Iris

[Giacomo]

The reference photo is really distorted-looking and poorly lit (too much of her is in deep shadow, which makes it hard to work from), and doesn't really match the perspective of the rest of the picture (if we're looking down at the girl, we also should be looking down at the pedestal and the flowers.) If you're going to use that pose, you need to get everything else working better so the persepctive disparity between girl and other stuff isn't so jarring.

I'd strongly recommend you shoot another photo (or actually, a whole card full so you have a range to choose from.) If you can't find a traditional key/fill lighting setup, at least shoot outdoors in daylight so the edges of the forms are better-defined. I'd recommend you shoot a more head-on angle if you're going to be inventing everything else in the picture; if you're committed to that overhead angle, you should include the flowers and furniture in the reference shot so they define the space more clearly.

[LaCan]

Yeah, what Giacomo pointed out. Here's what happened:



You could probably quick-fix it by just sliding the legs down, elongating the torso for the length that is lost due to perspective distortion.

[Giacomo]

You could probably quick-fix it by just sliding the legs down, elongating the torso for the length that is lost due to perspective distortion.

@Black Spot: Yes, you could do that---but for the love of God, please don't. This entire thread has basically been about ways to tweak the drawing of the figure to compensate for a poorly-thought-out and poorly-shot reference photo, and it's just bad practice to do that. I beg you with every fiber of my mortal being: consider what you've done so far a "study," pull up your socks and shoot some new photos based on what you've learned from this discussion. If you do that you will be working from a infinitely stronger foundation than if you go forward with what you've got.

[Velocity Kendall]

yep. plus its a good lesson to be ready to cut out the rot and start fresh on a firm foundation no matter how deeo it goes. Ill grant you that is a LOT easier in digital tho...

[Black Spot]

Okay, I'll start the figure from scratch (might leave the head). It takes a while for the effect of being bashed over the head by a bit of 2"x2" due to my thick skull. I'll be back.

[Giacomo]

Okay, I'll start the figure from scratch (might leave the head).

Not to be obnoxious, but I don't really feel you rendered the head with such virtuosity that it's worth being precious about. Here's my advice: Don't "leave the head" and try to salvage this painting. Consider it a learning experience, take this canvas and put it somewhere facing a wall for a while so you won't think about it. Shoot new reference photos and work out a new composition, on a new canvas, based on the new photos.

[Velocity Kendall]

runs away...

[Black Spot]

LaCan, thank you very much for that. Hopefully it now works a bit better.

Giacomo, I did think it would be a good starting point, not that it was that great. In any case I decided to move it.

Velocity - you are so dead, just remember April 1st is not that far away.

Not much is left of the original figure - the face is just sketched in. Does the figure make sense now?

[LaCan]

No, you still have the same problem, made worse by changing the column perspective, yet keeping the suggested perspective of the figure same as it was.



I think it'd be wise to listen to Giacomo's suggestion and shoot a new reference, with pose and viewing angle you specifically decide on. I'm sure it'll be breeze to plan the picture, after one failed attempt and all the input from this thread.

As for the head, Kendall has a point. It's not exactly Goldblum, but she's looking much prettier in other photos you posted, than she does in your sketch.

[Black Spot]

I think I need to go back to my original idea and move the hand. I did actually work it all out and forgot to put it on canvas.

[Griffonnage]

I was wondering, just out of curiosity : is there some reason why you want to keep this pose ? With the perspective it will not be easy. Plus, it's maybe me, but I don't understand "what" she intend or what the picture want to show exactly about her : the pose isn't relax, she looks strong and the point of view place her in a "weak" position... Actually I'm confuse, sorry

I searched about some material about "similar" postures, but sadly there are a lot of hided part by clothes... hope that can help you ? WARNING : partial nude.

http://hauntingvisionsstock.devianta...6925291&qo=349
http://almudena-stock.deviantart.com...hid-8-94133431
http://almudena-stock.deviantart.com...hid-7-94132898
http://almudena-stock.deviantart.com...k%2F17552&qo=7
http://mjranum-stock.deviantart.com/...F1854286&qo=57 (actually this one scare me a lot)
http://mjranum-stock.deviantart.com/...F1854286&qo=25
http://kxhara.deviantart.com/art/Sit...ck-2-306731084
http://mariaamanda.deviantart.com/ar...tock-271387928
http://lockstock.deviantart.com/art/...F2114805&qo=35
http://lockstock.deviantart.com/art/...F2114805&qo=36
http://lockstock.deviantart.com/art/...F2114805&qo=64
http://lockstock.deviantart.com/art/...2114805&qo=136
http://lockstock.deviantart.com/art/...2114805&qo=138

[bill618]

This is the best interpretation of the pose so far. It has the best representation of her foreshortened left leg. It implies a more accurate pelvis area and the head size fits the perspective more suitably. I’d run with it.
A couple things to watch:
-Her left arm looks too far out from where the shoulder should be.
-Her left elbow needs development.
-I’d balance the apparent difference in breast sizes.
-Her legs look, possibly, a bit too thick for her waist/upper torso size. Maybe broaden the upper body or reduce the leg thickness a tad for balance.

