"First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos

[wayneCol]

Yes, I am planning to finish this as a drawing even though the "exercise" doesn't require it. But I should probably explain my reasoning before I proceed.

First of all, the materials ( paper and that delightful chisel point ) that your method uses are completely new to me. Doing value squares and progressions as exercises is one thing, but the handling while doing a real drawing is another. Plus, I can hear my father and grandfather whispering in my ear "If something is worth doing, its worth doing right!"

Second, doing values and progressions, you don't spend enough time and get sufficient "milage" with your chisel point to really appreciate it. You don't cover enough paper to feel how that point "glides" over the surface of the paper - effortlessly - and leaving behind the most beautiful wide line of even value with SOFT edges that over time and with a little care form a "patch" of tone without white gaps, so you can easily evaluate it's tone. So, doing the dark background of this feather has already paid me tremendous dividends - and I've just scratched the surface of the first beginner lesson - good Lord, I can only imagine what's hiding in the rest of the book!

Third, while a feather might be something that is familiar to many people, I'm a "city boy" born and raised in Toronto. I don't recall in my many years of existance, ever having a feather, holding a feather, or examining a feather. It's completely foreign to me. So if I followed your directions to the letter and drew a feather from my imagination, you and I would end up with an all black page! But I did use my "imagination" and went to google for a photo reference that I liked - image attached. I drew the linear structure of that photo in a 4 x 6 rectangle and filled in the dark background - academic technique starts that way - establish the darkest dark and the lightest light first! My blacks still need a little work to even them out - still a few spots that read "gray" that I want to get rid of, and then clean out the dark "blotches" and even the darkness - that's what I'm planning to do today - just the background, no part of the actual feather.

As for the actual feather, there are a few parts of my drawing that need some subtle corrections - nothing too serious. just small things - for example the central rib in the photo has a slight curve at the bottom that I want to capture. Also, not knowing a damn thing about the structure of a feather has forced me to examine that photo with a magnifying glass. At first I thought the light was coming from the right because of the brightness of that side, but close examination of the (few) cast shadows ( the imperfections at the top of the feather, and the lower part of the central rib ) shows it to be coming from the left. That means that the feather is "saucer-shaped" but very flat and not too deep, the central rib sticks up and catches the light as does the left hand edge of the feather, and the light is at a very low angle and just grazes the feather. There are also parts that turn down away from the light and other areas that turn up into the lights - complicated geometry for such a small object! All this was an eye-opener for me!

I could also see with the magnifying glass the very fine linear structure of the top part, and the fluffy broken-up part at the bottom. This suggested to me, because the textures are so different that they should be done as separate "mini-projects" so I can concentrate on one technique at a time. For the top part, I'm planning to switch to the 0.5mm mechanical pencils or to re-establish a very sharp point on my 2mm clutch holders to do the linear work and then to carefully put in a light layer of value. The reason for the switch to 0.5mm is because the linear structure is so fine and I'm not convinced I can achieve that with the chisel point( your advice would be appreciated ) - maybe I'll try the chisel point on a separate piece of paper first ( mileage again but now with the sharp edge) and see what can be done ( another surprise? ) before actually doing the top part of the feather.

The "broken up, fluffy" parts at the bottom are a cause for concern - truth be told, more like terror! I'm reminded of the hoverfly study you had us start in Ithaca, New York many years ago - think I'll dig out my notes before I tackle the bottom. One thing is certain about the bottom - photo-realism goes out the window and I'll just "wing it" when I get there. Keep the general geometry and structure and "wing" the details - after all this is "my feather".

Anyway, that is my thinking and my plan of attack. As always, your advice would be appreciated ...

wayne.jpg

[wayneCol]

Well I have corrected a few small problems in the drawing and put on another layer of 4B and then layered 2B on top and the blacks read a little better now, ( but I have noticed that the UNI 4B does not get as nice a black as the 6B TomBow MONO ). Later, I'll have to do some experiments to see what combinations of hard over soft (UNI 4B ) work best to darken down the black, For this drawing I won't need too wide a value range, so what I've got now will suffice. I also filled in the "breaks" in the feather and brought the darks up to the edge of the feather ( but only on the top part ). If you follow the lower edge of the bottom break on the rightmost edge inwards to where it meets the central rib, then everything above that point is linear filament-land, and everything below it is TERRORtory. I'll be working in FIlamentLand next.
When I look at FIlament Land closely, I see that the filaments are grouped together sort of like locks of hair, and I'll use that feature to break Filament land into smaller manageable pieces that I'll complete one by one ...

Also, the light direction in this photo is hard if not impossible to determine. For example, the light could be coming from the lower right and what I previously saw as cast shadows could simply be places where the feather turns away from the light. There are NO shadows in this photo that you can say are definitively cast shadows. Very confusing ...

