DrawWithMike.net

I'm posting a picture here for the first time and I'm happy about any critique . I'm a beginner without a drawing course, just Youtube videos and recently Mike's book .

Materials used: wood-cased pencils (Faber Castell 2H, HB, 2B), Polychronos black (for the darks on the bird), kneaded eraser, graphite powder with colour-shaper (blurry background). Paper: Derwent Watercolor 300 g/m2 white.

The challenge with this photo was to put the bird in the center so that the blurry background doesn't compete with the magpie. I don't think I've succeeded. On the bird, the feathers presented a challenge, as did the white part of the body.
I didn't do badly with the head with the beak and the eyes. In any case, I myself have the feeling that the eye has life.
But there is something that irritates me about this drawing and I don't know exactly what it is. Is it the lack of range of values? Are the shadows cast partially wrong?

Help will be very appreciated.

I think you did beautifully with the magpie, especially the head. Very well done!!

On the head your strokes follow the direction the feathers lay. That gives it a sense of realism. On the breast however your pencil strokes cross each other quite a bit. This gives the appearance of a rougher texture. I think you’ll find that if you give this area the same attention as you did to the head, it will appear softer and more rounded.

The tree branch itself is well textured. It would benefit from some stronger shadows at the top and bottom edges to indicate roundness and to reflect the light direction you’ve established on the head feathers.

Overall this is a lovely piece and a well thought out composition. I’m looking forward to seeing more of your work!

Hi Laurene, thank you so much for your thoughts. I will take them into my consideration, very helpful!

I'm very pleased with this beautiful drawing.
You did care to draw it precisely with great ammount of realism...
I do appreciate the way you managed to capture the smart look of the eye...
The way the bird is looking at something, makes me believe it's intrigued by some THING - and it's concidering what he's looking at (sorry if my writing doesn't making exact sense of what I want to describe )...
Very well done!
Laurene has already gave you some great advice, and I would just add, that pushing some dark values at the bottom of your drawing, may improve the whole art even more

Hi Pog, thank you so much for this wonderful compliment - and I know exactly what you wanted do describe. Yes, the values at the bottom are far too light. Furthermore in my opinion the rather simple drawing of the leaves competes with the bird and misleads the eye.

Gimpy72 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:47 am Furthermore in my opinion the rather simple drawing of the leaves competes with the bird and misleads the eye.

I wouldn't bother too much regarding the surroundings (leaves, branches), as at the end of the story this is just to direct the viewer to the main subject-which in here is your Magpie...
I use to keep the surroundings as simply as yours, as too much details would simply distract from the bird- but it wouldn't be wrong at all -if you commited to make the drawing enjoyable from edge to edge

Well, that's good to keep in mind. I often struggle with the background because I often want to set everything perfectly and then fail with a background that I want to make too perfect. I'll try to keep the background simple yet carefully drawn. I think that's a good way for me at the moment. So I can concentrate on the essentials. Thanks.

Just imagine the portrait photography or such photo art...
The FOCUS is set on the face - isn't it?
The rest part of the photo is just a *filler, usually blurred part of the photograph...
It's meant to be like this, to direct the viewer's eyes to the MAIN subject...
I might be wrong, but lets imagine you're spending your priceless time to express the bird (for example bird), you working long hours to draw it precisely, feather by feather, shading, highlighting and creating realistic look ...
Why would you put as much working hours to draw detailed leaves, or grass next to your bird, if your main subject is not the grass...
Do you know I mean?
Lets think of these surrounding elements as it is the FRAME
It's meant to compliment and fulfill your main subject, not to be as detailed - because then, your main art will lose its importance (I think), and by coincident your grass might be better drawn than the bird itself, and the viewer may concider the grass as the main subject of your art
It's just my thoughts, I might be wrong, because everything what I just have said depends of what you want to share to the viewer my friend...
As I mentioned earlier, if your aim is *full body drawing from edge to edge - that's alright too!
You will spent much more time to draw everything equally detailed, but the viewer will enjoy looking at your art much longer, being appreciated for all those tinny details that you've created

Apologies for the delay - I'm battling with the next video... and it’s winning at present

I've returned this, I hope, to something nearer the values of the original - although I have slightly boosted the darks. So, I'll assume this is close. Based on that...

The brilliant white highlight in the eye draws me directly to the Magpie's head. No problems there. Then my eye drops to his chest, and here I agree with Laurene, the criss-cross lines don't suggest feathers. Instead, they're a distraction.

The branch it's standing on is perfectly pitched - it's there, but it doesn't take attention away from the magpie. Lower down, I think the big branch has lost its roundness. It's equally detailed from top to bottom, and it's almost equal in values too. As it's a cylindrical form, it would have received more light on top, and be darker below, as it curving away from us; and the detail would lessen too, because we're no longer looking directly at it. I'd also like to see a few darker values in there to balance the head. The drawing is a little top-heavy at present.

The foliage is OK, in that it doesn't distract.

But there's one thing that really doesn't work for me, and that's the background. Using graphite powder seems like a good idea, but it needs to be smoothly applied. Here, it's patchy. And the patches have edges. For example, in the top-right corner, there's a light halo around the branch (around the Magpie too). And to the right of the branch is a darker patch that doesn't connect in any way to the left-hand side. The result is that the background appears to be a roughly plastered wall... just behind the bird. But I think you intended it to look far away in the distance?

If you want to try that again (advice here from someone who's never used graphite powder ) is to cover the whole of the background first. Try to steer clear of any area that has to be white, such as the Magpie's chest, but you should be able to lift the graphite out after applying it.

The nearest technique I use is to shade skies very lightly with 2H and then, again lightly, blend it. I apply that over everything, but I can see my guidelines through it, so it's easy to lift out areas that shouldn't be toned down. But it does ensure a very even coverage over the entire area.

But all that said, it's a magnificent Magpie!

Thank you Mike for your valuable and detailed advice. I chose the graphite powder because of the blurry black ground in the photo I used. I thought applying it with a small makeup brush would result in a blurry background. It was another try with graphite powder. I've never perceived it as looking blotchy, rather than what I actually wanted to portray. Important feedback for me. Thanks. Now that you bring it up so directly, I see it too. I should probably also stay away from graphite powder and try a different technique.

It's the first time I've made a drawing based on a coloured photograph. Before, I always converted the photos to black and white first.
It's a big challenge for me at the moment. It takes practice to see the dark tones, mid-tones and light tones in colour ed photos, but as you always say: A drawing is your interpretation. I like this approach and I'm keep going.