[Black Spot]

Griffonage, I did do a load of thumbnails believe it or not, then took reference photos and then fleshed it out digitally. Sort of lost the plot along the way.

Thanks Bill. I have working on it, but I kind of mucked up the head. I'll be back - I don't give up that easily.

[Griffonnage]

I believe you worked a lot I didn't propose references in that way, I was thinking the lady you paint maybe do not want to pose naked. I tried to find some other similar posture of nude or partialy nude female that can help you, because this posture isn't easy at all to draw. I admit it's very hard to find nude that sit on the floor without having anoying piece of clothes all arround, I failed finding good references about the pelvis part...

I'm simply surprised by the storytelling you have in your image, I do not say it's bad because I actually really like what you want to do. I'm just curious, I think I will learn a lot by looking at your progress. You have all my support, I'm looking forward the next steps !

[LaCan]

You're one stubborn cookie, eh?

It's getting better, but you're still mixing the elements of two essentially different poses.

In addition to what bill618 indicated...You should let her right thigh rest down. Inverted palm aside, the pose she's holding now is very uncomfortable to retain. I assume you want to show her sitting relaxed, not tensed. Notice that both feet in your reference rest on the floor, while in your interpretation, the right foot is unsupported. To hold it up like that she'd need to strongly engage quad, biceps and forearm muscles. Not a tension normally associated with sitting.

There are also some noticeable problems with angles, check the attached image.

For what is worth, I tried to adlib a quick gesture to see if pose can be salvaged.

[Velocity Kendall]

stubborn as hell just the way we like her!

wow that PO looks so much more relaxed. lacan your skill is crazy inspiring. i feel like i learn a tonne from each crit!

[LaCan]

Thanks! Mouse is killing me though . I can manage only short strokes and linear segments. Note to self: If I were going to do any more of POs, I better consider getting a tablet.

[Black Spot]

LaCan you must - I gave myself tennis elbow from drawing with a mouse. Your paint overs here are becoming legendary.

Thanks for the patience. I have to work things out in my head as it's a bit thick at times. I've already move the arm to a similar position, but a bit more dynamic (I hope). Need to move a knee over. Might not lower the other leg quite as much as it'll go off the canvas. Dropping the shoulder on the left looks good. Will think hard.

[Velocity Kendall]

I got a £50 cheapo tablet its the bollocks, loads of fun. horrible to draw on compared to biro, but lovely to photoshop with. still use a mouse tho for numbers and things.

[Black Spot]

I've got a Volito II, that's below a Bamboo Fun. I have to scribble at low opacity to build up the colour I want as per this unfinished master study




Just to show you my crappy way of working on real canvas, here's another one I'm working on. Eye still needs to fixed and mouth tweaked.

[bill618]

LaCan—I think the bunched up dress on her right thigh may be throwing you off a little as to where the head of that femur meets the pelvis.

I like the angle down view of Black Spot’s latest pose. It is relaxed and seductive, too me. The spine is a bit stiff and straight.

Here’s a quick from the head rendition of a nude version, following Black Spot’s latest. I did relax her right arm and changed her left hand here:

[LaCan]

LaCan, I think the bunched up dress on her right thigh may be throwing you off a little as to where the head of that femur meets the pelvis.

No, I see exactly what's happening. Yes, there is a suggestion of a steeper angle via shadowed part of the dress but that undefined bunched fabric on top of the thigh just makes it read not quite right, more so when coupled with other inconsistencies.

I like the angle down view of Black Spot's latest pose. It is relaxed and seductive, too me. The spine is a bit stiff and straight.

Nice sketch. However, I think you transcribed the problem to some extent. Is her right foot on the floor? If yes, then the perspective of the other leg and torso is not consistent with that. If not, then the pose seems tensed and hard to sustain, pelvis tilted too much to the right and other problems inherited from the reference shot. And third possibility; if both feet are on the floor and both knees in the air, then we have a situation from the reference. In that case, the torso+head perspective is not consistent with it... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



I think Black Spot should first decide which viewing angle she wants to use, then work the pose to match that. I'm not saying this is critical. Hybrid perspective pose may work in this flowery ethereal environment. It may be the case that Iris is floating in the mid-air... then all is good

[bill618]

Is her right foot on the floor? If yes, then the perspective of the other leg and torso is not consistent with that. If not, then the pose seems tensed and hard to sustain, pelvis tilted too much to the right and other problems inherited from the reference shot. And third possibility; if both feet are on the floor and both knees in the air, then we have a situation from the reference. In that case, the torso+head perspective is not consistent with it... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I’m not going to make any concrete conclusions based on information that is not there yet. I will assume the environment is intended to be soft and organic, comprised of botanical/floral structures, especially the one the subject is sitting in (settled down into, hence the raised position of the left knee), as depicted in the painting. She’s not sitting on a rigid plane (as you depict in your diagram), let alone one parallel to the horizontal plane of the perspective space, nor is she sitting on a floor, as in the ref photo. “Is her right foot on the floor?” Are you seeing a floor plane in Black Spot’s painting that either foot could be in contact with? Her right heel could very well be resting on some imagined structure that has yet to be realized. There are any number of imaginative scenarios that could support the subject, comfortably—as it is.

