Well I'm back and I've spent about 1 hour on the feather and attempted to correct the smooth edges at the top and sides of the feather. Having missed the opportunity earlier, it is now very difficult to correct this over-sight and I'm left with some white ghosts along those edges that I can't get out (I think it's because there is a slight indentation along that edge that can't be filled.They show up worse in the scan than in reality!). I've also attempted some of the "linear filaments" and the shading of the top part of the feather. I've tried to stay with the geometry of the feather ( on it's back ), some parts work, other parts well - I'm open for suggestions. I will likely keep working on this though -mainly on the values in the top half of the feather, they are not done (to my satisfaction) yet!
I have NOT decided how I'm going to tackle the furry bottom part yet but when I do, I'll post it. Meanwhile, I've done the exercises of Week 1 as best I could and unless you object, I'll move on to Week 2 - otherwise neither of us will live long enough to see this thru to the end.
Two scans attached ...
"First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
I spent a little time and adjusted the values in the top part of the feather and I quite like the result. Interesting how the scan shows the "white spot" on the right hand side. This is not that prominent on the real drawing. Do you know what cause that?
Now to ponder what to do with the fluffy bottom ....
Now to ponder what to do with the fluffy bottom ....
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Mike Sibley
- Site Admin
- Posts: 982
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm
- Location: York, UK
- Contact:
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
What white spot? Do you mean the lighter patch? I assumed that was a highlight due to the shaping, and I'm quite willing to accept it as it is. What I find less acceptable is the notches into the feather at the top-right.
The filaments of a feather unzip in the way that hairs part - always with a finely tapered gap. Those blunt ends destroy all the carefully executed reality within your drawing. Add sharp ends, and it comes to life again. As you work, you just need to always think "What would I expect to see there in real life".
You could omit it, since this is your feather and not one that has to comply with any reference. But including it is more fun.Now to ponder what to do with the fluffy bottom ....
Referring back to: "What would I expect to see there in real life", I think it would be a lack of understanding
- wispy, blurry - where any attention to detail and sharpness would not be appropriate.You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
Hmmmm, city boy didn't know that, but now that I do, I'll zip them back up and then unzip them properly. Thanks for that!The filaments of a feather unzip in the way that hairs part - always with a finely tapered gap.
The "white spot" is that lighter area of the feather on the right. It's actually a light grey, but for some reason shows up as white on the scan. A friend told me it was the way the scanner "posterises" the image ( whatever that means???)
-
Mike Sibley
- Site Admin
- Posts: 982
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm
- Location: York, UK
- Contact:
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
OK, point taken.
Living down a farm track, I find feathers often, and have a collection in my studio.Feathers consist of filaments growing from a central quill. The filaments have tiny barbs that lock into adjacent filaments - a bit like Velcro/Hook & Loop. When you see birds preening, they're zipping up the filaments where they've parted.
And, since they have unzipped, they can be treated like hair, or a split in wood. They NEVER terminate in a blunt end. Always a fine taper. And that's what we subconsciously expect to see. It's how we recognise those features. So, when you introduce a blunt end, you upset the recognition system, and the sense of reality in your drawing is diminished, or even destroyed.
I might be a bit out of date here, because flat-bed scanners have greatly improved of late. I always advocated the use of laser drum scanners for scanning artwork due to be printed. Domestic flat-bed scanners have inherent problems due to the scanning device they use. This is essentially the camera from a phone. Consequently, they cannot handle the lightest 10% and drop it. That, I think, is why your "light grey" patch shows as being white. It was just too subtle for the device to capture.The "white spot" is that lighter area of the feather on the right. It's actually a light grey, but for some reason shows up as white on the scan. A friend told me it was the way the scanner "posterises" the image (whatever that means???)
I don't think "posterisation" is an intentional procedure enacted by scanners, but the result possibly looks that way. Posterisation (think poster art from the 1920s and 30s) flattens form into areas of relatively flat colour. If the scanner drops the lighter values, or compensates by copying adjacent values, that would look like posterisation. But I don't think it’s a deliberate act.
Either way, that "white patch" in your feather looks perfectly OK - given that only you know it wasn't intended to look that way.
