Thanks Stephen for another thought-provoking video! I have the same problem here In Tennessee. The undergrowth is so thick and random in the forest here it sometimes hard to find an interesting composition. I’ve tried just drawing what I see, but as you said that results in confusion. The video was a real eye opener. I think I will start taking several photos from slightly different positions.
Thanks for including the real-time drawing at the end. It gave a good sense of how deliberate and thoughtful your mark making is which can be obscured in the sped-up video.
The whole video was packed full of useful gems but i especially liked the simplicity and effectiveness of leaving a tiny gap when drawing overlapping branches. Thanks for sharing.
I was a photojournalist for years, now in retirement learning to draw in pen and ink. This is so very helpful, elucidating what I came to “KNOW” looking through a camera lens and apply it to drawing. Thank you so much.
Hi Steven,since discovering your channel,ive literally studied ,all your clips, never sensed they repetitive,your descriptions, and live demonstration of actual mark making, your techniques of creating depth and value ,and making your drawings look so realistic ,daily I escape reality, find a quite outdoor spot, and practice your learnings,i get engulfed in the moment, awesome way to get calm and switch off ,thanks to u,my drawings,have improved remarkably,so excited for its, future potential ,hugely grateful to your amazing teaching skills, thanks to devotion
This is why photographers are so obsessed with “chasing the light”. Waiting for the right lighting can inform a scene in ways that even video etc. cannot. Morning and evening are usually better times for such light.
Technically a good light makes the 3d character of objects "translate" better in 2D space. Shadows and various intensities of light, color changes and projected shadows can help with relevant information so our brains better "see" the scene in 3D when presented with a strictly 2D view- i.e. a flat photograph. Nevermind the purely artistic merit of having colors and texture look at their best , lighting is so important because it can make -or break- a shot. Focal length and its associated distortion is also an interesting aspect to take into consideration, as well as "eye position with respect to the horizon of the composition" - or viewing height. The eye is trained to see things closer to 50 mm (normal on 35- that is the origin of the term " normal lens, i.e. natural viewing angle) and pretty close to f 1.2 when poorly lit and down to f/22 or thereabouts in strong light (eye adaptation). And the "natural perspective" assumes a viewpoint of about 1.5 to 2.1 m above ground (normal height for humans)... That is why a photograph taken with these considerations in mind looks... so.. boring! It is exactly what you would expect if directly looking at the object in fairly normal light and setting- i.e. everyday photograph. Good for selling homes and cars, not so great for "art". Creative perspective , use of light and other focals than normal brings an interesting element to the most bland subjects. Of course, an artist knows how to use a normal lens and light so that the composition is not boring in the end- but keep in mind the significance of " normal " lens and " eye height" as factors of familiarity with the subject of a photo...
Pausing the video of the tangle of trees, and then looking to a different part of the still image, was a striking demonstration of just how much a photograph removes in terms of depth. Very enlightening!
I'm over 50 and from a small First Nation community. I had no one to show me these things. Everything was such a struggle in comparison with all the free resources available now.
Excellent description of why photos don't capture what you initially saw and some ways to overcome that effect. Taking a brief video also makes sense just to get the sense of what you saw originally.
I wouldn’t usually take a video, that was just for the lesson to show the depth that is lost in the photo. But it certainly could be done intentionally to aid in the drawing. 😀
I'm an Aussie who absolutely LOVES the Australian bush, having spent my life camping in remote areas. I'm now trying to learn to draw landscapes using colour pencils. It is incredibly challenging. Your video has helped enormously. The difference between the photo and the video is a real "wow" factor! Thank you!
I always take 2 photos, move 6" to the right to take the second. Now you have a stereoscopic pair. Position the photos next to each other. Cross your eyes looking at the same point appearing in each photo. 3D!
@@stephentraversart Welcome. Aerial photogrammetry and surveying developed the technique to determine 3D topography many years ago. Also used by artillery rangefinders before the days of lasers and radar. Currently used for obtaining 3d geometry of objects, statues, etc. and duplication for 3d printing.
