Cecil (Tony) Pentecost
Manns Harbor, NC

Take care,

Tony

Taking the tonal values as a series of steps... the epaulettes and uniform text make a top level, a secondary level would be the central Texaco roundel... but still the head doesn't feature. Only when you drop down to the uniform's shaping do you encounter tones that make up the face.

This is only my personal observation of course, but, even though the light is coming in from above and straight on, maybe you could introduce a little shadow into the hair (you can manufacture it if it doesn't exist in reality - it's your drawing and only you know what the reality is) then it might serve to echo the deeper tones in the top third of the drawing and draw the eye in that direction?

Also the shadow below the nose indicates the lighting direction and this shadow could (should?) be repeated below the chin, which would further define the jaw.

Sorry..... just arrived and getting bolshie already.......

MIKE

www.SibleyFineArt.com
www.Starving-Artists.net

- Melissa (aka: Honey Bee)

Tony Pentecost
Manns Harbor, NC

I have to agree with Mike and melissa concerning the tonal values going on with the face. If you find drawing faces a bit daunting It can be all too easy to get to a point where you are quite statisfied with what you have already achieved and dare not push it any further in case you ruin it. It may be a good idea, just as an excercise, to do the same drawing again but this time force yourself to put in the darker tones that are missing from the original drawing and see what a difference it makes.The reason I say do the same one again is purely because as you have done it once, you should'nt feel the pressure to "get it right" and settle on "almost right" doing it a second time.

If the original source photo is a bit light use photo shop, or whatever, to manipulate it a bit. I have just started a double portrait (finally!!!) and have four separate prints of the same image to give me a range of depth for various bits (1) for skin, (2) for hair (the origianl its too light, almost non existant) (3) for denim (to bring out the grain) and (4) to show up the weave and pattern a bit more in a knitted cardigan.

Work the eyes, nose and mouth first getting in those dark values and then you HAVE to get the other stuff to balance. (This next bit should answer your question) Don't make life difficult for yourself, ALWAYS work from a black and white reference to get those tones spot on, its all too easy to go off course when working from colour reference only. If you are going for black and white photo-realism..., use a black and white photo....simple

Hope this helps some.
Phil

Quote I basically re-created what the printer produced. I had read somewhere that one should always work from a color photo as compared to a black/white image. Any thoughts on this idea?

Plenty Tony.... but only time for two. Personally I NEVER draw from B&W source photography and always use colour. The last thing you want is for your sources to dictate your tones.

Just allow the photos to contain the structural information you require and leave the tonal structure to your own imagination.

And colour sources allow you to follow and seperate adjacent areas of similar tone, especially through shadow.

MIKE

www.SibleyFineArt.com
www.Starving-Artists.net

Quote Don't make life difficult for yourself, ALWAYS work from a black and white reference to get those tones spot on, its all too easy to go off course when working from colour reference only. If you are going for black and white photo-realism..., use a black and white photo....simple

I detect impending revolution in the camp! I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Phil

Actually, on second thoughts, I have worked WITH (not FROM) B&W photos because the detail is often sharper -- but I would only use them as sources of detail not for dictating tonal values.

MIKE

www.SibleyFineArt.com
www.Starving-Artists.net

Actually, I do work from both . I follow whichever image is giving me the best information for the job in hand at the time. I, personally, find working purely from colour and converting to B&W emensely confusing at times, and need the B&W to show me the depths of the blacks and sometimes the tones. I guess I sort of cross reference them.... if you see what I mean. So I think we do sort of agree.

There is a lot of "Only a good artist........" type information out there and I was stressing the point that you do what needs to be done to get you where you are going, not just follow what people tell you should be done. There was a discussion here not so long ago about gridding and how a good or true artist would never use a grid etc, (from reading your website, a subject and aproach to working you and I do totally agree on). I find it a shame people feel restricted in the way they aproach the way they work and hold themselves back because of short sighted, erroneous (sp) and quite often, ignorant information, something I am sure you have come across many times.

So Mike... You are sort of right........I'm just righter......lol

Phil

By the way, I use BOTH color and b&w references. I think that that a color reference does not offer the way to see tonal differences like b&w reference does, but an original reference picture is always sharper than the scanned one. I have also found that sometimes its a good thing to "sharpen" the reference in photoshop to see sharp lines better etc.

And if I draw photorealistic stuff (such as a portrait) I DONT want to decide about tones on my mind. How could I know better about tonality than a camera does? Maybe if one tries to achieve certain "emotional feeling" in to a drawing it maybe useful to adjust tonality to match with these aspects. But surely, the result may not be as loyal to the original reference then.

Just my humble opinion, ignore it if you want