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
Mike
Since you didn't object I have started on the Week 2 exercises and have finished up to the exercises which require the "Tapered Stroke". I have never used a tapered stroke before so I'm going to do Sadashiv Sawant's (Pencil Perceptions) exercises for learning the tapered stroke. That should take about a week, but in the meantime I'll work on the fluffy part of the feather and I also need some guidance with the "Blending" parts of Week 2. Attached is a scan of the Week 2 exercises that I have completed thus far. The instructions for the blending were to use "Paper Towel" for the blending, but based on the results I obtained maybe "Toilet Tissue" would have been more appropriate because I REALLY do not like the "rings" effect. I blended these 2 exercises with the lightest pressure possible but I get these rings showing up where the pencil grade changes Before blending there was no perceived edge where the lower pencil grade level ended but the moment they are blended these rings appear. These exercises were done with the Mitsubishi UNI 2mm leads ( and I think they are polymer based with no clay ). The same exercise but smaller with Staedtler leads does NOT show these rings! Is the polymer the problem or am I doing something wrong? Most importantly, how do I get rid of these rings!!!
Secondly, in the top row center I have written my name with 2H light pressure and again with 2H heavy pressure and then layered 4B overtop. I expected to see the hard pencil resist the softer top layer, but the light pressure example shows almost none of the name, and the heavy pressure one shows thru but only because the paper was indented by the 2H.
Also, according to your text, I am supposed to see a difference between the two gradations in the top row. Frankly the only difference I see is the value change - neither is more grainy or smoother than the other! Again, am I doing something that hides an effect you want me to see?
Since you didn't object I have started on the Week 2 exercises and have finished up to the exercises which require the "Tapered Stroke". I have never used a tapered stroke before so I'm going to do Sadashiv Sawant's (Pencil Perceptions) exercises for learning the tapered stroke. That should take about a week, but in the meantime I'll work on the fluffy part of the feather and I also need some guidance with the "Blending" parts of Week 2. Attached is a scan of the Week 2 exercises that I have completed thus far. The instructions for the blending were to use "Paper Towel" for the blending, but based on the results I obtained maybe "Toilet Tissue" would have been more appropriate because I REALLY do not like the "rings" effect. I blended these 2 exercises with the lightest pressure possible but I get these rings showing up where the pencil grade changes Before blending there was no perceived edge where the lower pencil grade level ended but the moment they are blended these rings appear. These exercises were done with the Mitsubishi UNI 2mm leads ( and I think they are polymer based with no clay ). The same exercise but smaller with Staedtler leads does NOT show these rings! Is the polymer the problem or am I doing something wrong? Most importantly, how do I get rid of these rings!!!
Secondly, in the top row center I have written my name with 2H light pressure and again with 2H heavy pressure and then layered 4B overtop. I expected to see the hard pencil resist the softer top layer, but the light pressure example shows almost none of the name, and the heavy pressure one shows thru but only because the paper was indented by the 2H.
Also, according to your text, I am supposed to see a difference between the two gradations in the top row. Frankly the only difference I see is the value change - neither is more grainy or smoother than the other! Again, am I doing something that hides an effect you want me to see?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Mike Sibley
- Site Admin
- Posts: 982
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm
- Location: York, UK
- Contact:
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
Before I take a look at Week 2 (just work at your own pace, Wayne), I noticed something yesterday that I wanted to mention:
I don't know why I missed it previously, but... you appeared to be shading these horizontally?
That said, you have, as usual, produced amazingly accurate results. However. It is far easier to shade vertically when you are shading from dark to light, or vice versa.
Shading horizontally can so easily produce banding. But when shading vertically, you only need to change the weight as you shade. Gradually decrease the weight, and you'll easily shade from dark to light. Or increase pressure for light to dark.
And, obviously (I hope), vertically means shading up and down when shading a horizontal gradient. Or horizontally when shading a vertical one.
That said, you have, as usual, produced amazingly accurate results. However. It is far easier to shade vertically when you are shading from dark to light, or vice versa.
Shading horizontally can so easily produce banding. But when shading vertically, you only need to change the weight as you shade. Gradually decrease the weight, and you'll easily shade from dark to light. Or increase pressure for light to dark.
And, obviously (I hope), vertically means shading up and down when shading a horizontal gradient. Or horizontally when shading a vertical one.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
No the shading was done as you described, but to soften the final "edge" and let it fade to the white of the paper, I used what is called academically "an airplane stroke" from dark to light. In this case it was poorly and not continuously done giving the impression of horizontal shading over the whole strip when in fact just the last edge was softened that way.
I tend to do the "airplane" softening poorly, because a few years ago I broke my right wrist and I find airplaneing for any length of time a little uncomfortable and rush thru it. Lesson learned however - the examples you show look like torn material instead of fading light on that final edge, so I'll change my approach and do them in smaller sections and stop/rest when uncomfortable. Thanks for pointing that out!
