another of the Elk series

[rideum51]

rideum-6.jpg

The most pressing question is why can't I get this to display properly, it's on it's side. This is the beginning of another of the Elk series only this time rather than starting with the subject I'm staring with what is to me most difficult the background and foreground.
BTW I've tried turning it before adding it, didn't work.

IMAGE FIXED - apologies for the delay

[PogArtTi]

I can't wait to see more !!!

[LindasPencils]

BTW I've tried turning it before adding it, didn't work.

something to do with the pixels - should it be something like 600 x 400 pixels ? to indicate horizontal?

no matter, it is going to be another great work. I love Elk - we had great fun watching the tourists and the elk at Yellowstone - the ranger was frantically trying to shoo off the tourists but the elk took matters into his own hands, err, antlers, and charged a few. lol. no one hurt, but some wiser tourists!

[rideum51]

Mike, help, how do I get it to display correctly. this happened once before. As I recall you switched it as your neck was hurting looking sideways

[Mike Sibley]

Mike, help, how do I get it to display correctly. This happened once before. As I recall you switched it as your neck was hurting looking sideways

FIXED! That happened to me once, too, and I don't have a clear answer. I discovered that if the thumbnail (on a PC) is portrait, then it will post as portrait, even if the image when opened is landscape. If you're using a PC and just "list" images in the folder, try switching it to VIEW > LARGE ICONS, so you see the actual images. If it's portrait, open it (rotate it if necessary) and resave it back to itself. Back in the folder, hit F5 to refresh it. If the thumbnail is now landscape, post it, and it will be displayed as landscape.

In this case, I copied your image, rotated it, and saved it back over itself before editing it back into your post.

I'm loving the work that's gone into this so far! MORE, please!

[rideum51]

rideum-6b.jpg

When the negative work is done, only the subject will remain. Interesting, but I now find myself spending more time on the things I would tend to rush through before. Not there yet, but getting better, slowly.

Mike I did what you suggested, unfortunately it didn't work. Will need your expertise again to turn it around. (DONE! Admin)

[PogArtTi]

Interesting but I now find myself spending more time on the things I would tend to rush through before. Not there yet but getting better, slowly.

I'm following!

[Mike Sibley]

rideum-6b.jpg
...but I now find myself spending more time on the things I would tend to rush through before. Not there yet, but getting better, slowly.

And mighty fine it's looking, too.

I've probably mentioned this before, but, regarding rushing... I always tell myself, "Do you really want to lower the quality of the work done so far by rushing through this part?" Because, I believe, any drawing is only as good as its weakest part.

[rideum51]

When in your book you mentioned spending 6 weeks on the foreground and background on a particular drawing, forgot which one, I knew I had to do something, slow down and get off on the small stuff.

[Mike Sibley]

When in your book you mentioned spending 6 weeks on the foreground and background on a particular drawing, forgot which one, I knew I had to do something, slow down and get off on the small stuff.

My first reaction to that surprised me The actual time is immaterial, but what matters is the depth of the drawing as you see it.

First, as you've probably already realised, I'm not a fan of soft focus. Yes, objects and edges do degrade with distance, but never to the point of being blurry. I'd better rephrase that...

By slowing down, you give yourself the chance to properly "live" each area as your pencil moves into it. Now we come to the "blurry" bit... I attempt, at least, to create what I'd expect to see in real life in each area. Now you have to figure in that our eyes constantly shift focus on the point we're looking at. Nothing is ever "out of focus". If it is blurred, that's due to atmospheric perspective, not because our eyes fail to focus.

Now, when I look at your WIP, I see a wonderfully crafted foreground. Behind it is a camera's idea of distance, not a human eye's idea of it. If you must have those trees looking blurry, then have the Elk kick up some dust to disrupt our clear vision. And maybe they are - in which case all is good.

Sorry - I'm not really critiquing your drawing, just using it as a handy example. And I'm fully aware that it's your art and vision and not mine.

In mine, however, I would, as I said, have wanted to create what I'd expect to see in Nature. In this case, I really like the fallen branches in the foreground that lead my eye in. But... there are long stalks of grass behind them, and I'd expect at least some of that grass to extend to the immediate foreground - that is, one or a few stalks to be cutting across those branches, or growing within them. That alone now ties both elements together, where I feel they are unconnected as they are.

And I'd expect the midground to be less distinct than the foreground, and the background to be soft-edged with degraded detail. There's every chance your soft background will do a good job for you. It's just not my way.

However, just behind the left-hand Elk is what I believe might be a midground bush. But its soft focus tells me it's in the far distance. There's a huge jump here from midground Elk to a bush that is either just behind it, or way in the distance. Its values say "midground" but its softness says "far background". If I'm correct about the position of that bush, I'd expect to see a mottled pattern of leaves. Not sharp-edged, detectable leaves, but an overall feeling of it consisting of leaves. Personally, I'd use scribble for that.

I'll stop there because I'm rambling now, and it's baking hot here, which is frying my brain