Hi Stephen, thank you so much for this tip. For the longest time, I've thought it was me just not getting the essense of the scene into the photos I took, and as you mentioned in your video, I've been really excited by the scene, taken several photos, and got home only to disappoint myself with the terrible composition of a mess which I felt was impossible to draw. And now, I know why! Thank you 🙂
I had this happen. I think the trip between my small city and the next one has such lovely landforms, almost entirely unbroken by any evidence of human activity (Wyoming -- think old Western movies), and I got a great desire to paint some of them. I went out one afternoon about 8 months ago and spent quite a while driving, pulling over in many spots, and getting out of my vehicle to photograph from different angles and focal lengths. I was so disappointed when I looked at what I had captured that I didn't even download them! But after watching this video, I have now taken the images off the camera and will begin making studies from some of them, I will try to "see through" the two dimensional plane of the photos and bring the scenes back to life, so to speak. Thanks for all the great videos!
Fantastic advice and great food for thought. Always bowled away by how well you represent both organic and manmade form with line and value control. Thanks for the real time portion too!
That’s a really fine drawing. I’ve spent years trying to understand why Cezanne is so highly regarded, ie. what is it in his work that sets him apart? I think your response to this photo is connected to Cezanne and the way he built overlapping planes to create space rather than tone and atmosphere. Lovely work!
Thanks Timothy. I was amazed when I first saw his work in life how beautifully luminous the colour is. His rendering is certainly remarkable. Thanks for your thoughts. 😀
Thank you! I read some of the comments and my thought was what about videos? But a comment I read about using videos as a reference has somewhat the same complications as a photo. And I agree but sometimes it is so difficult to get the exact lighting and darkness; sunlight and shadows. It is always shifting and there are so many beautiful layers and there is nothing like my own visual observations. But time is definitely not on my side. If I could only stop the exact moment and put it on canvas, that would be a treat! I believe that is what we all strive for, is catching that great glimpse!
I know that for me, the biggest difference between drawing from life and from a photos is that drawing from a photo, I forget what it was that drew me to the composition that I loved in real life. I spent quite a bit of time drawing and painting out in very confusing places in Oregon wild places, where the hardest thing was to figure out how much to draw because it was so green. Separating the parts took practice. I found that I never drew or painted as much as I saw and when using a photo, it was much more difficult to leave things out. In real life, just a bit of movement of my head helped me to see what was and was not important to the scene. Watching and stopping the video, I would not have picked that spot, but one that was to the right, de-emphasizing that center tree. That's my point. We don't expect to draw the entire photo when we take it but that's what we forget. The photo includes what we like the best because of the limitations of a camera.
Yes, One of the great opportunities we have is we are not limited by the photo. Sounds as if you have a thorough experience in this with your painting Kathleen. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. 😀
@@stephentraversart Thank you! I had teachers that did not encourage us to use photos but to set up still lifes. It was the best start! Getting out and painting was wonderful!
IMHO I think it would be easier to show the sense of depth with painting, warm and cool colors.. warm colors come forward, cool colors recede . I am a plein air landscape painter for the last 20+ years and have dealt with this issue Many times. I prefer to paint outdoors, but sometimes the weather doesn’t cooperate and I have to paint from photographs. Also, perspective is important factor, and a few other color techniques that work for me .
Absolutely. This is the sort of scene I painted in oils for ten years before I began drawing. However, because this sort of scene could end up 2 metres long, I did them in the studio. But my TH-cam channel is about drawing, so . . . 😀
Important point! Actually, one can see when a painting is made outside in nature or is painted in the studio. Some artists speak of "the painting has more life" when painted onsite.
I think it depends usually on the skill of the painter. On-site painting is much more demanding to achieve a high standard, but when it is achieved, yes, I find it usually captures something not found in studio paintings. But then again, I am enjoying more gestural art at the moment, so not everyone will agree with me. 😀
This is why I don't take good pictures. Whether with a mirrorless camera or with my phone, I always have results that sadden me. When I draw or paint it is so much better.
