no proof that this was the case rather than my just drawing things a little off and not being able to tell on paper.  Well, now I know.  This picture had a border around it so I could accurately judge the scale.  The border was a perfect rectangle, but when I scanned it, well, it wasn't.  Thankfully Photoshop has a distort tool that allowed me to get it back to the correct shape, but that's certainly something I'll have to keep an eye on in future as I won't always have such a defined guideline for straightening it back up.


After that I just needed to do the banner itself.  This meant placing the two scanned pictures next to each other, adding a logo and making it all look a little aged.  The aging and compositing was done in Photoshop of course, with the paper's aging done with a combination of textured overlays and custom brushes (I'll have to share those at some point, a great set for wear and tear).  Above is the first pass, and, if you scroll up and down between this and the final one at the top there, you'll see that the logo changed a bit between here and there, as well as the banner proportions being changed.  Most of the extra stuff on the logo is just done with a combination of traced paths and victorian style clipart.  I could have done the flourishes, but time was short.  Other than that the 'in' was changed because neither of us liked it in this version.  The border in the final was also done partially with clip art, which saved some time, even though it wouldn't have been terribly difficult to have done that without.

And that's it - the ridiculous and slightly roundabout route to a relatively simple Kickstarter banner.

Oh.... But there's more.


Going back a bit to when Phil first asked for the banner, and my first communication with him on it, he'd also mentioned doing an E-Book cover for the individual chapters he releases as he goes along.  One that might do double duty of the first printed volume too.  You can see the end result above, but here's a brief explanation at how it was arrived at.


Before I got to working on the Alan Moore charcoal image, I took some time in between drawing Robots to do some mockups.  My initial inclination was to just use the Kickstarter images (which didn't exist at this point), or painted versions of the same (either digital or actual paint - I hadn't really thought enough about it to decide either way).  To that end I included some actual portraits from the Boer War and First World War as placeholders (I think it's Field Marshal Sir Frederick Roberts and Major General Sir Andrew Russell as the stand ins there, though names of peers can get a little strange, so I might be a bit off).

They were all looking like fairly reasonable "History of the War" type designs; the sort of thing you see in the reduced price sections of Barnes and Noble, and also boring as shit.  I decided to mix it up a little with what I was thinking for the Kickstarter banner, and what I know of Phil's general preferences, and added a little Victoriana and whimsy to the affair.  Newspaper, Periodical, Propaganda, that sort of thing.

When I did the boxing one I had an inkling that it would be the one he'd pick, but I did a couple extra just to be on the safe side. Reshuffled the results a little to fit a better format frame (originally they were in two rows) and sent them off to the Doctor.  He did of course pick the boxing poster.


From there it should have been a simple case of rescaling the thumbnail, adding new images of the boxers and redoing the grime, as all the text and the Union Jack* were fonts or vectors.  In other words, I could make the text and flag as big as I wanted with no loss in quality, but the rest had to be done manually.  Didn't work out that way though.  I don't have a copy of the version I just scaled up, but at the larger size the text just wasn't working, and the whole thing was a little bland.

To fix this I went through each bit of text, and sought out a better typeface for each.  Sometimes I'd find a perfect typeface, but I'd need to embellish it a bit to fit with the sensational nature of the poster.  I'd also add a little "bleed" to the red and blue, as if the inks hadn't come quite so perfectly off the presses.  It's subtle, and hard to see at all on the e-book,but it might read well enough if it ever sees print.

In actuality posters like this didn't really start appearing until the early 20th century as far as I can tell (shortly after World War 1), and of course the styles of text and such had changed drastically by then, so I combined the layouts and styles of Victorian playbills with the spectacle and portraits of the later boxing posters.  I think it looks fairly authentic, even if it's an enormous anachronism.

As before with the kickstarter banner, the weathering came from scans, images found online and custom brushes.  The stain is mostly modern paper stained with tea. The fading of the colours and black ink is done partly with photoshop filters, and partly with some photographs of stained concrete I took a while back.  More clipart here too, in the shape of the filigree under "presents" and the leaf-like swirls around "This Event" and "Albion".  The original hands pointing to "presents" here were clipart, but I swapped them out for some I drew in the final version.