As a final(?) comment on the Week 2 stuff, I have noticed when doing previous exercises that these UNI leads are nowhere near as "grainy" as Staedtler or Faber-Castell - in fact I would venture to say that any visible unevenness is the result of uneven sizing on the paper's surface catching more graphite rather than an unevenness in the graphite. I don't know about Misubishi UNI leads but the TomBow website states this "Tombow Mono Pencils are world-famous for their extraordinarily high-density graphite - 10 billion particles per cubic millimetre, to be exact!" At those particle sizes graphite is no longer "flakes" and any grade will sink into the tooth of the paper very quickly by gravity alone (and deliver a stunning black!). It may be that Mitsubishi is also super-grinding their graphite, because the behaviour I'm seeing is that when they are blended by pencil alone they blend easily and look great, but when blended mechanically (tortillon, stomp or tissue) they behave as if they were separate layers. The example I posted has temporarily convinced me that tissue stays in the bathroom/kitchen, stomps better be misspelled tree roots and tortillons can stay in France - I won't use them - at least not with these leads. If I get a chance today, I'll try one of those exercises with the TomBow MONO pencils.
I just checked the TomBow site and the complete quote is "Tombow Mono Pencils are world-famous for their extraordinarily high-density graphite - 10 billion particles per cubic millimetre, to be exact! This makes the lead exceptionally smooth, highly break resistant, smear-proof, with excellent point retention. ". The word that leaps out to me is SMEAR-PROOF and smearing is what mechanical blending is and might explain the separate layers I'm seeing.
I tend to do the "airplane" softening poorly, because a few years ago I broke my right wrist and I find airplaneing for any length of time a little uncomfortable and rush thru it. Lesson learned however - the examples you show look like torn material instead of fading light on that final edge, so I'll change my approach and do them in smaller sections and stop/rest when uncomfortable. Thanks for pointing that out!
As a final(?) comment on the Week 2 stuff, I have noticed when doing previous exercises that these UNI leads are nowhere near as "grainy" as Staedtler or Faber-Castell - in fact I would venture to say that any visible unevenness is the result of uneven sizing on the paper's surface catching more graphite rather than an unevenness in the graphite. I don't know about Misubishi UNI leads but the TomBow website states this "Tombow Mono Pencils are world-famous for their extraordinarily high-density graphite - 10 billion particles per cubic millimetre, to be exact!" At those particle sizes graphite is no longer "flakes" and any grade will sink into the tooth of the paper very quickly by gravity alone (and deliver a stunning black!). It may be that Mitsubishi is also super-grinding their graphite, because the behaviour I'm seeing is that when they are blended by pencil alone they blend easily and look great, but when blended mechanically (tortillon, stomp or tissue) they behave as if they were separate layers. The example I posted has temporarily convinced me that tissue stays in the bathroom/kitchen, stomps better be misspelled tree roots and tortillons can stay in France - I won't use them - at least not with these leads. If I get a chance today, I'll try one of those exercises with the TomBow MONO pencils.
I just checked the TomBow site and the complete quote is "Tombow Mono Pencils are world-famous for their extraordinarily high-density graphite - 10 billion particles per cubic millimetre, to be exact! This makes the lead exceptionally smooth, highly break resistant, smear-proof, with excellent point retention. ". The word that leaps out to me is SMEAR-PROOF and smearing is what mechanical blending is and might explain the separate layers I'm seeing.
-
Mike Sibley
- Site Admin
- Posts: 982
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm
- Location: York, UK
- Contact:
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
wayneCol wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:14 pm ...but to soften the final "edge" and let it fade to the white of the paper, I used what is called academically "an airplane stroke" from dark to light. In this case it was poorly and not continuously done, giving the impression of horizontal shading over the whole strip when in fact just the last edge was softened that way.
Now I look much closer, I can just detect vertical strokes. I previously thought they were a feature of your paper's surface.
I've not heard of the "airplane" stroke, and I'm not even sure why it exists? Surely, just decreasing the weight until the pencil is merely grazing the surface has a better effect? Just my opinion, as I have no knowledge of the stroke.
All I know about UNI is that their grades are all darker than you expect. That's why they introduced the F grade (which I like) as an alternative to the HB for writing. Their F is like the HB of European brands....I have noticed when doing previous exercises that these UNI leads are nowhere near as "grainy" as Staedtler or Faber-Castell - ...any visible unevenness is the result of uneven sizing on the paper's surface catching more graphite rather than an unevenness in the graphite...