What helps me, is to blow up the photograph. I blow up certain parts of the picture to get a better look into the depth and detail of the shadows and forms in the distance, that is missed in the normal size of the photo. Thank you for your tips!!
Thank you. The video helped me to see the difference between spacial relationships of foreground, mid-ground, and background. These are lost in photograph.
That photo you drew looks like the thick tangle of woods near the river over here in Wisconsin USA! I have photos of that on my phone. And yes, I certainly noticed that somehow the photos looked different than what I saw when I took them. Something had been lost but it was hard to say what it was. The depth I guess.
Photographers tend to put the main subject in the center of the photo. They also tend to over expose the photo too.. learning to use your camera is vital to taking photos..
"Breaking reality" by implementing multiple station points in a picture is a technique that could be exploited to interesting effect. This is often done in large murals where the viewer is expected to view the piece from multiple places.
Very useful information. I have noticed that effect but hadn't heard anyone specifically articulate it. If I were drawing that scene, I would stress about the background not really articulating a mountain range. I'm thinking putting detail enough in the horizon might detract/confuse the the scene - is that why you left them abstracted?
It’s actually the other size of a gorge. Mountain range is a bit of an overstatement!😀 But it’s the sort of detail which is a challenge in drawing. It’s the furthest point which sets the limit for the sense of depth so we want to it to be clear and clearly far away. It has a slightly stronger presence in the actual drawing than the photo of it. If it is too strong though, it will link up all the mid ground elements into an even more solid blob and close off any sense of far distance. In the end, it’s one of the choices we all get to make. 😀
I am self taught and always tried to find the 2D in the 3D. Looking around at subjects, I have tried to find the 2D in all things, such as a tree with all its bright leaves. But just as poignant and impressive is the the shadows. As Castaneda said, not doing. Looking at the shadows with the light in the background. Photography has helped that.
Thanks Brent. Seeing the 2D shape accurately can certainly be helpful, and I talk about this particularly in my video on drawing cars. But overall , our scene is usually one of 3D forms, and it’s hard to create this from a 2D image without some effort to visualise its 3D reality in our mind. It’s not just accurate outline we need. 😀
I have a question. Why in the world do my eyes draw to the shadows? I do this all the time. It's just natural for me, then I draw pictures in my mind with the shadows. What is up with that?
We’re often drawn to contrasts - which shadows may provide. You’re drawing in your mind through negative space - the space between objects which are often in shadow. It’s a really helpful way for an artist to visualise the world. 👏
Botanists, zoologist use drawings of different species, A photograph can not capture the specimen's anomalies or slight difference's, but someone with drawing specimens talent will show those unique features that the camera never will or can;t.
Thanks for the video. I noticed that sometimes you held the pens closer to the nibs and other times you held it further from the nibs. How do you decide how close or how far to hold the pen to the nib?
It usually connects to the type of lines I’m wanting to draw. The quicker, more gestural they are, the further back from the end and more loosely I hold the pen. The more precise, considered they are, I move down the end. Most of the time I suspect this is quite intuitive rather than conscious. 😀
I drew after a photo WITHOUT watching this video. I am alive. No indications of me being subject to a curse have come to my attention and avoiding advice presented as commandment served me well for decades...
Paintings / drawings based on photographs and artwork based from life are very different things. Artists that stand in the world, work taking the 3-dimensional and applying it to a 2-dimensional surface. With a photograph this struggle is done / instant 2-dimensional / easy. Should art be easy?