Also in the center of the feather right on the central rib there is a round structure and I can't determine what it is - is it a water droplet, or a deformity in the feather, or ???

Any sage advice before I buy my ticket?

Image-0002.jpg

[Mike Sibley]

...your method uses are completely new to me. Doing value squares and progressions as exercises is one thing, but the handling while doing a real drawing is another. Plus, I can hear my father and grandfather whispering in my ear, "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing right!"

That's why I asked if you intended to complete, because nothing teaches like experience. And I unfortunately agree with your grandfather... that's why the videos take so long to make. Obviously, I can only take them as far as my current abilities extend, but I don't want to fall short of them either. Every video teaches me something new. It's the same with drawing.

...doing values and progressions, you don't... get sufficient "mileage" with your chisel point to really appreciate it... how that point "glides" over the surface of the paper - effortlessly - and leaving behind the most beautiful wide line of even value with SOFT edges that... form a "patch" of tone without white gaps, so you can easily evaluate its tone.

Again, getting real practice is going to help with that. When you first take on a new method, it takes time to train your hand and eye before you can use that method without conscious thought. Drawing the feather will help with that. And it has a wide range of values, too.

...a feather might be something that is familiar to many people, I'm a "city boy" born and raised in Toronto... But I did... google for a photo reference that I liked...

And that’s exactly what I'd do in your situation. Even when I know something well, I often use additional photos. For example, when l'm drawing bricks, I surround my drawing with photos of bricks. Yes, I really am nerdy enough to have a brick photo collection. They're not for copying, but suggesting content. And I might sometimes extract a favoured feature to include in my drawing.

...academic technique starts that way - establish the darkest dark and the lightest light first!

I didn't know that. But it's excellent! I originally worked light to dark, as many artists do. But I quickly discovered the inherent faults - such as having to continually rework everything as the values darken. I discarded it for working dark to light. So now I know my darkest and lightest values right from the start. And all the other values seem to effortlessly fit in between those two.

Also, not knowing a damn thing about the structure of a feather has forced me to examine that photo with a magnifying glass. At first, I thought the light was coming from the right... but close examination... shows it to be coming from the left. That means that the feather is "saucer-shaped" but very flat and not too deep... All this was an eye-opener for me!

If I could give only ever you one piece of advice, that would be it. To explore the subject before you begin, so you draw what you know and not just what you think you can see. The information you're gathering is invaluable!

I could also see with the magnifying glass the very fine linear structure of the top part, and the fluffy broken-up part at the bottom. This suggested to me, because the textures are so different, that they should be done as separate "mini-projects" so I can concentrate on one technique at a time.

Yes - absolutely yes. Well, I should qualify that by saying that's what I would do. I'm not saying it's an official, unbreakable rule. Although it should be

I can't comment on the use of your 0.5 mechanical, because I haven't used one for many many years. I'd just use the edge of my chisel point.

The "broken up, fluffy" parts at the bottom are a cause for concern - truth be told, more like terror! ...One thing is certain about the bottom - photo-realism goes out the window, and I'll just "wing it" when I get there. Keep the general geometry and structure and "wing" the details - after all, this is "my feather".

My advice to go ahead and do exactly as you outlined. Personally, I never aim for "photorealism". I don't see the point - just take a photo. I aim for the feeling of the texture, surface, object, whatever. In this case, I think the feather should be pin sharp. But the fluffy end... nobody expects that to be either sharp or understandable. So keep it loose and just suggest the downy filaments.

It's 10:30pm and time to close the studio for today. I'll tackle the rest tomorrow.

Also in the center of the feather right on the central rib there is a round structure... is it a water droplet, or a deformity in the feather, or ???

Water droplet. No question. If it doesn't add anything to your drawing - your story - omit it.

[wayneCol]

Thanks Mike. My intuition and some of my training seems to be paying off. I have been examining the feather photo very carefully and I can say that the lack of cast shadows in that photo creates a very confused light situation. So after weighting the pros and cons of the three lighting scenarios that could be possible, I have arbitrarily decreed that the situation and geometry of the feather is as pictured in the attached scan.

Image-0003.jpg

I have also been experimenting with my 0.5mm mechanical pencils and have come to the conclusion that they are not appropriate to do the linear shading on this feather - actually it's not the pencils fault, I just do not (yet) have enough experience with them to wield them properly, and I have decided that my time is better spent learning how to use the sharp edge of the chisel point so I don't have to change pencils - just seems more efficient to me. So out comes the clutch holders and a scrap piece of paper and I'll try to get in some mileage with the sharp edge.

