WIP Black Tailed Deer

[JayS]

I had just finished Mike's video lesson on negative drawing when I was thinking about this. Then came Mike's comments about my owl and the importance of using all three levels of value in my composition. The Black Tail Bucks seem an ideal opportunity to try to improve in these areas.
The Bucks are drawn on Cranston drawing paper 90 lbs. It is a good heavy stock and seems to take graphite really well. Saturation is much darker than Strathmore professional plate 500 series. It has a softer feel to me as well.
I'm using Staedtler/Mars leads 5B, 2B, HB, H and 2H. Given the overlap between grades I think I could use only 5B, HB, F and 2H. maybe even go to a 6H.
I have at least one more layer on the background to darken some of the right sides of the trees. The light is coming from the left but the huge redwood shows darker in the reference on the right side. I may have to lighten some of the dark trunks on the left.
The big issue is going to be the grass. More negative drawing. Want to put darks in the foreground and lighten as I move toward the trees in back. For a forest meadow this grass is kind of short. Makes for a lot of it.

[Laurene]

These are subjects that I love! The heads are very well rendered as are the antlers (still in velvet I believe).

My only observation concerns the front deer’s shoulder. The shoulder blade area is normally quite flat. Also I realize that you’re just getting started but right now I can’t really make out what those spherical structures in the back tree line are but they’re pulling my eye away from the deer..

I love this world that you’re creating and I’m looking forward to following along!

[JayS]

Lauren, Your comment about the shoulder is right on. I think that the white line ringing the neck is creating a wrong impression. The spherical objects are a vine like growth that is climbing up the trees.

The light is weird in the drawing. The reference shows the light coming from the left. So I've got it backwards. I don't know how I got it turned around?
When I took this picture a doe and fawn ran out of the picture. I'd never seen a fawn that small. Almost rabbit size.

[LindasPencils]

This is a striking and impressive work. I like the stark contrast between the white and the deer - I realize you want to do more work here but be careful to keep a good variation in tonal contrast.

[JayS]

Linda, In consideration of your comment about tonal contrast...I've added a layer to the background and started the grass in the foreground. After looking at the background I wanted to increase the tonal variation and especially increase the contrast with the large tree in the center. As I work the grass I intend to keep darker values in the foreground and use a gradation to lighter values in the back. I'm hoping that this will increase the depth of the drawing.

The chest of the deer in the foreground looks a little weird yet. Need to make adjustments there.

[JayS]

Mike I watched Shadows and Light several times. I then outlined the content to capture what I think are the principles you talk about in your video. In this WIP I decided to try to directly apply your lessons. First, let me say that your explanation is the best I've encountered. It is simple, clear and concise. So the question is can I apply your lesson to my work. Consider the reference photo. The differences between what the camera sees and what the eye sees are clear in the reference. There are burned out highlights, Shadows are too dark and detail is missing. The eye constantly refocuses and adjusts to light and shadow and the photo doesn't. It has areas that are out of focus.

[JayS]

Understand where the light source is. The reference was taken at 2:21 pm, Friday afternoon, in early June. So the sun is about 2:30 high in the sky. This makes for short shadows. The sun was also to the left side of the trees and deer.
Instead of looking from the light source down, look up. Determine whether or not the point of your pencil can see light or no light. This insight, for me was huge. It literally transformed the way I was looking at the shadows. This point of view also gives the freedom to exaggerate or enhance the image in (hopefully) positive ways. You state that shadows provide: depth and recession, 3 dimensional form, define distance between elements, and tell the position of the sun in the sky. These considerations are big considerations in looking at the forest in the background. There is a lot more to do here. But it helped me emphasize the large tree as a compositional element. The shadow of the forest on the grass helps divide areas within the composition. I also see the grass as a major challenge. It feels too dark to me in the middle ground. I think there is a lot more work to do.
Another wonderful insight is the concept of including shadows that tell the story and eliminating details that add confusion. I hope my work is showing that I'm learning from your teaching.

[JayS]

Progress?

[Mike Sibley]

There are a couple of things that bother me, Jay, although much of it is looking really good.

There's no recession is grass, so it's vying for attention. I suggest you at least dull the light content as the grass recedes. The deer, being sharper and with more contrast, should then stand out from it.

Also, your grass INCREASES in size with depth. Although I think that's probably due to the background grass having no depth. It’s either pale foreground or dark background. Dull that down, and I think it will cease to be a problem.

Love the deer, but at present the grass is attracting me more.

[Mike Sibley]

Warning: rambling post ahead

Something previously had been bothering me about this... and I think the reason just dawned on me. I couldn't see the background trees as being trees - until you mentioned that's what they are. The Big tree. What big tree?

Now you've reworked that area, it's making much more sense to me. Looking at the reference, I think a healthy helping of artistic licence is needed with that area. Maybe you already used that? Your "trees" appear to be a fence in the reference... I think I don't have a solution, but, personally, I would have discarded the background altogether before I began and substituted something more useful - either from different references or invented.

But, of course, I don't have the emotional connection with the scene that you do.

It's looking much better now - except for the grass I mentioned earlier, and the flowers that are the same size from front to back, which makes the trees appear to be much closer and smaller than they are; and...

The foliage that has replaced those very distracting blobs was an excellent choice, but its values are foreground values. In other words, its very light values have defeated all the depth you had created. And all the leaves are unnaturally the same value (it has no internal depth).

That foliage is not important; it's a "bit player", a "supporting actor" role. I suggest toning it down until the deer begin to dominate it, and then I think you'll achieve a good sense of recession.

JAY-deer.jpg

This is just a quick gradient thrown over the background (not as I feel it should look), but dulling those bright values now gives prominence to the deer.