Submit your artwork for critiques here, or give someone else some helpful criticism or advice on their artwork. Please keep things civil.

Moderators: Ambiguity, SeaQuenchal, Waveloop, imcostalong, virtueone

 

Postby UnorthodoxThing » Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:38 pm

User avatar
  UnorthodoxThing
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:27 am

Subject title: Portrait, making a realistic pretty female asian face

I'm in no doubt stuck at this stage. I'm trying to draw a realistic looking human face. I was told to use the Reilly's method but it was extremely difficult to grasp, beside drawing it, I don't know how to deviate from the default structure. I'm not entirely sure about approximate measurements that make a face ideal or normal.

My goal here is to draw a pretty female asian face, but feel like I lack the whole forming of a face. Any advice om this would help.
practice.jpg
Instagram || ArtStation || Tapas #romanticize

 

Postby Josephcow » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:04 pm

User avatar
  Josephcow
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:46 pm

Look at a pretty female asian face and draw what you see. Then come back to this and apply what you learned. rinse and repeat. I tried learning to draw a head the way I think you are doing, where you just give it a go and then keep shifting features around to try and get it to look right. I really don't think that's gonna work. I drew and painted portraits of several actual people and I learned so much more about the face than I would have ever figured out by trial, so that's what I would recommend, although learning some basic average measurements, and a construction method like Riley or Loomis are also helpful.

I say this because looking at your work, it's not bad! But it doesn't look well observed. It's still symbolic thinking where it's like this is what I do for an eye, this is what I do for a nose etc. They are just more advanced symbols.

 

Postby UnorthodoxThing » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:33 pm

User avatar
  UnorthodoxThing
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:27 am

Josephcow wrote:Look at a pretty female asian face and draw what you see. Then come back to this and apply what you learned. rinse and repeat. I tried learning to draw a head the way I think you are doing, where you just give it a go and then keep shifting features around to try and get it to look right. I really don't think that's gonna work. I drew and painted portraits of several actual people and I learned so much more about the face than I would have ever figured out by trial, so that's what I would recommend, although learning some basic average measurements, and a construction method like Riley or Loomis are also helpful.

I say this because looking at your work, it's not bad! But it doesn't look well observed. It's still symbolic thinking where it's like this is what I do for an eye, this is what I do for a nose etc. They are just more advanced symbols.


Thankyou, I am currently doing that! :D I feel reassured I'm going in the right path. I'm also drawing contour lines on, finding the bumps and shadows, before I try and paint them.
Instagram || ArtStation || Tapas #romanticize

 

Postby Ambiguity » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:05 am

User avatar
  Ambiguity
Posts: 5524
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:55 am
Location: Your dreams

I agree with Joseph, you need to figure out what "pretty" even means to you first and change the face to fit your ideals. Do you prefer the look of a woman who is all gussied up, or do you prefer a clean face? Specifically what type of Asian are you after? Do you notice any similar characteristics from woman to woman within that nation? What are the beauty trends of their nation? Do whatever you can to get a clear picture of this in your head.

As for Reilly's methods, I don't know how to really explain it since there isn't much to explain, but I'll try. They are basically just gestural rhythms used to place the facial features, but they also simultaneously define the planes of the head, so they are great for shading too. The best thing about them is that they can be drawn over any head shape in any proportion, even on caricatures.

As for "ideal" proportions, you've actually already got them down pretty well. Bottom of the chin to bottom of the nostrils, bottom of the nostrils to bottom of the brows, and bottom of the brows to the hairline should all be the exact same measurement for the "ideal" face. Eyes should be one eye's width apart, and one-half and eye's width in from the side of the cranium for an ideal face in front view. The bottom of the lip should be one-half the distance from bottom of the chin to bottom of the nostrils(supposing the face has no expression anyway). The ears should be as tall as one of the thirds of the face.

The last thing I would mention is that this dead on, orthographic view of the face is one of the least flattering views. It either ends up showing just how asymmetrical a face is, or worse, makes people look like robots.

 

Postby UnorthodoxThing » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:52 am

User avatar
  UnorthodoxThing
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:27 am

I want to thank the critiques given and show my progress. I fear I have problems with values or 'value-sharing'. Any tips on this would help heaps in my studies (I almost have nil knowledge on this).

For the eyes and nose, I know I will just need more practice and studying references. Also, I plan to keep the face neautral, without make-up and front-view for Istakbrak's community challenge I'm engaging on.
practice.jpg
Instagram || ArtStation || Tapas #romanticize

 

Postby Audiazif » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:54 pm

User avatar
  Audiazif
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:38 am

There is improvement from the first post but there is also new issues.
Image
The major problem is that it is straying away from looking like a feminine face. I think the contributing factors were the size of the the head and jaw. Female skulls are generally smaller compared to a male skull. Also the structures, like the jaw, are usually smaller, subtler and rounder. I also thought the nose needed some work. It is kind of bulbous and there is an issue with the nostrils. Like you said you need to practice from reference. When you do practice really pay attention to the sizes of things and the angles. One area in particular is the nostrils, in a front view you really don't see very much of the nostril (they are just tiny slits).