Thinking about it, in the top part of the feather I want to do the lines for the filaments first ( and I really need to practice getting evenly spaced straight lines ) and then switch to the flat face of the pencil to do the shading. Is that a sensible approach - to split the work like that and do each area twice, once for linework and a second pass for value?

While I think of it, hatching was not part of my academic training - we used areas of value - so uniform hatching is not something I'm used to. Know of any good exercises to produce good uniform hatching?

[wayneCol]

I did a little experiment today on tracing paper to see if the linear work should be done first and then tone applied or tone first and then linear work. Results attached - tracing paper shows up poorly here and shows some grey streaks that are not present on the paper, and the values are darker than in reality. None the less it is clear to me that linear work first is a better option and also that the guidelines MUST be knocked back significantly or they will control the values that are required - can't have that. It also seems to me that the values have to be very tightly controlled because it is very easy to go too dark- especially if the value is blended, seems to get significantly darker. And it so easy to over blend. Might be better to work up to the value required from lighter values .... but then we're putting soft over hard !!!

This isn't going to be easy, is it? Easy or not, I am learning things and enjoying the ride. There is lots of room for improvement!

Image-0004.jpg

After I posted this I had an epiphany and realized that blending is absolutely NOT required here since I want the linear filaments of the feather to be visible - sometimes I'm a little slow like that (Some would say always!) So blending is out and I'm going to use linear shading - more experiments and trials required.

[Mike Sibley]

Continuation of previous reply:

...I'll have to do some experiments to see what combinations of hard over soft (UNI 4B) work best to darken down the black...

I'm 100% in favour of experimenting. It's the ONLY way you can discover what works for YOU.

I also filled in the "breaks" in the feather and brought the darks up to the edge of the feather (but only on the top part )... and everything below it is TERRORtory. I'll be working in FIlamentLand next... When I look at FIlamentLand closely, I see that the filaments are grouped together sort of like locks of hair, and I'll use that feature to break Filament land into smaller manageable pieces that I'll complete one by one ...

I think you've missed an opportunity. Look closely at your reference, and you'll see those edges are populated by tiny incursions - where it dips into the space between two filaments. You've represented that edge as being a smooth and solid line, rather than having multiple V-shapes.

OK, maybe a straight line will do, and you can always add the V-shaped notches later, and you have included the major notches. But, you could have really nailed and defined that edge NOW. Personally, I would have thought about that edge, and ONLY that edge, as I was drawing around it. Using an HB so gain a really sharp edge. I'd probably look at the reference for inspiration, and then invent my own features. Now, when I draw the filaments, I'll have ready-made ends for them to run into.

Also, the light direction in this photo is hard if not impossible to determine. For example, the light could be coming from the lower right and...

Now that is a VERY interesting question. And as soon as you asked it, I immediately saw your feather in a whole new light. I assumed the feather was convex and the light was coming from the right. But I've just realised it's probably the reverse. I think the feather is laying on its "back". It's CONCAVE with the light shining from the left; and now I understand why that water droplet hasn't run off. It's sat in the bottom of the concave bowl.

Now, that said, you can still use this reference as though it IS Convex. You're about to create your own world that doesn't necessarily comply with the world the feather came from.

[Mike Sibley]

My intuition and some of my training seems to be paying off. I have been examining the feather photo very carefully... [and] I have arbitrarily decreed that the situation and geometry of the feather is as pictured in the attached scan.

When I run workshops, I often use a silhouette of little Maisie...

SILHOUETTE-Maisie.jpg

Look at her head. Is she looking towards you or away? Which ever you decide, the opposite is also true. It's the same silhouette either way. If you look at it long enough, you can see it either way, too.

So I think your feather is on its back and CONCAVE, but (ignoring the water droplet) it could equally be facing up and CONVEX - which is how you see it. So, on that basis, I agree with your findings.

Thinking about it, in the top part of the feather I want to do the lines for the filaments first... and then switch to the flat face of the pencil to do the shading. Is that a sensible approach - to split the work like that and do each area twice, once for linework and a second pass for value?

In my view, that's the perfect approach. DETAIL (line) first, then three-dimensional SHADING (flat-face) on top. It cuts out the confusion caused by trying to understand and draw the two elements at the same time. And I think you only need to create the illusion of filaments - hints of line. Go for the FEEL rather than tight detail. Personally, I'd use 2H for those areas. Possibly a hint of HB for the darker filaments, but I think 2H would do the entire job - and prevent you from accidentally drawing too dark.

...hatching was not part of my academic training - we used areas of value - so uniform hatching is not something I'm used to. Know of any good exercises to produce good uniform hatching?

