ManolitoMystique

Hey there,

This submission was already reviewed by the DAB team; I don't know how this happened that you see it again.

Everything was done on paper using a fineliner. I did not undo anything. I was just being very careful with every step on the way.

Anyway, I am about to continue—and eventually complete—the DAB course. On my way to lesson 5!

Regards

I was worried that I would still not see what I am not doing what you ask me I should be doing, but therefore show you my current revision to maybe be confronted again with what I should improve, and maybe understand eventually.

These last months, I have made many hundreds of drawings and redrawings. I watched the instruction video many times and everytime I completed the drawing, I checked every time again whether I could do better. And everytime, also for the current revision, I felt I could indeed. And so this went on for months. Until I felt I should just post a revision and await the new critique.

Leaving emptiness between the added mass I think I did to really show that I do add mass. Call it hypercorrection, if you will. On the other hand, your demonstration of addition gave me the impression that it indeed leaves some behind (https://imgur.com/t6oz7Tv). Your comment on the addition (blue) of the abdomen of the bee (https://imgur.com/DwrHO3X). To me, that looks 3D now as it did back then, but to you the suggestion of 3D is not enough. I believe the knowing to what extent the suggestion of 3D is enough for the viewer is what I still need to grasp.

The reason for not adding contour lines in the joints I believe is that I did not see them in the other redrawings of insects of the lobster page and therefore was not integrated in my DAB process (probably deemed as being helpful but not necessary). Your instruction does indeed instruct the drawer to do so, though (https://d15v304a6xpq4b.cloudfront.net/lesson_images/a20182ab.jpg).

I am adding this reply to clarify that my deviation is not a conscious choice. I believe I am really still in the unconscious incompetent phase there. Especially because I do follow your course as strictly and as directly as I can. That it in practice does not deliver adequately is very frustrating.

I think the best way to improve is to follow your last comment: making sure to continue to apply my DAB drawings as strictly and directly as I can and improve that way—even if that could mean that I will only get a little out of this course (which I do not believe to be true, for I already got a lot out of this course in my own perspective).

Hello everyone,

Here is my revision.

Kind regards.

Dear Uncomfortable,

Here is my revision.

https://drawaboxchallenger.wordpress.com/lesson4/

I really looked into your correct addition principle. I think it rather worked with constructing the body of the weevil. I used intersections for the legs of both the weezil and the hornet, because the addition approach to a sausage to construct a leg I find more difficult (possibly because they are so small), which I attempted on the back-right leg of the weevil (because I drew the leg too slim). The goal to sustain the impression of the insect being 3D I believe I have improved (by mainly using intersection lines).

Regards,

Manolito Mystique

Hello again,

Here is my second revision. I took my time now. And drawing bigger definitely helps.

Dear Uncomfortable,

Here is my revision.

I did only add line weight to “clarify a specific, localized overlap” (Uncomfortable 2021). I am very satisfied with the sunflower and the leaves (and the cactus to some extent). The orbifolia could definitely need some work. The plant on the right of the same page is so much more organic and careful with linework and it is the last one I drew. I thought I could redo the whole page (because of the orbifolia), but I also thought it would be better to show you how I can sometimes lose “touch” of my linework a bit.

I plan on improving my cylinders. They were much better before when I was drawing daily—which I can do again, fortunately.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you Scyllastew, for your critique,

1. I used a document scanner (the “legendary” Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500) on highest quality setting. This device does not have a photo or drawing settings that I am aware of. Comparing the scanned files to the source drawings, I do not really understand what you mean. Details are retained quite excellent I would say.

2. Do you mean that one should draw the lines that share a vanishing point excluding the part that makes the box? Because I was thinking about that from time to time, to keep the fineliner colour more intact (instead of blending with the black ink of the box), and to give it a way a more accurate convergence, because small inaccuracies of the angle of the box increase a lot if you make the vanishing point line from that, rather than realigning it just a little bit (such as the blue line is doing in the diagram you showed, angling a bit more to the left than the actual box-part does). It appears such small inaccuracies can be ignored; precisely drawing vanishing point lines from such small inaccuracies gives the impression that the box is more inaccurate than it actually is.

An example is box 202: https://drawaboxchallenger.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/2020_11_22_03_48_42.jpg. Technically the upper red line (second from left to right) is off, because the blue line of the box is angled more to the left, but the inaccuracy is so small that I drew the line to the vanishing point, anyway.

Thank you!

If you look back at my edit of your wheel in perspective, as far as I know, the major axis can be found if you look at the square in perspective, and take the absolute width of the drawn square (without considering perspective). The major axis shouls lie there, because it divides the left and right part of the foreshortened square evenly. The minor axis is perpendicular to the major axis and you're done.

The only thing is that you need to draw a square in perspective in the first place. As of yet, I do not know a mathematical way for that.

The opposite, however—creating a square in perspective from an ellips—is an option. Currently, I can only imagine the steps, but I think they are correct:

1. Draw an ellips (narrow horizontally, wide vertically) and draw a vertical line A that is larger than the height of the ellips, and lean it on either side (it should hit either the left or right part of the ellips).

2. Create the square’s horizontal lines by drawing them from both ends of line A to a vanishing point to the opposite side while hitting the top and bottom of the ellips.

3. Create the square’s other vertical line by drawing it next to the other part of the ellips.

4. You’ve drawn a perfect square in perspective. This is for one-perspective. I think that more steps are needed for two-point (or three-point) perspective.

I will see what I can do later today. I could create examples for each mentioned step and see if my theory is correct. I do know that a circle (which with context is a sphere, obviously) should always fit perfectly inside a 3D cube (drawn on a 2D plane). That logic made me think that an ellips should always fit inside a square edge.

EDIT: I think this tutorial will help you a lot!:

https://youtu.be/h0HrmywKzFk

And this is the geometry behind it that you’re looking for:

https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect3.html

I am not really sure what your point is, but I can answer your question regarding the “mathematically reliable way of” finding the minor axis: Look for the largest and shortest diameters of each ellips and you will find the major and minor axes.

I took your picture, rotated it in PowerPoint to add perfect ellipses and the major and minor axes (first image), and rotated it back to how you drew it (second image):

https://drawaboxchallenger.wordpress.com/circles/

The major axis of an ellips divides it symmetrically. It has nothing to do with the center of the circle. I think your point is that they are concentric circles in perspective, not concentric ellipses, which is how Uncomfortable describes them.

These are concentric ellipses (having a common central axis):

https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/42600/42661/conellipses_42661.htm

So now, I do think you have a point, but it might depend on how one defines the word concentric , that is what is the center point: an object’s axis disregarding perspective (like in the second example) or with context in mind such as perspective (your/my example).

Dear Rob,

Here is my revision. I have purchased 0.5mm fineliners.

https://drawaboxchallenger.wordpress.com/drawabox-homework-revised/