[faB]

hello
I want to develop my digital painting skills, and I'm looking for some suggestions & links.

My current plan is to start doing regular copies of photos, trying to get close to the color & value and achieve the overal impression of light/texture,..

I can see my studying of anatomy slowly showing through sketches & doodles, so I am assuming something similar for painting, studying from photos will help me take sketches to digital paintings ?

thanks,
~faB.
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[ZippZopp]

i think we're at the same exact spot faB. i'm tryin to get my skills up. i need to get a portfolio together to apply to grad schools. i think my only suggestion would be to just keep goin at it. i've been doin the portrait a day for a few weeks now and my progress has been astronomical. even more amazing is that i've only been drawing now for 2 years. i've been really happy with my progress but i have so much more to do. my biggest downfall, i think, is that i'm terrible with drawing from my head, which is something i need to start working on. you say that "you see your studying of anatomy showing through your sketches"....what exactly are you studying? i need to get better at anatomy but don't have any figure drawings classes to take. what sort of stuff are you lookin at?

take care and keep at it!

[Matthew]

Hello
I am also trying to improve with this digital thing but I also had to train on my anatomy and poses.
I think faB used this place for the anatomy if I�m bot totally wrong, then he will have to correct me..hehe

http://www.fineart.sk

Check out the Loomis anatomy online, it is really helpful for anatomy and such.

How is it nowaday with portfolio�s, could they contain mostly digital paintings?
What should a portfolio contain?
I have aksed these question several times now in this forum but haven��t got any answer, it would be cool with answers from you.

have a nice day
Matthew

[faB]

fineart.sk is cool, but I've been trying to get more books lately as I find it more easy to discipline myself into drawing for a few hours after I switch the damn computer OFF!

'Loomis's Figure Drawing for a ll it's worth' - I had the entire PDF printed out, wasnt cheap but well worht it

'Anatomy for the Artist ' as advertised on fineart.sk which has got nice ref photos, never used it yet

THIS 608 pages book has very good plates comparing the skeleton of limbs and feet and groin etc of many animals and the human, very interesting. A big reference, but no lessons in it. There are not simplified muscle drawings in this one so I dont draw from it yet.

"Bridgeman's Complete Guide to Drawing from Life" .. sigh after all the good I heard of this book I am disappointed. There seems to be a spectrum with Loomis at one end and Bridgeman the other end, very roughly.

On one side you have Loomis with his excellently detailed figures and examples, on the other side you have Bridgeman's anatomy for artists which is very rough and messy and very old school --- IMHO ---. I mean on one page you have his heads with big bulges on the back of the head, they look like anything BUT real heads. he also excplains _2_ methods of drawing the head, one starting with the cube just doesnt make sense, it's like he draw a head his way, and put a cube around it, that doesnt teach you how to take the cube to a head. Way too abstract for my thinking. Some of his figures are almost like Burne Hogarth stuff, big bulky masses and nothing like a real person. (EDIT: by the way, I cant really blame him, after all the title says 'guide to drawing from life', I was looking for books that teach how to draw characters from SCRATCH)

On the other hand Loomis 's figures are a little too detailed to be generic and somewhat stereotypical (athletic guys and sweet looking ladies on high heels).

I guess I'll try to shoot right in the middle between Bridgeman's and Loomis's approach.

For learning Imho loomis is the best, his figures, even the simplified skeleton may be hard to draw at first, but it pays off. He explains things really clearly and whatever my teacher thinks of his s'tyle', as far as realism goes his figures look damn real to me. You can always go to the parc and draw from life to avoid drawing the same generic manequin, imho.
Drawing the characters with the 8 divisions, drawing the horizon line etc day after day it slowly gets through my head. All other books I have do not TEACH me, Loomis does. So there you have it, I'm a fanboy. And I read a lot of good being said on a professional illustrator website about his other book 'creative illustration' so I'm planning to take a good look at that one for what he has to say about color composition etc.
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[Ian Jones]

Matthew: Use the search function to look for discussion about portfolio's. We have discussed it a lot in the past so this is probably why ppl ignored your request. Sorry bout that...

As for if you should put entirely digital painting or not... I am unsure. It would entirely depend on the studio you were going for a job at. You would need to somehow research a bit about them and find out how much they actually do it themselves or whether they still use mostly marker sketches for their concept work. I can still see a tendency for ppl to be skeptical of digital painting because of all the cheats out there (overpainters, rippers etc...) and the fact that uneducated ppl believe Photoshop has a 'create masterpiece' filter. So you need to be wary that there is some prejudice towards new technologies, as there always is.

Hope that helps.

[ZippZopp]

I love that Ian, the "create a masterpiece" filter....lol, thats great!!

[Matthew]

Thanks for answers.
I also think Loomis is really good but I have always had problems with this 8 divided body, I think it�s better to divide the body into 7 parts otherwise will the lower legs be to long, at least for me...hehe

I�m up to 400 posts...wooohoo..heheh...hmmm

have a nice day
Matthew

[spooge demon]

Just my opinion, I am a beginner with the figure myself.

I say bridgeman yes, loomis no.

The simplified conception of bridgeman will help you out more and be more applicable to many different stylizations of the figure, esp out of your head. Loomis is too specific to a style of illustration.

The simplified form in action is what you are after. Illustration is a little different, it is more design of shapes and edges and naturalistic.

[Matthew]

I haven�t seen anything from bridgeman, gonna check him up.
Are there any books or reference material from him online?

Matthew

[eyewoo]

On Amazon
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

[faB]

If you buy Bridgeman;'s Complete Guide to Drawing from Life, which is the collection of his other books (life drawing, constructive anatony, book of hundred hands..), then dont be silly like me and buy one of their Amazon deals, because the other book you get with it is for the most part, included in his Complete Guide.. DUH

Thanks Spooge you put the finger on it. Loomis 's style is too specific. My teacher thinks its a bit dangerous to stick to his illustrations as you might find yourself drawing the same type of guys/girls forever.

For learning all the basics about putting a figure in space and shading and such Loomis rocks.

I guess everytime I study the basics in Loomis books I have to remember not to try and duplicate his figures too closely as I have been doing now
_________________
"I'm not a shrimp, I'm a KING PRAWN !" -- Pepe.
selfportraits & stuff

[ZippZopp]

i gotta check out bridgeman...sounds like good stuff. so you think the complete guide to drawing from life is the best to get?