Recent efforts

Jeff Fuchs · 08-07-2003, 06:31 PM

Peter Jochems suggested that I post some of my current stuff, and I guess there's no harm in it, but I recognize that I've got a long way to go, and critiques from pros are not being solicited here, as I can see for myself that I have a lot of room for improvement. I'll keep plugging away and ask for critiques when I feel like I've hit a roadblock. I'm not currently at a roadblock. I'm just at the beginning of the road.

This is a self-portrait from life. Unfortunately, I can only find one model who'll pose as long as I want. Fortunately, he works for free

.

Jeff Fuchs · 08-07-2003, 06:35 PM

Here's a drawing of my wife, from a photo. I've learned from this, and other experiences, that the SOG artists are right about photo references. I need better lighting, for one thing. The photo was taken outdoors under diffuse evening light. There was no real light direction, and no clearly defined shadows. With my cheap digital camera, I am very limited in my lighting options. Shaded areas can lose all definition in the photo.

Anyway, this is Janice...

Michele Rushworth · 08-07-2003, 09:49 PM

Very nice drawing of your wife, but as you mentioned, both drawings could benefit from a more definite angle of light.

The one of yourself, in particular, could also benefit from a wider range of values. Don't hesitate to go for those darkest darks wherever you see them. It is hard, though, to light one's self appropriately for a painting and still have enough light to paint by!

One more thing I noticed: watch the alignment of the eyes on the self portrait. The inner corners do not point at each other as they should

Jeff Fuchs · 08-08-2003, 09:24 AM

Michelle,

I had particular difficulty drawing my eyes, because I couldn't see them very well with my glasses on (too much reflection), and I can't see anything at all with them off. I guess I spent so much time making them up, that I forgot to make them match. Thanks.

Mike Dodson · 08-08-2003, 10:02 AM

Jeff,

This is a very nice drawing of your wife in my opinion, with the exception of the missing darker values. The form looks like it was rendered quite accurately, particularly the arm extending downward into the hand. This area is not as easy to draw as it may appear to some.

Nice.

Jeff Fuchs · 08-08-2003, 10:05 AM

Thanks, Mike. Still far to go.

Peter Jochems · 08-08-2003, 05:19 PM

Hi Jeff,

Glad you posted them, I like them both. I agree with Michele about the eyes of the self-portrait. I like the determination you captured which shows in the eyes.

I like the drawing of your wife, especially the hand on her knee and her hair. Maybe you can accentuate certain areas more in your future drawings? I would like to see more dynamics in the way you use light en dark in your drawings, not by making it al very dark, but to have a broader range in gray-values in your drawing. To me certain shadowy areas in her hair, and for example her pupils, or certain parts of her glasses can have some dark accents. It gives the drawing more dynamics, or a certain rythm. Do it subtle.

Do you make these drawings watching a computer-screen? I thought I read that somewhere in another thread.

Peter

Elizabeth Schott · 08-08-2003, 09:38 PM

Jeff your wife looks great! I think everyone has said what could improve it to wonderful - a little more value contrast. Don't make it up, have her go get in the same position and just do the shapes in values, sketch them on tracing paper to the same scale - then apply them to your actual drawing!

Did you follow the Tony Ryder envelope etc. on this one?

I think the self portrait in a mirror is so hard. Especially when you wear glasses! You need to have a definitive light source for your self too. As Marvin's mantra goes... the head is a ball, the head is a ball. Think of the light that way.

A big thank you too for your nice comments and consistent ongoing support!

Peter Jochems · 08-08-2003, 10:54 PM

I personally have a problem with certain common generalizations. Although it may explain something, I don't think of the head as a ball. A head is a head, not a ball, not an egg either. This kind of generalizations can make one's efforts lose character.

There is, in my view, nothing wrong with Jeff's understanding of how the light falls. Also, I would like to add that the lighting in Jeff's self-portrait can also be seen as 'interesting' instead of 'wrong'.

Peter

Elizabeth Schott · 08-09-2003, 12:10 AM

Wow Peter, I wasn't trying to questions Jeff's knowledge of lighting at all. But I really must disagree with you on the "rules" of lighting.

Lighting is what gives all shapes form, and if you are to discard this information - as it applies to "Classic Portraiture", you will have a very flat image. To bring an image out of the background I can't imagine anything more essential.

As an illustration of what I was trying to say, I am attaching a jpg with three examples. One is a ball with the lighting I am speaking of. The second is the same ball super imposed over a painted head and the third is the head with the "terms" pointed out. Please keep in mind the word "ball" is to bring things to the most basic generalities.