Life/location artwork has its challenges, but it has the wonderful advantage of inescapable 3D to provoke our creativity to capture. Photos are literally 2D already, but that not only does some of the harder work for us, it also often confuses the depth of plane various elements sit in. We have to sort that out before we can start and put it back into our artwork . It is often easy to tell an artwork is created from a photo whether a landscape or a portrait from the flatness that has been copied along with the subject. Art should be fun, rewarding, challenging, satisfying and sometimes infuriating. But it is always work. Ease in the work comes with considered practice. I often draw the parallel with learning the piano. No shortcut to excellence. 😀
Worth note (say... an addendum) ANYONE who's been out and about with a camera, and tried snapping a photo of some small animal in their sight, only to get that pic' up on the screen of their computer, OR pick up the developed film (remember those days??? Anybody???) and sit there scratching their head with a "What the f*** did I take this picture for???" rattling around their brain forever can attest... YES, film and photographs might seem great in their richness and fidelity on the surface, but they certainly CAN seem to "lose" a lot when you start to study closer... or longer... or both. It's part of why photographers have gone to such ludicrous lengths about altered lighting, 3 light studio standards, and "chasing the light" in the field when they get out for "professional results"... I rather like the idea that I'm not drawing what's in the picture... I'm instead, using the picture (whether a piece of art work, itself, or a photo or some other image) as a basis for INTERPRETATION... and then rendering what I prefer to interpret. I can then shamelessly be as faithful or otherwise to what's supposedly in the image reference, as I see fit to determine what I'm exactly choosing to express through my own finished work. The short short version of this process is "Use what works, change what's close to working, and dismiss what you don't want or need." ;o)
The sun was as high as it gets in June, for where I live, but I liked the shadows because it may have just been too complex to draw clearly with pen otherwise. Nothing would have been discernible 😀
The availability of Cameras made me seldom see people paint on site. Most of them take pictures on subjects then do the painting indoors. Yes, that's true Sir, there are some subtle info that photo can't be seen, even more on quick snap shots. Going for a walk, spend time with nature and paint on site, for me is still the best.
Thank you for those secrets you shared. I invite you trying to draw with a G dip, as japanese manga artists does, il will allow you creating depth even on the lines themselves. Thanks again and have good time drawing.
Thanks Isigael. Haven’t heard of that. It’s it a common manga style drawing pen? I know drawing with a fountain pen can produce lots of different effects, and there are so many nibs of course. I’ll Google it. 😀
The problem here is not the camera, it's the photographer. Open up the lens, and use a shorter shutter speed, and you get depth of field. Near objects are in focus, more distant are less so, more distant still are even less focussed. It doesn't have to be extreme, we can easily pick up on very subtle clues. You might want to take a photo where the background is in focus, to use as a reference for the background, but your main reference photo should have depth of field. You could also exaggerate the depth in the photo by using a wider lens, and getting closer, so the ratio of the distance to the closest object to the farthest is greater. It looks to me, even in the video, like there really isn't much depth in the scene, so move in and make the most of what little there is. All you've demonstrated is that bad photos make bad reference pictures - that's hardly surprising.
Thanks for this photography insight. Clearly, I am not a photographer. I just use my iPhone. And I have also realised that TH-cam has used the reference to photo in the title etc to start pushing recommendations of it to photographers, who understandably find my photography lacking. I hope this is helpful for anyone wanting to take better reference photos. Thanks 😀
Great videos! I was wondering what graphite pencils you would use to match your pen tip numbers? Would the .05 be mid range or soft, and the succeeding further back one's be harder value numbers??
