Hi Mike,
Would appreciate your feedback on this piece based on a lesson in your online course on Drawspace.
Thanks!
Maggie
Leaves on wood
Forum rules
You are allowed to post tasteful nudity. To avoid surprise or unwelcome comments, please indicate that it's a nude in the thread title. Also include a warning in the title if there's a possibility of the subject matter causing offence.
You are allowed to post tasteful nudity. To avoid surprise or unwelcome comments, please indicate that it's a nude in the thread title. Also include a warning in the title if there's a possibility of the subject matter causing offence.
Leaves on wood
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Mike Sibley
- Site Admin
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm
- Location: York, UK
- Contact:
Re: Leaves on wood
I've allowed Affinity Photo to do its "auto" thing. So, this might be a little darker than your original, but I can see and appreciate it more clearly.
I think this scores highly on all counts.
In no particular order:
THE WOOD
It's devoid of blunt ends, which simply look completely false because they don't exist in wood. Grain splits and rejoins with fine tapers.
You appear to have drawn away from all edges. That's good practice, because it preserves their sharpness, with no mistaken overshoots or overlapping.
You have engineered the splits so they run behind every element that crosses them. I would have done the same, because it immediately pushes the leaf forwards and separates it from the wood.
And some of the splits include a very thin highlight running down one side. That's an excellent Visual Clue to it being a split and not a mark on the surface.
THE SHADOWS
The shadows cast by each leaf work really well. They're very soft and diffused, but that's OK. In fact, that's probably preferable because they don't compete with the leaves for attention. The top leaf is obvious touching the wood, except for its point. There, the absence of shadow tells us it's rising above, and away from, the wood - and that alone increases the overall visual depth.
THE LEAVES
Super three-dimensional modelling. They curve very realistically. The bottom leaf contains subtle lines within its body that suggest the existence and direction of growth of surface veining. The top leaf, less so. There, the visible lines tend to follow the contours. That produces good three-dimensional shaping, but the lines themselves don't suggest any expected features of a leaf. And, yes, I am nit-picking.
Finally, you've used negative drawing to expose the lighter central groove in both leaves. And you've reduced outline to a minimum. In fact, where outline exists, it can rightly be read as surface thickness. The only exception is the top stalk, but I don't find that to be a distraction.
Super work. It answers every problem with a suitable solution.
In no particular order:
THE WOOD
It's devoid of blunt ends, which simply look completely false because they don't exist in wood. Grain splits and rejoins with fine tapers.
You appear to have drawn away from all edges. That's good practice, because it preserves their sharpness, with no mistaken overshoots or overlapping.
You have engineered the splits so they run behind every element that crosses them. I would have done the same, because it immediately pushes the leaf forwards and separates it from the wood.
And some of the splits include a very thin highlight running down one side. That's an excellent Visual Clue to it being a split and not a mark on the surface.
THE SHADOWS
The shadows cast by each leaf work really well. They're very soft and diffused, but that's OK. In fact, that's probably preferable because they don't compete with the leaves for attention. The top leaf is obvious touching the wood, except for its point. There, the absence of shadow tells us it's rising above, and away from, the wood - and that alone increases the overall visual depth.
THE LEAVES
Super three-dimensional modelling. They curve very realistically. The bottom leaf contains subtle lines within its body that suggest the existence and direction of growth of surface veining. The top leaf, less so. There, the visible lines tend to follow the contours. That produces good three-dimensional shaping, but the lines themselves don't suggest any expected features of a leaf. And, yes, I am nit-picking.
Finally, you've used negative drawing to expose the lighter central groove in both leaves. And you've reduced outline to a minimum. In fact, where outline exists, it can rightly be read as surface thickness. The only exception is the top stalk, but I don't find that to be a distraction.
Super work. It answers every problem with a suitable solution.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Leaves on wood
Thanks so much Mike. Your comments are great for reinforcing one's knowledge of technique--not to mention being very encouraging!
I'm grateful for your time and having direct access to your expertise.
Thank you,
Maggie
I'm grateful for your time and having direct access to your expertise.
Thank you,
Maggie
-
Mike Sibley
- Site Admin
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm
- Location: York, UK
- Contact:
Re: Leaves on wood
Thanks, Maggie. But that's what I'm, here for. So, make use of me, and just post whenever you need advice or a critique... or just to show off 
.
.