DrawWithMike.net

PogArtTi wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2024 9:42 pm That's the lesson of how important even subtle things are, and how much they can change...

So true!! I love your comment about the importance of subtle things and how much they can change!!! You are wise!

That use of the measurement line... The two Muskox are so close that perspective doesn't really play a noticeable part. So, sizing visually makes more sense. As does applying logic.

But I'd add measurement tovisual whenever possible. In this case, I used the distance between the eyes as a comparative guide to size.

Many years ago I saw a delightful drawing of Mastiffs arranged on a set of stone steps. But the drawing was ruined by the wild inaccuracy of the dogs' sizes that, compared to the steps, were far too small.

Taking those steps as an example, they have one known constant that we can use - the height of the riser. Stairs in your house most probably have 9" (23cm) wide treads, and 9" (23cm) risers. However, decorative stone steps might have wide treads, but I can almost guarantee the risers will still be 9" high. Bear with me for a moment...

The treads can be any depth. It doesn't matter if you have to step up and take a couple of steps before stepping up again. But no step is going to have, say, a 12" (30cm) riser, or greater. Because climbing up steps of the height is awkward and tiresome.

So that artist could have compared the height of his steps against the published breed standard height of that type of dog.

As long there is something man-made within your scene, you can almost always take measurements from it to resize other imported elements.

Now, while I'm on a roll... notice also that your drawing does not contain anything recognisable at all. Just the two Muskox - or Muskoxen? What is the plural? And I think that's one reason why the use of perspective was rendered almost unusable. Our only clue to scale is the two Muskox. So, we're forced to compare one to the other to ascertain their relative sizes. And, because one is noticeably smaller, that's probably why it appears to be younger.

Artistically, I do prefer the one I drew with the left one appearing much smaller

Good. That's all that matters. And, as you explained that the male is physically 20% larger than the female, it all makes perfect sense.

Mike Sibley wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2024 12:20 pm
So that artist could have compared the height of his steps against the published breed standard height of that type of dog.

As long there is something man-made within your scene, you can almost always take measurements from it to resize other imported elements.
Our only clue to scale is the two Muskox. So, we're forced to compare one to the other to ascertain their relative sizes. And, because one is noticeably smaller, that's probably why it appears to be younger.

Hi Mike,
I really appreciate you taking the time to make these thorough explanations. I am so analytical and want the linear perspective to make sense. However, you make such an excellent point about not having anything man-made to use as a sizing reference. I can see how that results in us comparing one muskox to another which results in one appearing smaller. I see how using measurement with visual sizing whenever possible is important (as you did with the measurement between the eyes).

I can visualize the problem you saw with your example of the Mastiffs and the steps and how using known measurements would have prevented the inaccuracies you saw in the drawing. So unfortunate the artist didn't do that.

Thanks again for all your help in understanding perspective in this drawing. This has been very helpful!!
(Also, I think you are right that the plural of muskox is muskoxen

kwheller wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 1:00 pm Several times you have made a final comment on artwork I have posted and I read it and you always bring a smile to my face (even if I forgot to respond). Happy New Year!

It’s very kind of you THANK YOU
HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!
In my case not respondingto yours or any other posts in this forum is elsewhere…
I have a bug somewhere on my device, hidden within the apps?
It’s blocking me off posting…
It does block randomly, so I never know when it might happen
This website can see my account as a spam!
For some weird reason it is the only website does it to my account
I have a way around the issue - whatever I’m writing - I’m making a copy, and saving as a messenger message…
Next day I’m trying to copy/paste in here back again
If works that’s great, if not, I’m keep trying later
It’s funny sometimes though, because for example I can write the full message and post it, butafter successfully posted, the photo upload is blocked off??
Once our Mike has had posted reply to my post asking - if I’ve forgotten to upload the photo?
Lol - I haven’t!
I was blocked off
Best wishes to you, and keep drawing your amazing artworks which is always enjoyable !
Art.

Hi all,
I want to thank everyone for their comments. Mike yours was very helpful, as always. I have attached the finished artwork. I did make the second muskox a female since they are smaller. Of course, knowing me, I will probably go back in 6 months or so and make changes

I think this is perfectly, and unmistakably, telling your story.

The size difference - given their closeness - can only be size and not recession. I don't even have to know the females are smaller, because your smaller Muskox has a lovely soft feminine expression - where the male looks friendly but more alert. That they're a pair is, to me, plainly obvious.

And all that snow is making me feel cold!

Mike Sibley wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2024 8:03 pm The size difference - given their closeness - can only be size and not recession. I don't even have to know the females are smaller, because your smaller Muskox has a lovely soft feminine expression - where the male looks friendly but more alert.

Yes, I think it does tell the story and it is definitely not recession. I appreciate how you see the smaller Muskox as female based on the difference of expression from the male.
Thanks for your help with this. It was a fun piece to do with snow! Brrrr!!

When I saw your muskox all I could do was grin! Seeing them is great fun. Snow can look like sand. However, snow is smoother than sand. For me the issue is really one of dimension. Where are the shadows in the snow? Are their hoofprints that can add to the image of snow? Sand flows snow stays in shape until the wind drifts it. more definition of the drifts and different size drifts would, I think, help. To get this definition I think of Mike's lessons on negative drawing and wonder where the shadows are? Shadows would help the oxes too.

The problem with the size is the choice of the vanishing point. If that would be further - a lot further - to the left then the bull on the left side would also grow in size. A vanishing point is not always useful in landscape and nature. Whereas when drawing buildings it is a must. As Mike said it is better to draw the size you see as we don't know the true size of the left bull. That was my two cents.

Scribbler wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 7:54 pm A vanishing point is not always useful in landscape and nature. Whereas when drawing buildings it is a must. As Mike said it is better to draw the size you see as we don't know the true size of the left bull.

I wasn't going to go into that... because I can't get my head around it.

I think what's wrong is the use of perspective at all. Or, at the very least, positioning of the VP (vanishing point). The horizon makes sense. It IS at the eye-level of the Muskox. It's also at our, the viewer's, eye-level. As the Muskox appear to have been photographed from low down at their own eye-level, that all makes sense.

But I cannot understand the position of the VP, which appears to be randomly chosen. If, as you suggest, the VP is moved far to the left, perspective will have minimal effect on the left-hand Muskox. And if we move it much closer to them... Now it has a greatly magnified effect. However, the only way I can see this perspective construct being useful is if you had a third (or more) Muskox to add in a straight line. Because now we visually understand the recession, and anything new has to conform to it. And here, the first two Muskox determine the exact position of the VP. Yes? Or no? I still think you need to use VISUAL resizing in the case of the two Muskox, but I could be wrong.

Any thoughts, anyone? Can perspective really play a part here?