For the values I would go and look at reference. One issue I think is going on is you just don't have the knowledge of where shadows will fall. Another issue is contrast. You need more of it. Personally I punch up core shadows and occlude areas to make more contrast but I am not sure how Istakbrak wants you to do stuff. I think you need to bring in more transitional values and lighten values for things that are closest and darken the things that are farther away.
"Painting is edge hell!"

Deviantart
Sketchbook

 

Postby Josephcow » Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:42 pm

User avatar
  Josephcow
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:46 pm

UnorthodoxThing wrote:I want to thank the critiques given and show my progress. I fear I have problems with values or 'value-sharing'. Any tips on this would help heaps in my studies


Okay, let's talk about that for a second.
What Istebrak calls 'value-sharing' refers to when two planes are the same value, even though they shouldn't be. If you think of everywhere on the face as a plane facing a certain direction. A plane facing UP will never be the same value as a plane facing DOWN. because one is facing the light source, and the other is not. And in this situation a plane facing to the RIGHT will also not be the same as a plane facing FRONT.

Here's what you need to know:
Light and shadow must be thought of as separate. Anything the light source touches is in the light, what it does NOT touch is in the shadow. Furthermore, a plane facing perpendicular to the light will be the lightest, and cannot be the same value as a plane that is NOT perpendicular to the light. So for example the light at the top of the forehead is our brightest because it's facing the light source directly, if you put the same value on the cheeks it would not be right because they aren't directly facing it.

So for this lighting, anything facing in a downward direction should be a value distinctly darker than any plane that is not facing downward. Should you confuse them, the illusion will be broken. How dark? That depends on the other light sources/ambient light.There is no limit to how dark the shadows can be (think of the moon).

Hopefully that helps.
my advice is that the only way you are really going to learn this stuff is if you go and have a look for yourself.
practicepalnes.jpg
practiceover.jpg
Last edited by Josephcow on Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

 

Postby UnorthodoxThing » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:50 pm

User avatar
  UnorthodoxThing
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:27 am

I end using the eyedropping tool to identify how bright several references I've collected. I end up using the '5 value' method.

Audiazif wrote:For the values I would go and look at reference. One issue I think is going on is you just don't have the knowledge of where shadows will fall. Another issue is contrast. You need more of it. Personally I punch up core shadows and occlude areas to make more contrast but I am not sure how Istakbrak wants you to do stuff. I think you need to bring in more transitional values and lighten values for things that are closest and darken the things that are farther away.


Idk why, but I thought asian noses were circular and I kept trying with the gradual shadow result. So far, my references all had light at their face, almost casting all shadow away. (llul bulbous nose,,..) Other than that, behind my head I knew the female size proportions compared to male (skull relative). I don't think I've applied the concept enough. I didn't know jawlines were rounder. I remember searching for 'v-shape' chins.

Josephcow wrote:Here's what you need to know:
Light and shadow must be thought of as separate. Anything the light source touches is in the light, what it does NOT touch is in the shadow. Furthermore, a plane facing perpendicular to the light will be the lightest, and cannot be the same value as a plane that is NOT perpendicular to the light. So for example the light at the top of the forehead is our brightest because it's facing the light source directly, if you put the same value on the cheeks it would not be right because they aren't directly facing it.

So for this lighting, anything facing in a downward direction should be a value distinctly darker than any plane that is not facing downward. Should you confuse them, the illusion will be broken. How dark? That depends on the other light sources/ambient light.There is no limit to how dark the shadows can be (think of the moon).

Hopefully that helps.

Thank you so much for this info. (I would've died inside without knowing this fundamental.) :o In the image, I kept thinking "light is gonna bounce to the wall and back to the face and the shadow will be minus-ed!". I'm gonna stick with non-reflective walls, or just pretend there isn't atm.

Josephcow wrote:Additionally, I need to repeat that you should beware of how you are learning from Istebrak. She teaches not only a strict canon of proportions, but a procedure of how to paint every piece of the head. But is she teaching you anatomy or is she just teaching you more symbols? Istebrak's heart is in the right place, but this is where I think she has made a grave error as an educator. I became wary of this myself when I watched her videos one day and then looked in the mirror and noticed that
a) i do not have a donut on my forehead
b) there is no connecting light from my cheekbones to my lips
c) my skin is not shiny.
d) my mouth doesn't look like I'm sucking on a lemon. :mrgreen:

So the conclusion is either my actual, living, god-given, corporeal form is wrong or Istebrak is wrong (or I'm just ugly, that's totally fair). I'll let you decide. But my advice is that the only way you are really going to learn this stuff is if you go and have a look for yourself.


I've thought about whether she was teaching symbols or anatomy before I started the challenge. I've concluded, I needed a foundation. And Beauty tropes was a theme very easy to access (research) and define.

haha I haven't seen the donut video yet. For b) I'm not sure if I'm wary of that. c) I thought people skin were just oily to summarize shiny-ness? ah, I realised for d) I have to be careful of this one lul. Can I blame my lack of visual library for this?
Instagram || ArtStation || Tapas #romanticize


Return to Critique This!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests