BUTTERFLY PROJECT - Try it yourself

[Shmush]

I didn’t mention it before but for some reason my sample posted larger than the original which really shows every flaw. So far my attempts at sharp edges just aren’t really sharp. I think part of my problem is because once created I fiddle with it using blu-tac (sp?). I also did try having some partially shaded sections of leaves. I suspect my problem there is I don’t yet have the visual image of “leaves in the shade”. I also haven’t gotten the hang of how to have sharp detail while also having variation in value. Now that I have tried I’m back to watching several of your related videos as well as studying your butterfly picture and other related pictures in your book!

[Mike Sibley]

So far, my attempts at sharp edges just aren’t really sharp. I think part of my problem is because once created, I fiddle with it using blu-tack...

Well, even if you use Blu-Tack, go back in and sharpen the edges. That doesn't just make a huge difference, it's essential.

Imagine you've created the black background around a white shape. Then you decide to darken that shape, and then darken it further to push it far back into the background. If that shape has soft edges, it will appear to be a lighter patch, or something slightly lighter that's out of focus.

But if that shape has sharp edges, no matter how deep into the background it's pushed, it will remain readable as a distinct shape.

[Shmush]

Second (actually third) attempt -deep shadows
I tried reworking my original sample, better, but not by much. I was mentally heading down a negative path -“I will never be able to do this.” A counter thought came to me. Mike being able to do it shows it IS humanly possible. It will take time. Likely, A LOT OF TIME, however, Mike shows it CAN be done. So instead of saying “I can’t”, I started analyzing why it wasn’t working and what to do about it.
The first change was my paper. This time I used Conqueror Diamond White -What a difference quality paper makes!!!
I also evaluated my mental approach. I am including some of my thoughts; perhaps it will be beneficial to others.
First, Take my time. It is okay to take as long as necessary to draw even the smallest section. If it took Mike 22 hours to create his picture, it is more than reasonable to think it will take me much longer, since I am just learning.
I also revisited something I mentioned in an earlier post. Since I don’t “get it”, breaking the process into smaller steps may be useful (it sure helps when training my dogs). I realized I was trying to learn all aspects of this technique at one time. For where I am on the learning continuum, thinking about variation of values, composition, realism and possibly some aspects I’m forgetting to mention is way more than my little ole brain can handle at one time. I decided to focus on two things – 1) getting as solid a dark background as I can. 2) also, SHARP EDGES for any included shape (started by drawing the dark background around the shape, then shading in the shape). If I end up with some of these other details, great, but attempting all at once had become a stumbling block.
I realized one obvious mistake right away – On an unconscious level I was thinking white paper showing was necessary to create highlights. Duh…not helpful to include my lightest value when creating distinct shapes in deep shadows.
A mechanical aspect which I find helpful when outlining or shading tiny areas - a .5 mm 2B mechanical pencil (Even for this tiny point I create the angled flat pencil point Mike suggests) This might just be “training wheels” but thought I’d mention it in case it would be helpful for someone else.
I also started using protective vellum sheets under both of my hands. Rather than taping my work down I like to have it free float so I can move it around for the best drawing angle, since I work on smooth glass I have to hold it down with my non drawing hand which then causes smearing, hence the use of the second protective sheet.
Looking at this on line I see I am not getting smooth darks. I am using 2B then HB over it. I am not always drawing in tight small circles, could that be the problem? Any other suggestions?

background butterfly011.jpg

[Mike Sibley]

That was a lovely breakdown - and with lots of helpful information too.

First, I suspect there's quite a lot of glare bouncing off your darks, so I've tried to correct that a bit, which leaves us with sharp-edged leaves, which is good. But they're all the same value. That doesn't suggest depth - other than a single layer. So, before I go for a haircut, I'll play with part of it for while

Having begun by making some of the black areas more solid (which I think is due to glare, not inconsistent shading) I just tried to add what I thought I might see if I was looking at it in real life. And changing some of the flat shapes into more three-dimensional ones. Also I think you might be over-thinking it. Try to just create what you'd expect to see.

MARY-butterfly-leaves004.jpg

A: The starting point (blacks a little more solid)

B: Area 1 is slightly darker than 2 and 3, but overall there's one layer of depth (not including the foreground).

C: Area 1 is now on an inclined plane, or in the shade of the lower left foreground leaf - its right-hand end is a little brighter; its left-hand end disappears into the darkness. Area 3 is definitely now behind Area 2, creating at least two layers of depth.

D: Is the same as C with the addition of background stalks and part of a leaf. And I slightly altered the highlighting of the lower edge of 1. The additions are behind Areas 1,2, and 3 - creating three or even four layers of depth.

All edges are sharp. I could push the stalks even further back, and they'd still be visible.

Those solid background blacks tell us "this is the absolute background". So we understand everything else to be further forwards. And, of course, the darker those black holes are, the deeper we can push anything into the shade, and you can create more layers of depth.

Personally, I enjoy inventing shapes in these dark, shady areas. And, my intention is that those shapes don't attract attention... but, if you look into an area you'll see them, and see that the depth goes on and on - just like in life.

Now, you might be thinking, "but these are just leaves. All this depth creation isn't really necessary"... but, once you get your head around the creation of layers of depth. You can apply it to anything, such as hair. You use the foreground to tell us what the subject is; then use the midground and background to show it has depth. Not depth you can necessarily understand, but little in depth is fully understandable in Nature.

[Shmush]

Thank you, Mike,
I had to study this several times to absorb what you are illustrating, Now I have to figure out how to make it happen. The more I attempt this project the longer I know it will take. Then again, when I rewatched this video AGAIN, I noticed I had the time it took you to do this picture wrong. I had said in a previous post 22 hours, but I see it actually took YOU 38 hours!! Of course it will take me a long time!

[Mike Sibley]

I had to study this several times to absorb what you are illustrating, Now I have to figure out how to make it happen.

First, make sure your background blacks are both black and solid. That - maximum contrast - will give you the greatest freedom to create depth. And, because the background blacks contain no features at all, they'll be read as the extreme background.

Second, black holes should not be large. By that I mean, a hole will reach a size where you really do expect to see something cross over it, or dip into it. Large black holes in foliage are not natural. At any time, you can take your Blu-Tack (or a kneadable eraser) and cut shapes into the black. In fact, that can often produce very realistic results - results that you might not have consciously created.

The more I attempt this project, the longer I know it will take. Then again, when I rewatched this video AGAIN, I noticed I had the time it took you to do this picture wrong. I had said in a previous post 22 hours, but I see it actually took YOU 38 hours!!

It took 38 hours because that was the time required. I'm not suggesting you're time-obsessed but... don't obsess over time. Taking longer might simply result in over-working the drawing. Taking less time might mean you draw more quickly than I do. The only rule is: don't take shortcuts.

[Shmush]

I do tend to over think. A saying I put on one of my sweatshirts says it all - "hold on, while I overthink this". That being said, I also tend to work slowly and have a tendency to think that is "wrong". I mention your time as a way of telling myself it is okay IF it does takes me a long time. It is the process which counts, not the time factor. Right now I am seeing the picture as yours, I haven't become mentally involved with the scene, which leaves me without a personal frame of reference.

I think I might do one or even several less involved pictures of my choosing while I try to make friends with this project.