/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3181895]

How do you use Loomis for extreme angles or backside?

[Anonymous No.3181906]

Theres not much of a face there at all

[Anonymous No.3181913]

>>3181895
you dont, since loomis is shit and only teaches hardwired positions and not going into the form.

Plus why are you using a pre 2010 webcam photo. literally just search face reference on google. not that hard.

[Anonymous No.3181923]

>>3181895

Loomis is such a hassle. Just use steve huston method.

[Anonymous No.3181952]

>>3181913
I dare say this is accurate. When I was new to drawing and going through fun with a pencil he throws a few examples at you like the head looking straight up so you're seeing under their chin or facing the other way, and those in particular made me sit there like "yeah your method just isn't helping me visualize these at all" which was a bit frustrating.

Revisiting them they aren't too bad but as a beginner that caused a whole lot of bad habits, like being good at drawing a 3/4 view head and not much more.

[Anonymous No.3181955]

>>3181895
>Loomis
Just fucking draw it man. It's that simple

[Anonymous No.3182010]

>how do you use loomis for drawing?
what the fuck are you even asking

[Anonymous No.3182022]

Understand form instead of using construction as some kind of “formula“

[Anonymous No.3182024]

>>3181895
You become an adult and move on to Hogarth

[Anonymous No.3182025]

>>3181895
idk lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T7cDY7YDsg

[Anonymous No.3182032]

>>3182025
thats pretty close

[Anonymous No.3182040]

>>3182024
hogarths stuff looks weird as shit

[Anonymous No.3182044]

>>3182025
lol

[Anonymous No.3182073]

>>3182025

I tried...

[Anonymous No.3182101]

>>3182040
You don't really look to Hogarth to learn his style or anatomy, you look at and learn how he simplifies the human figure and plays with it in 3-dimensional space. His stuff's as simple as it gets when applied to drawing figures from imagination.

[Anonymous No.3182103]

>>3182101
might as well study anime

[Anonymous No.3182104]

>>3182103
ngmi

[Anonymous No.3182120]

>>3181895
you didn't even read the first few pages of loomis if that's what you drew

[Anonymous No.3182134]

>>3182040
he draws extreme musculature for the sake of clarity in what is what, not because he thinks it looks good, same with his poses, he shows the range of mobility the human body has, not how to make them dinamyc

[Anonymous No.3182328]

>>3182101
>"this guy can't draw anatomy, nor does he understand proportions and he is incapable of drawing a human being that doesn't look like a giant pile of tumors, but you should learn from him instead of Loomis because reasons!"

Damn anon, that IS a very convincing argument you make...

[Anonymous No.3182374]

>>3182328

Guys being kind of stupid on the anatomy area, that anatomy is pretty good it's just emphasized for educational purposes.

But that head example looks fucking horrible.

[Anonymous No.3182380]

>>3181895
You don't. You use Steve Huston instead

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2T7cDY7YDsg

[Anonymous No.3182394]

>>3182040
baki?

[Anonymous No.3182409]

>>3182328
If that's what you got out of my post I'm not sure that you can learn from Loomis, even.
>>3182374
You acknowledge that Hogarth exaggerates anatomy with the intent to make his message as obvious as possible and then shit on the exaggerated head examples with the intent of said examples explained with a basic 200 word essay.

This shit isn't rocket neurology, Loomis' head/hand/figure drawing books are great as a crash course into realizing that you don't know shit and gives you a solid foundation of proportions/basic anatomy. Hogarth's books basically slap you in the face with the most simple and efficient tools to start learning how you can actually start to work with the forms that make up the human figure in 3-dimensional space, as well as the limits to its mechanical functions. His anatomy is "fine" but like with Loomis you don't want to just mindlessly absorb /his/ anatomy/style unless you want to only know how to draw roided Roswell retards. If you have any fucking sense about you you're not going to get all your anatomical knowledge out of art books anyway, even if you study stellar material like Hampton or Bridgman if you don't supplement it with life or photo studies and applying it all onto stuff from imagination you're not going to move in any real satisfying direction.

Should also note that Steve Huston's work is fucking sick but he basically teaches the same stuff as Vilppu, I recommend checking out both of their teaching materials.

[Anonymous No.3182453]

>>3182040

Hogarth was a masterful draftsman. Many of these drawings were IIRC done live in front of clase in charcoal and he managed to get a tight finish without much work.

[Anonymous No.3182457]

>>3181895

OP, construction is not anatomy. Loomis teaches a way of thinking about breaking down complex shapes into basic forms. The construction is but a scaffolding for you to draw on. You actually need to build up a visual library of heads from various angles to be able to draw them from imagination and be able to figure out all the subtle changes in contour etc. Don't overthink this. If you can't find the right shapes for the head in a certain position it's because you haven't studied that angle enough.

[Anonymous No.3183841]

hogarth helped me for this

[Anonymous No.3184064]

>>3181895
If I was painting this in oils, I'd do none of that measuring out with circles. Do you anons really do this?

[Anonymous No.3184204]

>>3184064

It's an excercise anon

[Anonymous No.3184210]

[Anonymous No.3184276]

>>3181895
A low angle rear view is constructed in roughly the same way as a high angle front view. This is applicable to Loomis or any other kind of construction. This is the same principle behind those optical illusion gifs where you can't tell which direction a silhouette is spinning.

If this doesn't click for you, it means you haven't really nailed construction yet, you've only been copying whatever you see. Go through your books again, and draw through.

