|
At this point it does become a bit more difficult to critique, because as you've noted, photographing a drawing is a challenge -- values get clumped together, transitions between value areas seem more jarring, and subtle effects are lost.
That said, the photograph can still be instructive. You have to trust your own eye, and not the thrice-removed photo (of the drawing, which is of a photo, which is of the real subject), but if the photo raises a question, it can be useful to answer it.
So these are a few of those sorts of questions:
-- On the shadow side of the hand, the side closest to us, the dark value may be a bit too dark, and the reflected light band below that dark value is probably too light. Putting in reflected light in too light a value is a temptation commonly given in to, but it almost always creates an overmodeled look. The remedy is to squint at the resource for a more accurate reading -- the reflected lights that seem bright when you stare into them pretty much disappear when you squint. The latter is closer to what you want. In this same vein, and since I've just realized there's a reference photo available, I would think about whether the reflected light on the shadow side of the head is a bit too high in value. Same issue, the value of the upper eyelid on the shadow side of the face. Squint at your subject or resource, for a truer reading of the relative values.
-- Until I looked at the reference photo, I thought the line across the wrist was the hem of the sleeve. If you squint at the reference photo, the value of the flesh on the arm and the hand aren't really as different as they appear in the drawing. The bulge of the flesh near where the wrist area touches the lip is perhaps a little too large and too dark. And though it seems that that crease in the flesh goes all the way across the top of the wrist area, the next reference photo you posted in the other thread does show that there's a break in that crease. If you lift out the dark in just a bit of that area and let the light flow across the form, the hand will better connect up with the forearm.
-- The shadow area on the forehead looks much better but might still be improved if the darkest bits of it were lightened, so as to make the value transition as "baby skin smooth" as possible. Just dab lightly at those darkest bits with the point of the kneaded eraser.
-- The spot of reflected light on the surface of the eye on the shadow side of the face is a bit too light. That side of the face is, after all, in shadow, and so that eye isn't receiving the same amount of light as the other. Forcing the brighter reflected "catchlight" into that shadow area is messing with the illusion of form that you're trying to create.
-- The light value on top of the head, on the lighted side with the bow, might profitably be toned down just a bit, at least with a few suggestions of hair.
My point isn't to put a microscope to either the reference or the drawing, but it's tricky to use a written medium to "point" to areas of a visual work. In fact, in keeping with the advice about squinting, the best use of a microscope would be to keep it slightly out of focus. That would prevent that "looking into" value areas too hard and exaggerating them, whether darks or lights.
|