Looks like a sandy desert to me… Don’t think they have any of those in Russia…
@jerry: :facepalm:
no that’s them in another place lol
Post-cards, love.
Now, do I get to call this complete or does anyone spot any glaring errors?
Also, no cookies for anyone?
Whoa, very good! have a:
—===DIGITAL<>HIGH-FIVE===—
Congratulations, you have drawn geometry.
Nice job man 
The technicals are slightly off in a few places, but the overall effect is real nice 
One on the left is a Mustang, amirite?
EDIT: And the other one a Tiger Moth?
Value range is a bit too low, especially on the lower left. It becomes quite unreadable at places and my god, work on the background.
You got a reference?
Cookie to DellBoy321, we do indeed have a North American P-51D Mustang and de Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth.
It’s freehand from a reference image, drawn on the cheapest printer/copier paper you can get, with a HB pencil.
I’ll get you the pic soonish, as well as a scanned version of the drawing (I have another airshow to be at in 2 hours).
Siggs, which particular technicals are (most) off? The one that really irks me is the bottom left prop blade - it’s way off but I can’t do much about that anymore.
Patonki… I don’t understand half your post; and what’s wrong with my background?
And may I just add that this cookie is delicious.
Actually the prop blade was what I was talking about. I didn’t point it out specifically because yeah, it’d be a mission to change.
.
https://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/element/color/color.htm
Readability means how easy it is to perceive what the image is trying to be.
The background is just a mess of shapes and stuff, it doesn’t look good. Clouds aren’t like that, the sky doesn’t look like that. Just look at the background on your reference and try to bring that on the paper.
Well, I’m aware that clouds don’t look like that, but I cannot represent them in true greyscale form as if I were printing the photo in b&w. It’s silly. To do so I would have to shade the entire sky in a flat tone, and then highlight some clouds out. Does this seem like a good idea to you?
(Check out some existing art, I’ll go find some that influenced my style somewhat)
For the background… Well there’s not much there. Some trees really, and I’m not spending more time drawing a hundred trees in the distance than I spent on the foreground and focus of the image. The background here serves only to fill space, to not leave the entire image empty other than the two aircraft.
Admittedly, the original background was a little busier, but also changed the feel significantly. In reality, between the runway and trees was a line of modern private aircraft that normally occupy the airfield or were visiting…
If my response seems a little harsh in tone, it is not intended to be. I am merely pointing out why I have done these things that way, and that your suggestions may not be really suggesting an improvement. (If I were to sandbag you, I’d cite artistic license and tell you to bugger off. But I’m not doing that - I’m not here for heaps of praise. If I wanted praise with no real criticism, I’d post on deviantart, which I don’t even have an account for as it serves no purpose for me.)
Please just consider the implications of the alternatives you’re suggesting.
Reference image:
Scan of drawing:
Please note: The scan isn’t all that great. It looks somewhat better on paper.
okay, this is NOT what you do
i don’t care if you drew this with your left ear and thats why its not good, or that id would take time to make it look good and fuck taking time to create something
you were asking for criticism, when you receive it you take it into consideration, not lashing out and making excuses for why you receive it.
Let’s see then. My reasons for doing something are a complex analysis of effort vs gain, desired effect, required effect, artistic technique and existing influences. Your reasons for doing it a different way can be summed up with “That’s not what reality looks like”. However, since you are criticising me, your argument is valid and my reasons are completely irrelevant. Taking a more reasonable view, if you want reality, just take the photo. And thus your argument collapses altogether, because you’ve provided criticism, not even remotely constructive or helpful. Furthermore, your signature is that of a dog that bounces when it barks, and thus I deem your argument invalid.
With regards to your following post. I read your criticism, I considered it, I weighed up your reasoning against mine. Unfortunately your reasoning is either not included or non-existent, so I discarded it.
You want your criticism considered, post something worthwhile.
okay nice wall, but you could just flat out say “ehhh im lazy, i wont edit this thing anymore, tell me how good i am”
and yes, you should be aiming towards realism, especially with a drawing like this. you are drawing for a reference, and the point of doing so is to learn how shapes and light work on the actual world and the image. “trying to create realism at places and shitty scribbles elsewhere” is not a style
but yeah, go ahead and disregard everything, your background isn’t shitty, your drawing isn’t flat and unrefined. your drawing is perfect, you don’t need to improve anymore. fuck everything thats pointing flaws in it.
Patonki, I understand that you know your shit on this topic and all, but do you really have to be such a dick when you’re giving criticism?
I’m only a dick when they take it personally. The original post was p.neutral
Right, I’m feeling rather crappy right now, and it’s funny how your own mood changes the way you perceive written text.
Patonki, I apologise. I didn’t interpret your posts correctly, and once you read hostility, it’s hard to read anything else.
Whilst I appreciate that the background is just a bunch of scribbles, that is what it is supposed to be. They’re very distant trees, and the focus is not on them. One could even argue that they are just a “mess of shapes”, they are trees and can be considered as made up of lots of little 2D shapes - leaves. Regardless, I admit that they are a bunch of scribbles and I didn’t spend much time or invest much effort into them.
You mentioned two things that now catch my eye reading through the post again. Readability in places, and value range being low in the lower left. I didn’t understand the terms at the time, and by the time I read your post explaining them, I had become defensive and caught up on other things you had said. Could you please point out where the readability is poor? For the low value range, I don’t really have much to work with down there; it’s mostly shadow on a mostly flat surface, and I just don’t know how to define that further. I am also limited by only having a HB pencil to hand (and I don’t have the skills to use it to it’s full extent).
You also mentioned the point of this drawing. For an artist, I’d imagine you’re right. But I am not an artist, hell I can’t draw to save my life. There is no point to this image, I just looked at the photo, at the stack of white paper in front of me, and the pencil sat on top of it… and thought, “Fuck it, let’s draw”. I got some fun out of it and it came out better than I had expected.
I take it you are an avid artist?