[Anonymous No.3184340]

>>3184276
Such a simple thing yet I've never seen it before, interesting.

[Anonymous No.3185139]

>>3181895
Reminder that pic related is what backside looks like according to Loomis.

[Anonymous No.3185146]

>>3181913
Except he does go over form, you're just a moron who parrots whatever /ic/ says. Learn to form your own opinions, sheep.

[Anonymous No.3185156]

>>3184276

[Anonymous No.3185246]

>>3185139
Loomis had a tranny fetish so what?

[Anonymous No.3185264]

>>3185146
yea go ahead and let an illustrator choose your way of drawing, instead of an actual artist. be my guest.

[Anonymous No.3185285]

>>3185264
ignore this person, this is a silly person

[puts No.3185326]

>>3185264
thanks, man
I would very much like to be an illustrator

[Anonymous No.3185332]

>>3181913
>>3181952

what would you recommend instead for an upper /beg/?

[Anonymous No.3185412]

>>3185332
Hampton. Sticky was just updated with it.

[Anonymous No.3185419]

>>3185412
>Hampton
>heads and faces

Suck a fucking dick. Hampton is absolutely worthless for heads and faces. In his book or his personal work if you've seen one of his mongoloid retard portraits you've seen them all because-whether they're male or female-THEY ALL LOOK THE FUCKING SAME.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3185427]

>>3185419
I honestly think that it's a good learning point. It's like saying the Reilly method is bad because they just look like EYY LMAOs when really it's a method to help you learn how to make the face. In the picture you posted all the major areas are exaggerated (I know this is a study of Hampton and not his actual work) but if you plan to finish it up it's easier to do because all the darks and lights are clearly defined and the structure is there.

There's drawing to learn and drawing to make something look good. Hampton is more for learning than polished figures and you can easily supplement it with something else.

[Anonymous No.3185441]

>>3184276
whoa

[Anonymous No.3185444]

>>3185419
What you posted doesn't even belong to hampton

[Anonymous No.3185446]

>>3185444
It's a Hampton study, what's your point? It's a drawing right from the cover of the book but done in digital. All his faces look the same. Do you want all your faces to look the same?

[Anonymous No.3185535]

>>3185446
>What you posted doesn't even belong to hampton
>It's a Hampton study, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.3185552]

>>3185419
Retard

[Anonymous No.3185727]

>>3184276

[Anonymous No.3185732]

>>3185535
Show me how his work is any different you dumb fuck. It's the same structure and proportions for every single face he draws regardless of sex. Just admit that he's a shit resource for head construction already instead of this semantic damage control bullshit

>>3185552
Faggot

[Anonymous No.3185739]

>>3182024
>Cranium ends at the bottom of the nose instead of eye level
>brow ridge in the middle of the head instead the middle of the cranium
Yep, I know a shit model when I see one.

>>3184210
Now that's a nice simple form.
You got a blog senpai?

>>3185446
Imagine if Vilppu was held accountable for all the /beg/s here studying his work.

[Anonymous No.3186321]

>>3184276
je comprends pas

[Anonymous No.3186406]

>>3185739
>>Cranium ends at the bottom of the nose instead of eye level
>>brow ridge in the middle of the head instead the middle of the cranium
>Yep, I know a shit model when I see one.
The eyes are on the middle of the head, that's correct, if you are some how getting that the brow is in the middle of the head, you are being retarded and not recognizing the view as a down shot. And the back of the cranium is supposed to line up around the bottom of the nose. You are not gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.3186424]

>>3182040
The style I find repulsive, however, it is extremely well made in terms of, well, pretty much everything, this is Russian Academy of Arts style through and through, we were told to study these when I was in HS/College. I've always disliked the look, but it was always anatomically accurate.

[Anonymous No.3186440]

>>3184276
w-whoa

[Anonymous No.3186447]

>>3184276
>Teal
NANI

[Anonymous No.3186502]

>>3185739
>Cranium ends at the bottom of the nose instead of eye level
>Yep, I know a shit model when I see one.

Does it not?

[Anonymous No.3186508]

>>3186502
Ignore him, he's a retard.

He doesn't even know that it's foreshortened.

[Anonymous No.3186509]

crabs had rough lives :(

[Anonymous No.3187011]

>>3186502
cool ref senpai, would you happen to have a collection of various skull refs?

found out that studying the skull directly is the easiest way to understand construction... though there are differences between male and female skulls.

[Anonymous No.3187055]

>>3184276
This principle doesn't apply for objects that are aggressively foreshortened though, right?

[Anonymous No.3187093]

>>3184276
Could someone explain what I'm looking at

[Anonymous No.3187097]

draw a face in the direction you want it to be facing. then draw the back of the head over it. take advantage of the fact that you're using a 2D surface.

[Anonymous No.3187407]

>>3187055
Does it?

It's really not about "aggressive foreshortening", but aggressive perspective distortion. If you are drawing the head very close to the camera, or playing with extreme FOV, then you take perspective into account. But that happens on the shape level. You're changing the direction of how the shapes recede, not changing the construction method itself. In most practical instances, this is negligible because the head is not a long shape.

Learn to draw through. If you want to test your results, buy a realistic looking doll and pull its head off, and check your drawings against it. This is largely an academic exercise because portions of the head will be clipped by the neck and body.

[Anonymous No.3187469]

>>3187407
if you're teal i want you to know that i love you

[Anonymous No.3187925]

>>3184276
>>3187407
based anon

[Anonymous No.3190305]

>>3184276
I like you.