10 billion particles sounds impressive... but that might be the same as other main brands. I have no idea. But I'm still going to think of graphite as being shiny flat plates, rather than chunky grains like charcoal...."10 billion particles per cubic millimetre...!" At those particle sizes, graphite is no longer "flakes" and any grade will sink into the tooth of the paper very quickly by gravity alone (and deliver a stunning black!). ...when they are blended by pencil alone they blend easily... but when blended mechanically (tortillon, stomp or tissue) they behave as if they were separate layers.
I was about to ask if you don't find that "sink into the tooth...very quickly...and deliver a stunning black" to be a problem. But then I wondered if that's why you used the "airplane stroke", because you can't "float" graphite lightly on top of the tooth?
You had almost convinced me to try UNI, but I think I'll pass. I have this suspicion that they just don't behave the way I expect graphite pencils to behave. I'm even wondering if they use a polymer instead of clay... The whole description sounds "plastic-like".
And that just adds to my feeling that they're pencils designed by scientists, rather than pencil artists. I don't mean to disparage them, but your description leads to think they are very "man made" - based on a theoretical formula, rather than actual use. But do tell us more as you discover practical uses for them."This makes the lead exceptionally smooth, highly break resistant, smear-proof, with excellent point retention.". The word that leaps out to me is SMEAR-PROOF, and smearing is what mechanical blending is and might explain the separate layers I'm seeing.
Re: "First Steps" Exercises from DWM Videos
First an explanation of the need for an airplane stroke and it's mechanics.
In the academic drawing process the first few steps (and their alternately used names) are :
(1) The construct/envelope/block-in phase
(2) The articulation/silhouette/arabesque phase
(3) The determination of the terminator/bed-bug line/core shadow line phase
(4) Notan phase
The Notan phase separates the light part of the object from the shaded part and the method fills the shaded part with a uniform "average" dark value. So all along the terminator we have dark on one side and paper white on the other, which is fine if the edge is "hard" (like on the edge of a cube), but if it's "soft" then the abruptness of the transition needs to be be modulated or softened. This is done by using what I have recently discovered is a "tapered stroke" (but is called an airplane stroke in academic schools) where the pencil lands on the dark side, passes over the terminator, and rapidly takes off. This softens the terminator.
I hope this explanation is understandable.
Now about the graphite particles and UNI leads. First of all, none of the pencil manufacturers are very specific about their raw materials or their process but from what I can gather or infer ( which may be wrong ) both Staedtler and Faber-Castell and Koh-I-Noor purchase naturally occurring graphite (from a variety of international sources) and processed naturally occurring clay ( most seems to come from the Georgia Kaolin Co ). Now the Chinese vendor of Chinese graphite, sells graphite powder in various "mesh sizes". Their finest is 2000 mesh, which corresponds to a particle size of 0.0065 mm.
TomBow advertises a graphite density of 10 billion particles per cubic mm which, assuming a uniform distribution, implies a particle size of 0.000465mm ( This comes from the cube root of 10 billion ). Now a particle of 0.000465 mm is about 14 times smaller than the finest particle that Staedtler or Faber-Castell can purchase. But this assumes that TomBow is using "naturally occurring graphite".
"Maybe Staedtler/Faber-Castell buy the graphite and then grind it down finer" - this maybe the case, but the "How we make pencils" videos of both companies show workers pouring graphite and clay from paper bags stored on shipping pallets into a mixing machine, with no mention of a graphite grinding stage.
Today, graphite can be produced synthetically ( refer to https://www.sglcarbon.com/en/everything-about-graphite/ for details ) for a variety of applications - one of which is pencil leads ( but they do not mention the names of their customers ) but the website does say "until today pencils were made with graphite and clay". Particle sizes of 0.000465mm probably means iso-statically produced graphite or die-produced meaning a highly developed technological economy ( Japan, Germany, China ).
Mitsubishi Pencil, makers of the UNI brand, tout their leading technology as follows :
"Mitsubishi Pencil has a long history of using carbon materials in its writing instruments. Our Plastic Formed Carbon (PFC) product line uses this technology to a variety of applications. PFC has high purity and mechanical stiffness, while sharing all the interesting characteristics of carbon materials such as electrical conductivity, thermal stability, resistance to corrosion and biocompatibility, among others. Therefore it finds applications in a variety of fields."
