JayS wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 7:01 pm
I have a couple of concerns. First, I don't seem to get the darkest blacks from a 2B. Certainly, a 5B is darker. But I wonder if the darkness comes with layering?
I think the paper has a lot to do with what you can achieve with a 2B. The Conqueror Diamond White I work on is very smooth and difficult to damage, so I can (and often do) use a lot of pressure. I can obtain all the darks I need with a 2B, so I don't use anything softer. That's partly because I find the softer grades to be too grainy. So, if your 5B works well for you, use it. And if it looks black but grainy, then layer it with 2B or HB to burnish it.
Second... it is divided into many small areas. Some of the areas are separated by thick dark lines of many hairs, and some are hardly noticeable. I'm trying to blend these smaller areas into a larger whole by being certain that the hair is all headed in the same direction. Layering seems to help join different areas together.
That's along the lines of what I was trying to explain. By no means am I saying that my way is the only way or even the best way. The best way is the one that works for you.
Hairs growing in the same direction is the major feature. There's an area in the middle of the back that immediately grabbed my attention. It looks 100% hairy! The hairs appear to be longer than I might expect, but I really don't think that matters. They are all growing in the same direction, and spring from darker roots - and that's all I need to know to understand it.
Third, I'm sometimes getting lost in the complexity of the small areas and struggling to find the larger area that the small area fits within. The tail is an example where the part is clearly defined by dark hair at the edges, and toward the tip the edge is poorly defined. I'm trying to solve this problem by spending a lot of time looking at the reference to see where the tail really goes and where the dimension of the shoulder joins the neck...
Personally, I think that's the ideal way to tackle it. You're taking time to understand every area before you begin to draw it. That understanding will carry over to the viewers of the drawing. They might not be aware of it (and probably won't be) but subconsciously they'll see it as being
natural.
I'm going to add a caveat here, which might not make much sense right now. When you begin to work this way, you inevitably become focused on detail. Later, once you become used to it, you'll learn which detail to emphasise and which to play down. But you have to go through the first stage to reach the second.
Sometimes this is defined by line, but often by the musculature and curve of the body...
That's a good point, because ultimately it's the hair, and only the hair, that is describing the form beneath it. We instinctively read the highlights and shadows to gain that three-dimensional information.
Previously, I felt you were seeing the three-dimensional form and trying to make it look hairy. But that's the reverse of what we experience.
...there are also areas where the differences are defined by the value differences within the hair. And finally, there are areas where the short hair is almost non-existent adjoining long hair areas.
Value differences might be describing the form, so it's worth asking yourself why that value change has occurred. And showing the differences between short and long hair adds to the viewer's experience - can they run their fingers through it? Or does the short hair "feel" spiky or soft? Again, it all adds to the natural feel of the drawing.
It all needs sorting (an English expression, I'm told).
I suppose it is... I hadn't thought of that.
Yes, it needs sorting. But slowly and carefully. Don't let your concentration and standards drop because it only takes one quickly drawn rough approximation to drag the rest of the drawing down to its level.
But I'll return to that.