No, but just use the flat face lightly, with no gaps, and the lines should flow into each other. If you do leave a gap and need to remove it, shade back over that at area BUT look at the gap as you shade, NOT the lines you're drawing. Just watch that gap disappear as you shade, and you'll precisely know when to stop. Doing the reverse - trying to make your shading match the adjacent values - is fraught with problems. Just look at the gap and watch it fade out.

[Mike Sibley]

I did a little experiment today... to see if the linear work should be done first and then tone applied or tone first and then linear work... it is clear to me that linear work first is a better option and also that the guidelines MUST be knocked back significantly, or they will control the values that are required - can't have that.

First, I ALWAYS Blu-Tack (kneadable eraser) my guidelines back to mere shadows before working on any area. As you said, that's essential. And I think you need line first, because that defines the boundaries of the shading. You could shade over that area first, but now you've dulled any potential highlights, because you don't yet know where they might appear. I try very hard to NEVER apply graphite where I don't KNOW it belongs. That preservers my pristine whites at all times.

It also seems to me that the values have to be very tightly controlled because it is very easy to go too dark- especially if the value is blended...

Blended? BLENDED!? BLENDED!!!??? Why? You've just established crisp lines separating the filaments, so why soften them? I can understand a little VERY LIGHT blending of the shading (if absolutely necessary) but not the line work.

Hang on while I go and lie down in a darkened room for a while.............. OK, I'm better now.

Might be better to work up to the value required from lighter values .... but then we're putting soft over hard !!!

Not necessarily. I would use 2H for the body of the feather - possibly with a little light HB under the darker areas before shading - but I could start light and gradually add more layers of 2H until it looked the way I imagined it. And if I go too far (I can ship Blu-Tack to the Philippines - just saying ) I just lightly brush it with Blu-Tack to lighten it again.

This isn't going to be easy, is it?

Just break it down and it will become easy. Even the filaments can be broken down into manageable sections. If, for example, you had invented notches in the outer edge, you'd now have 'ends' to connect your filaments to. So, you might decide to only draw, and concentrate on, from "this notch here" to another six notches away. And you're only drawing line, so you can ignore the three-dimensional shaping.

After I posted this, I had an epiphany and realized that blending is absolutely NOT required here since I want the linear filaments of the feather to be visible...

Pheeeeeew! I get to sleep tonight. That's wonderful!

Right, I'm off to Drawspace to critique a "wavy locks of hair" exercise.

[wayneCol]

You are absolutely right! I missed the opportunity to "notch" the edges of the feather when I brought the dark up to the edge of the feather and in my experiments with hatching I discovered that. And to make matters worse all the attempts I tried (on scrap paper) to add the notches after the hatching really look "artificial".

I need to do an experiment to see if I can notch the edges now before I do the linear shading - that might work. If not, I have sort of resigned myself to not completely spoiling the drawing by leaving the top of the feather "hard edged" and chalk it up to a "learning exercise" - trust me, I won't make that mistake again! But it does drive home the lesson that "Drawings are PLANNED!" and not spontaneous ( the execution can be spontaneous but only after you know the sequence of steps ). I also realized that edges, positive space and negative space are equally important. In academic drawing, you only work on the edge quality after the NOTAN stage.

You're also right about the "water droplet", if indeed that is what it is - it's the give-away that the feather is "on it's back". So, I'll reverse my decree about the feather geometry and go back to my original assessment - grazing light from the left and ignore the droplet. The lack of cast shadows makes sense in a "grazing light" situation.

Now to try "notching" the edge ...

[Mike Sibley]

But it does drive home the lesson that "Drawings are PLANNED!" and not spontaneous (the execution can be spontaneous, but only after you know the sequence of steps).

Not so much planned - I like spontaneity. I think it has more to do with dividing any drawing up. Here, in this feather, the edge might be seen, or assumed, to be straight. But when that edge is the ONLY element being considered - and, with practice, becomes "the edge of a feather" and not just an edge in a drawing - then "straight" really doesn't seem either natural or logical. Certainly some damage must have occurred at some time? It would surely be unusual for a feather to not unzip its filaments in at least one or two places? So, enjoy yourself and invent the edge you'd expect to see.

But you aren't familiar with feathers, and this is an exercise, so seeing it as a "drawing" is to be expected. But, later, you'll find yourself applying Nature to all sorts of subjects.

Also - I'm certain you've already discovered this over the years - the more you draw, the more you see and absorb from the world around you.

I collect things - like feathers, and rocks, bits of weathered wood, shells...... Yesterday I found three Giant Water Beetles dead in our pond - so they'll be joining my little collection soon.

And talking of feathers - I know we're looking at the underside of your feather, because the quill is always more prominent on that side. It's almost, but not quite, flat on top. But don't let that stop you "turning it over", because everyone will see it the way you present it. If you, and your lighting and cast shadows, say it's face-side-up, then that's the way we'll understand it to be.