Mitsubishi goes on to say :
"Controlling the pore size gives us the opportunity to tune the characteristics for the ideal porous material."
I may be mistaken, but I assume from these statements that UNI leads are a polymer and carbon product - no graphite, no clay and I suspect that TomBow is as well. The carbon would explain the inherent darkness of these leads and the polymer ( = plastic?? ) the smear-proof and layering behaviour as well as the "break-resistance".
So I think you are right - these are formulaic, scientific pencils (not that that is bad, just different ) and in my experience they do not behave like other graphite pencils - at least they misbehave for me!
All of this presents me with a problem - the UNI leads don't behave in accordance with the behaviour expected by the text and exercises, but where am I going to get Staedtler or Faber-Castell or Koh-I-Noor leads here???? Or maybe I should just accept the difference and move on ....
Isn't life fun?
In the academic drawing process the first few steps (and their alternately used names) are :
(1) The construct/envelope/block-in phase
(2) The articulation/silhouette/arabesque phase
(3) The determination of the terminator/bed-bug line/core shadow line phase
(4) Notan phase
The Notan phase separates the light part of the object from the shaded part and the method fills the shaded part with a uniform "average" dark value. So all along the terminator we have dark on one side and paper white on the other, which is fine if the edge is "hard" (like on the edge of a cube), but if it's "soft" then the abruptness of the transition needs to be be modulated or softened. This is done by using what I have recently discovered is a "tapered stroke" (but is called an airplane stroke in academic schools) where the pencil lands on the dark side, passes over the terminator, and rapidly takes off. This softens the terminator.
I hope this explanation is understandable.
Now about the graphite particles and UNI leads. First of all, none of the pencil manufacturers are very specific about their raw materials or their process but from what I can gather or infer ( which may be wrong ) both Staedtler and Faber-Castell and Koh-I-Noor purchase naturally occurring graphite (from a variety of international sources) and processed naturally occurring clay ( most seems to come from the Georgia Kaolin Co ). Now the Chinese vendor of Chinese graphite, sells graphite powder in various "mesh sizes". Their finest is 2000 mesh, which corresponds to a particle size of 0.0065 mm.
TomBow advertises a graphite density of 10 billion particles per cubic mm which, assuming a uniform distribution, implies a particle size of 0.000465mm ( This comes from the cube root of 10 billion ). Now a particle of 0.000465 mm is about 14 times smaller than the finest particle that Staedtler or Faber-Castell can purchase. But this assumes that TomBow is using "naturally occurring graphite".
"Maybe Staedtler/Faber-Castell buy the graphite and then grind it down finer" - this maybe the case, but the "How we make pencils" videos of both companies show workers pouring graphite and clay from paper bags stored on shipping pallets into a mixing machine, with no mention of a graphite grinding stage.
Today, graphite can be produced synthetically ( refer to https://www.sglcarbon.com/en/everything-about-graphite/ for details ) for a variety of applications - one of which is pencil leads ( but they do not mention the names of their customers ) but the website does say "until today pencils were made with graphite and clay". Particle sizes of 0.000465mm probably means iso-statically produced graphite or die-produced meaning a highly developed technological economy ( Japan, Germany, China ).
Mitsubishi Pencil, makers of the UNI brand, tout their leading technology as follows :
"Mitsubishi Pencil has a long history of using carbon materials in its writing instruments. Our Plastic Formed Carbon (PFC) product line uses this technology to a variety of applications. PFC has high purity and mechanical stiffness, while sharing all the interesting characteristics of carbon materials such as electrical conductivity, thermal stability, resistance to corrosion and biocompatibility, among others. Therefore it finds applications in a variety of fields."
Mitsubishi goes on to say :
"Controlling the pore size gives us the opportunity to tune the characteristics for the ideal porous material."
I may be mistaken, but I assume from these statements that UNI leads are a polymer and carbon product - no graphite, no clay and I suspect that TomBow is as well. The carbon would explain the inherent darkness of these leads and the polymer ( = plastic?? ) the smear-proof and layering behaviour as well as the "break-resistance".
So I think you are right - these are formulaic, scientific pencils (not that that is bad, just different ) and in my experience they do not behave like other graphite pencils - at least they misbehave for me!
All of this presents me with a problem - the UNI leads don't behave in accordance with the behaviour expected by the text and exercises, but where am I going to get Staedtler or Faber-Castell or Koh-I-Noor leads here???? Or maybe I should just accept the difference and move on ....
Isn't life fun?