All that was left to do after all that was to add the fighters.  This was simple enough; just find two pictures of victorian boxers, and draw them with vague likenesses of the combatants for their heads.  No measuring or anything for these, I just sketched them in my sketchbook and then inked them with a thin pen.  I was careful to keep the shading to horizontal lines only, for a slightly more Victorian feel (I usually use a lot of crosshatching when I ink).  I filled in my Alan Moore illustration before scanning, but for Grant Morrison I was lazy (because there is more shadow) and added the solid blacks in Photoshop after scanning.  The image above is the original line art as I scanned it.

And that really is all.  Eventually I'll need to do a back cover to go with it, and I might tweak the front some more while I'm about it.  Unlike the TARDIS books these will all have the same simple design for the back covers and spines, giving me more time and energy to go a little crazy on the front ones of the series.  What will the next one entail?  Only time will tell, and it might be a while before I have to think about it terribly hard.

You can back the Last War in Albion Kickstarter here, With more information about the currently available chapters over on Philip Sandifer's blog.

*Or Union Flag, if you want to be pedantic.  It's not a flag though, it's a symbol of a flag on a screen, and since it's neither flying on a building or on a ship I can call it what I bloody well like.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

A Musing 6: Another Mickey Mouse Job

Way back when, in the mists of blog history (well, this blog's history) there was a post in which I said something that seemed true at the time.  Time has passed, as has a great deal of water under the bridge (That's two metaphors in one paragraph, I'll try not to make a habit of it).

Since writing  that post I've been meaning to cover what I said in more detail, but as I've attempted to do so I've stalled at doing it.  Since I really do want to cover it though I've decided to break it down into a few smaller chunks, each one being a blog post.  This post is a prelude to those, and is relevant to them.  If you missed the link to the last relevant post up there and want to catch up click here.

So what I said, in those misty times, was this:

"There are only a limited number of ways it is possible to get an image from your noodle and onto a piece of paper"

I then proceeded to list 6 ways of doing just that (I'm not going to list them again right now - we'll get there lower down).

Now, I still believe the list is basically accurate.  The post I listed them on is still by far the most popular on the blog (three times as many views as the next most popular), but noone has ever posted a comment to say that the list is inaccurate (and as we know, comments on this blog are not what you'd call common).

Fairly accurate the statement may be, but there are probably some caveats and refinements that can be made now, three and a half years later.

So, the list, as given in the original post: 
  1. Draw it raw, using what memories you have of the thing, and the vision in your mind and trying to draw that on the paper.
  2. Use references to bolster your memories and aid with the transferal of what you are trying to create from your mind to the paper.
  3. Copy from a reference, making changes as needed to alter the reference to your vision.
  4. Copy it directly, assuming the image represents exactly what you want to draw.
  5. Trace over a reference making changes as needed to alter your tracing to your vision.
  6. Trace it exactly
A couple of those are basically the same thing, but with "Doing it exactly" and "Modifying as needed," added to them.  There's more granularity than that I think, and I'll cover some of that in the future posts, but for breaking down into convenient titles I'm going to slim the list down into the following:
  1. Tracing
  2. Copying
  3. Referencing
  4. Knowing
It's a shame there are no vowels in there, or I could do a mnemonic.  I could insert one, al-la CHiPs, and get...  I don't know, TRaCK or something.  Actually, TRaCK's not bad...

So even beyond the granularity, there are some grey areas between those.  If you look at something, and then draw it an hour later, is that Referencing, or Knowing (pretty sure you couldn't say it was copying even if you were trying to replicate it as accurately as you could when you drew it)?  And of course it's possible to combine all of those techniques in one final image, but I'll cover that in more detail some other time.

To save some controversy later on I'll quickly define what I mean by each of those to refer back to in the later ones.  By the way, up until I started this post I hadn't drawn Mickey Mouse since the original list was made.  He's getting drawn again for this post as a fairly good example of each of the TRaCK points.

TRACING
Most people know what tracing is, or at least think they do. For the purposes of the blog I'm defining it very specifically as drawing anything over an image, be it onto tracing paper or a Photoshop layer.  That's exactly what you thought it was isn't it?  Fine, carry on then.  You probably also think it's cheating.  There's a guy over here who'd like a word with you about that (and no, it's not me in the post I linked to before that you totally didn't go and read.  See?  I'm on to you).