That equivalency is a B*TCH... Graphite doesn't ONLY change values for thickness... There's hardness values in the stuff, too... AND then (gods help us all) there's charcoal... and a whole new kettle of beans... For me, usually, in pencil-sketch, I tend to use thicker for softer, since part of the line value comes from darkening, and so thicker leads spread the force out a little bit more, allowing a lighter and softer line to be left with every stroke and motion... Thinner leads tend (at least in my heavy hands) to leave darker lines, and although technically thinner, they just take on a heavier and sharper sense of every measure... Obviously, with the inclusion of hardness values as well, this can be modulated to varying degrees just depending on what YOU personally want out of the graphite performance... Up Front... I'm referring to what they (now) call a "lead holder", but was either a Draftsman's Pencil or Architect's Pencil even only a decade ago, and holds 2mm leads from 9B(soft) through a full scale to 9H (hard)... though I've rarely seen much need for more than 4B to 4H and then farting around with more popularly available (and easier/cheaper) 1.3mm down to 0.5mm regular mechanical pencils/lead holders... (just so we're clear on what the actual f*** I'm talking about)... haha... If you're interested DraftingSteals.com advertises them available on order, and at least once you've ordered the lead-holders, they can last you a lifetime. Just don't sit on them or do silly things like hit them with hammers and stuff... The leads hold up decently, too... and I'll add that you'd be well advised to get some fine sandpaper (anything between 300 to 1000 grit) for occasional shaping and sharpening of the graphite points as you may find that VERY useful, if you feel adventurous... BUT for the beginning, just picking up a few mechanicals... say 0.5 , 0.7 , 0.8 , 0.9, and 1.3 mm would give you a fair demonstration of how thicker CAN be softer where graphite is involved... In ink, since it's generally ALL the exact same color and shade, it gets difficult for our brains to differentiate much of anything but exactly width/thickness of lines as the line weight, so there needs be more attention to it... while graphite offers a certain freedom and tolerance, which in turn CAN also be expanded as you gain skill and finesse with your hand pressure and repeated strokes... at least to some degree. Hope this helps... AND whatever you do, fart around and have regular fun just playing with it. SEE what happens. ;o)
The graphite changes in nature with different grades, but the ink stays the same, only the width changes. At the thinner end (less then 0.1mm) used briskly this can create a lighter line I feel, but generally using pens have more equivalency with using the same pencil but varying the sharpness. The best way to go is experimenting. You have possibilities with pencil unavailable in pen. Why not explore them. Have fun. 😀
@@stephentraversart My bad, didn't realize your camera is a phone. So phones aren't as good as real cameras? I've been hearing they are, but my phone could never do what my cameras are able.
Thanks for the inspiration to improve my sketching. I usually take 1 photo for composition and 2 or 3 for the focus of my watercolor painting. This also helps with value study.
The implicit assumption in this video is that all photographs have everything in focus, like the example photographs. This is true for all hand-held phone cameras, which have VERY short focal length lenses. But a "full-frame" digital camera with an inexpensive 50mm lens could render the first two example images with the foreground and background progressively out of focus compared to the principle subject. You simply choose a wide aperture (f2 or f2.8, for example). A photographer using a wide aperture WILL consciously decide what subject in the field of view is "in focus" and what will be rendered out of focus. I hasten to add this is NOT exactly the same as the artistic choice of "sharp subject" and "indistinct object" process so ably described by S. Travers. A lens can't make one branch "out of focus" and another at the same distance "in focus". But some cameras allow some artistic choice beyond "everything in focus".
@@stephentraversart My late mother was an art teacher. So I have nothing but respect for your clearly-rendered introduction into the drawing process. It applies to lots of subjects besides just photographs!
Does it have to do with composition and focus? I hear flatness and lack of depth, but I don’t see the flatness or lack of depth. Sometimes I just don’t like a picture and observe it enough. When I observe photographs, I assume that what I’m looking at has a 3D counterpart and it isn’t just a 2D image but a moment captured. That’s sort of what the “it feels real enough to confuse me about reality” comes in with the photograph. When I was around older people who take traditional photography, they’d only take one shot and be so happy that they took that one shot instead of 301 shots like digital photographers, but it’s like…why not? What’s actually wrong with it? I take a bunch of shots when making references for my characters, I have the ability to see certain objects with some spatial awareness, but I can’t necessarily keep that image in my head for long or I want to distort so I’ll take a ton of photos and keep all of them on my phone and camera. Sometimes they’re not bad shots, I just was chasing something. Sometimes I don’t even like the picture after a while and liked the trash photo I took. I get those but I’m not understanding depth.