Hell, she could be as big as a Daisy making her mass negligible in regards to what you consider an uncomfortable and unsustainable pose.

[LaCan]

Figure constraints don't have to be seen to be implied by the pose. For example, we don't *see* the floor in most standing nude drawings. I was merely speculating using the Occam's razor, assuming the most likely scenario - which, for a sitting figure, is some sort of horizontal plane. The plane doesn't have to be a literal plank. It can just mean abstraction of the force supporting figure's butt against gravity. But as far as we know, there may be dozens of invisible pixies holding it in place. We'll never know, until Black Spot tells us I'd vote for a plane though. Simplicity always wins the day.

[bill618]

My fortune cookie today reads--context is everything at the end of the day.

I see Black Spot’s painting, no feet or rump constrained by implied floor plane remotely suggested.

[LaCan]

I see Black Spot’s painting, no feet or rump constrained by implied floor plane remotely suggested.

Wait, are you saying that you're reading the figure to be floating? Because sitting - by definition - is butt supporting. I'm pretty sure most people would interpret the original pose as sitting. If floating was Black Spot's intention, then there is no problem with the pose (except for perspective inconsistencies). The only mystery that remains to be solved is what the supporting column for elbow was needed for in this weightless situation.

[LaCan]

I got a £50 cheapo tablet its the bollocks, loads of fun. horrible to draw on compared to biro, but lovely to photoshop with. still use a mouse tho for numbers and things.

I've got a Volito II, that's below a Bamboo Fun. I have to scribble at low opacity to build up the colour I want as per this unfinished master study

I'd probably get away with a cheapo. Not an opacity type person anyway. Just need something to make curved lines on maximum pressure.

I had some limited experience with Wacom (Intuos 2, I think). Used it mainly as a mouse replacement. Not bad, but it seemed glitchy so I got rid of it. Painting on a computer never really was my thing.

Nice Caravaggio study btw. It doesn't look one bit "digital"

[bill618]

Wait, are you saying that you're reading the figure to be floating?

Now you’re just being ridiculous.

Let me simplify it for you, as though I did not state my ‘read’ just a couple of posts back.
Yes–gravity is at work here.
No–she and her immediate surroundings aren’t in free-fall or outside of gravity’s clutches.
Yes–she sure is sitting on something–but no–it’s not the ‘floor’.

[LaCan]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

I'll try to put my point into simple words.

There is a problem with original figure. The same problem persisted in your take (although your sketch remedied numerous other things).

The problem is twofold:

1) The figure seems to be lacking articulated gesture. Weight distribution and forces acting on figure are not pronounced in a plausible way. The gesture is weak. We don't know what exactly the body is intended to "do".
2) Figure's perspective is ambiguous. We are not sure where the viewer is standing.

These two things are noticeable in both, Black Spot's and your take. It looks like you both more or less copied positions of the limbs from the reference, not taking care to think out the gesture and construct it in its environment.

We can go all day and invent all sorts of invisible cosmic hinges holding the figure just the way we draw it. It won't make the wishy-washy gesture better though. It's just apologetics to justify the existing errors.

I was trying to introduce "planes" into thought process to help define figure's relation to its environment. As both, something that defines the perspective, and something that holds the figure weight. I don't care if we call them planes, chairs, floors, cushions, petals, pillars or concrete blocks. They represent forces holding the figure weight. In order for gesture to look "convincing", we need to resolve these forces.

There is a pose called "sitting". It includes canonical set of forces acting on the figure. We can go and make laundry list of these forces and their causes (chair, floor, plane under butt, invisible pixie) or we can just call it simply "sitting". Then we'll all know what we are talking about and how the believable sitting gesture ought to look like.

So my suggestion for the further process is following:

1) Decide whether the figure is sitting or floating in zero gravity. If it's sitting, define on what it's sitting. What supports its butt, arms and legs. (Invisible pixie-hinges allowed too under condition we know what forces they are manifesting onto the figure)

2) Decide where the viewer is standing in respect to the figure i.e. what's the perspective.

3) Work out the poignant gesture, either by construction or shooting the adequate reference.

4) Paint

[Giacomo]

3) Work out the poignant gesture,....by....shooting the adequate reference.

DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!