Here's a couple of pictures of Mickey Mouse I just traced in Photoshop.  Yes, I know that one doesn't look like Mickey Mouse, that's sort of the point, and part of what I'll be discussing in the related post.

COPYING
This I'm defining as drawing directly from a source, but not on or over a source.  This can include using mechanical means and other measuring devices. Well, that one was easy.

Here's a picture of Mickey Mouse I just copied.  I'm getting bored of drawing Mickey Mouse to be honest.

REFERENCING
Referencing I'm taking to mean using existing images and using them to make informed choices while drawing.  The drawing could be of the same thing from a different angle, or something completely different and (seemingly) unrelated to the reference.  It doesn't have to be vastly different to the reference to count as being referenced rather than copied.  Also, looking at something in the morning and trying to replicate it in the afternoon?  I'm considering that referencing too, as the next day you might not be able to replicate it again, so you don't really know it.

An original (and terrible) picture of Mickey Mouse  (I'm writing this before I've actually drawn it, so I'm just assuming it's going to be terrible), created using references.  Also a picture I drew a day after looking at a picture of Mickey Mouse, for 6 seconds, the day after drawing the one below... Try reading that when drunk!

KNOWING
This is where you know something so well you can just draw it without needing to see it at all.  The vast majority of people know how to draw a smiley face, or a stick figure, for example.  Grab a pen or a pencil right now and draw a smiley face, and a stick man, and a flower, you'll see what I mean.  This doesn't mean what you're creating is perfect - You just ignored my request to draw a stick man or smiley face I'm sure, but if you had done them they might be good, they might be bad, but they are recognisable to someone else as being what you intended, and you didn't use anything to refer to (and why would you? Because you didn't do it.  Slacker).  For all that though, if you tried to draw a picture of, say, your mother, and you're not a portrait artist who draws their mother regularly as practice or something, then it's probably not going to be immediately recognisable as being an illustration of her.  There are reasons for this, and you can find a nice write up of some of the reasons at this here link to an article on io9 - it even uses Mickey Mouse as an example too.

Another terrible attempt at drawing Mickey, done before I started on this post, and went and grabbed links from the other Mickey Mouse post (so as not to see it and ruin the point that I don't know how to draw him.  I think it looks oddly similar to my last attempt at Mickey without reference from three years ago, with just a few refinements that get it slightly closer.

So that's all on this for now - I'll start breaking down each of those subjects in more detail soon.  I wonder if this post will be as popular as the last one featuring the worlds most famous rodent.  Time will tell I guess - I'll get back to you about it in three and a half years.  Incidentally, it's the blog's 4th birthday in 10 minutes.  So I'm off to eat some cake - Happy Birthday Blog!

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The Speed of a Lost Weekend

Somehow it's the end of the third week in April, and I've yet to make a post.  This would be fine if I knew where the previous two weekends had gone, but I'm honestly not sure.  Last weekend we had visitors down from Chicago, and had some delicious barbeque, but the one before?  No clue.  Clearly I was busy or I'd have posted something, and it has been a busy month (only partly with regards to art though), so that doesn't surprise me one bit.

Never mind, I'll make a post today, which is Easter by the way, or write most of it today and post tomorrow.  Either way works, as long as there's a post out.  And the subject of this post is, as you may have noticed from the title, speedpaints.


Time Taken: 25 Minutes
Software: ArtRage 4

So this one is clearly just a quick sketch.  I saw an image on pinterest, and as I often do I decided to paint it based on just the thumbnail.  Usually when I do this I pin the reference in order to call it out in one of these posts, but I neglected to.  This is the first of three occasions in this post that I do that, which is a bit ridiculous.  That said, I have tracked the image down and pinned it now, and you can see it here. Despite finding it I couldn't find anyone to give credit to.  It's just one of those photos floating around the net.  Google reverse image search has been known to help with that on occasion, but this time it came up blank.  Sorry about that.