It sounds like you’re able to recognise the shortcomings in the photos and overcome them, possibly intuitively even, in your visualisation, which is great. Some subjects present a greater challenge than others, in my mind tree canopies most of all. I see many drawings and paintings of all subjects clearly painted from photos where this visualisation hadn’t taken place and the weaknesses of the photo have been captured as well. (And as someone who spent their teenage years with cameras where the films were expensive, the photo quality poor, the number you could take 12 - 24, the processing costs high, and you had to take them somewhere to be developed, had to wait a week, they could often be duds, and you had to pay for them all, and you only got one copy unless you paid more - I think digital photography is GREAT!😀
But... we don't practice 3D like that. We practice interesting shapes. We can always add depth on our own. The way we want. Maybe I wanna make it look flatter, like a green hedge. Or maybe I wanna make the dark areas look like a far away forest. We need dynamics for understanding but in the end we do draw 2D. Sure, it would rock to always have a real model or nature to practice on. But we're often limited. Photos are a lazy solution for one people and a miracle way for others. For those who have... less opportunities. For any reason: financial, anatomical or geographical.
My point though Mallory is how to create a 3D effect from a photo. I draw Paris from photos because I can’t get there often, but I hope to create the same freehand drawing I would draw if I were in the street in front of my subject. So this video is about how I try and do this. 😀
Interesting video, but I had to stop watching the drawing part, because the camera shake made me nauseous. The theme is interesting and relevant, so not I am watching the comments and listening. :)
Glad the content made good sense to you Anthony. Oddly enough then, this is one of my favourite drawings I’ve done all year. I was very pleased with how it turned out. I guess that’s what art is all about!😆
Thanks Stephen for another thought-provoking video! I have the same problem here In Tennessee. The undergrowth is so thick and random in the forest here it sometimes hard to find an interesting composition. I’ve tried just drawing what I see, but as you said that results in confusion. The video was a real eye opener. I think I will start taking several photos from slightly different positions.
I realize how important it is to watch the beginner videos because you get a lot of information and that is so helpful, thanks Stephen .
Thanks for including the real-time drawing at the end. It gave a good sense of how deliberate and thoughtful your mark making is which can be obscured in the sped-up video.
Glad it was helpful. Thanks for telling me 😀
The whole video was packed full of useful gems but i especially liked the simplicity and effectiveness of leaving a tiny gap when drawing overlapping branches.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Rae. Great to hear, and yes, it’s an effective technique 😀
I was a photojournalist for years, now in retirement learning to draw in pen and ink. This is so very helpful, elucidating what I came to “KNOW” looking through a camera lens and apply it to drawing. Thank you so much.
Hi Steven,since discovering your channel,ive literally studied ,all your clips, never sensed they repetitive,your descriptions, and live demonstration of actual mark making, your techniques of creating depth and value ,and making your drawings look so realistic ,daily I escape reality, find a quite outdoor spot, and practice your learnings,i get engulfed in the moment, awesome way to get calm and switch off ,thanks to u,my drawings,have improved remarkably,so excited for its, future potential ,hugely grateful to your amazing teaching skills, thanks to devotion
Very kind of you to say all this Nola. All the best with your drawing 😀
This is why photographers are so obsessed with “chasing the light”. Waiting for the right lighting can inform a scene in ways that even video etc. cannot. Morning and evening are usually better times for such light.
And it also brings such beautiful coloured tones to the subject. 😀
Steven travers
Photography even in the right light is still significantly flat!! Photos are always flat!!
Technically a good light makes the 3d character of objects "translate" better in 2D space. Shadows and various intensities of light, color changes and projected shadows can help with relevant information so our brains better "see" the scene in 3D when presented with a strictly 2D view- i.e. a flat photograph. Nevermind the purely artistic merit of having colors and texture look at their best , lighting is so important because it can make -or break- a shot. Focal length and its associated distortion is also an interesting aspect to take into consideration, as well as "eye position with respect to the horizon of the composition" - or viewing height.