Anyway, it's just a quick sketch, and I've now forgotten what I was trying to learn or accomplish with the two colours on white.  I quite like the look of it though, but since I've also forgotten exactly what I did to create it I guess it was generally a waste of time as I can't replicate the look.  That's what happens when I leave it three and a half months between doing a piece and posting about it I guess (Note to self, get the sketches from last year posted soon so you can catch up with this year too, doofus).


Time Taken:  15 Minutes
Software: ArtRage 4

As with the last one this was done in a hurry from the thumbnail of a pin on Pinterest.  This time, while I didn't immediately pin it I did know exactly where it was from, so tracking it down again to share it was pretty easy. Bear in mind this was based on the thumbnail of the image, not the full thing, so while it's a bit naff it's also not completely awful under the circumstances.  Maybe?  Oh, suit yourself.  If you're curious, the guy in the photo is Jordan Gavaris, who plays Felix in the show Orphan Black.  I like Orphan Black, a lot, so expect to see mention of it on this blog again sooner or later.


Time Taken: 90 Minutes
Software: ArtRage 4

This is my favourite of all the speedpaints this time around, because it's bacon.  If you're American you may be wondering what sort of freakish bacon it is - it's British style back bacon, which is completely delicious and a pain in the rear to track down in the US.  I did though, and that's it sizzling away.  This one was painted with the oil tool set to thick and wet, which worked OK, and seemed to work well for the subject, even though it took a bit longer than the equivalent would using my usual settings.


Time Taken: 40 Minutes
Software: ArtRage 4

So like the first two this is based on a Pinterest Pin (what?  Pinterest is an awesome source of reference).  Unlike those two I wasn't looking at the pin when I painted it.  I'd seen the pin on my phone a couple of hours before on my Phone, and had a go at painting something a bit like it without going back to it for reference.  


Obviously I wasn't going for an exact match (I could obviously remember the dress being orange for one thing), and I quite like the result, even if it's a bit rough and ready.  Oh, and as you can see above I remembered to grab work in progress on this one.


Time Taken: 50 Minutes
Software: ArtRage 4

Remember the competition I was entering with the image from the last post?  Well, this time the competition was about cats.  Since I'd voted for cats as the subject I felt duty bound to paint a cat, but I was up to my eyeballs doing other things (this was when I was drawing those Robots for my Son's birthday).  SO I decided to submit a speedpaint of one of our cats (we have two).  This is Cameron.  Unlike the previous two submissions to the monthly ArtRage competition this one got an honorable mention.  Is it ironic that the one that took ages didn't get a nod and this 50 minute piece did?  I don't know, I'll be sure and ask Alanis Morissette next time I see her.  Speaking of whom, do you think she'd make a good subject for a painting one day?  Never know, might happen.



Remembered to grab in progress images of that one too.


Time Taken: 30 Minutes
Software: Photoshop CC

So I just got CC at home and wanted to play around with the new(ish) brush tools and such - the sort of things I never get time to experiment with at work.  After a few minutes of the usual abstract mess of painting one colour over another with each brush in turn I started something a little more representational.  It's not based on anything, and I'll happily admit that it's a bit awful (her mouth in particular is a bit of a mess), but I can't help but think it ended up looking a bit like Natalia Tena, who played Tonks in the Harry potter movies and Osha in Game of Thrones.  Not a lot like her, just a little bit around the eyes or something - particularly as Osha.

And that's it for now.  Yes, I'm aware that six speedpaints in three and a half months is a bit pants, but I've been a bit busy with other art (much of which has already been covered on the blog) and work.  I wasn't as busy this last week, but I had issues with one of my monitors (my new graphics card wasn't compatible with it, so I had to track down an adaptor).  Working again now, although Alanis could tell you if it's ironic or not that the first thing I did after getting it working wasn't based on reference (that usually hangs out on my right hand screen).  Going to be busy for a few more weeks yet, but then, hopefully, I'll get enough of a break to do some more speedpainting and scanning and actual art study - something else that's suffered from everything else going on.

Okay, more soon (I hope), but until then, happy Easter Monday I suppose (since it now is, unless you don't do Easter, which doesn't change the fact that it's Easter Monday, but probably changes whether you give a toss that it is.  Edit: Okay, so it's Tuesday instead of Monday - I got busy and forgot to post last night).



Popular Posts