The eye is trained to see things closer to 50 mm (normal on 35- that is the origin of the term " normal lens, i.e. natural viewing angle) and pretty close to f 1.2 when poorly lit and down to f/22 or thereabouts in strong light (eye adaptation). And the "natural perspective" assumes a viewpoint of about 1.5 to 2.1 m above ground (normal height for humans)... That is why a photograph taken with these considerations in mind looks... so.. boring! It is exactly what you would expect if directly looking at the object in fairly normal light and setting- i.e. everyday photograph. Good for selling homes and cars, not so great for "art". Creative perspective , use of light and other focals than normal brings an interesting element to the most bland subjects. Of course, an artist knows how to use a normal lens and light so that the composition is not boring in the end- but keep in mind the significance of " normal " lens and " eye height" as factors of familiarity with the subject of a photo...
Pausing the video of the tangle of trees, and then looking to a different part of the still image, was a striking demonstration of just how much a photograph removes in terms of depth. Very enlightening!
Glad you saw it too. I worked all this out in my days of painting tree canopies from photos. 😀
I'm over 50 and from a small First Nation community. I had no one to show me these things. Everything was such a struggle in comparison with all the free resources available now.
I’m glad to have been helpful now Bradley. All the best with your drawing. 😀
Excellent description of why photos don't capture what you initially saw and some ways to overcome that effect. Taking a brief video also makes sense just to get the sense of what you saw originally.
I wouldn’t usually take a video, that was just for the lesson to show the depth that is lost in the photo. But it certainly could be done intentionally to aid in the drawing. 😀
I'm an Aussie who absolutely LOVES the Australian bush, having spent my life camping in remote areas. I'm now trying to learn to draw landscapes using colour pencils. It is incredibly challenging. Your video has helped enormously. The difference between the photo and the video is a real "wow" factor! Thank you!
Fantastic. What a great subject and lifestyle. All the best with it and I’m so glad to have helped. 😀
I always take 2 photos, move 6" to the right to take the second. Now you have a stereoscopic pair. Position the photos next to each other. Cross your eyes looking at the same point appearing in each photo. 3D!
I had no idea you could do that. Thanks for sharing. 😀
@@stephentraversart Welcome. Aerial photogrammetry and surveying developed the technique to determine 3D topography many years ago. Also used by artillery rangefinders before the days of lasers and radar. Currently used for obtaining 3d geometry of objects, statues, etc. and duplication for 3d printing.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us Stephen! This is very helpful!
My pleasure Jerome. Thanks for telling me 😀
I struggle a lot with the "refrain from equalising" moment. I'll have this in mind from now on. Awesome drawing. Awesome video!
I still consciously remind myself of it when I draw. Sometimes I even listen!😀. Glad it was helpful Paco. 😀
Hi Stephen, thank you so much for this tip. For the longest time, I've thought it was me just not getting the essense of the scene into the photos I took, and as you mentioned in your video, I've been really excited by the scene, taken several photos, and got home only to disappoint myself with the terrible composition of a mess which I felt was impossible to draw. And now, I know why! Thank you 🙂
Glad to have helped Ivy😀
Powerful demonstration, thank you.
Glad it helped Samantha 😀
I had this happen. I think the trip between my small city and the next one has such lovely landforms, almost entirely unbroken by any evidence of human activity (Wyoming -- think old Western movies), and I got a great desire to paint some of them. I went out one afternoon about 8 months ago and spent quite a while driving, pulling over in many spots, and getting out of my vehicle to photograph from different angles and focal lengths. I was so disappointed when I looked at what I had captured that I didn't even download them! But after watching this video, I have now taken the images off the camera and will begin making studies from some of them, I will try to "see through" the two dimensional plane of the photos and bring the scenes back to life, so to speak. Thanks for all the great videos!
Great to hear. Thanks for taking the trouble to share. All the best with your new way of seeing. 👏😀
Fantastic advice and great food for thought. Always bowled away by how well you represent both organic and manmade form with line and value control. Thanks for the real time portion too!
Thanks. I’m sure painting trees for ten years helped. I learnt what/how to observe to capture them in an artwork. 😀
That’s a really fine drawing. I’ve spent years trying to understand why Cezanne is so highly regarded, ie. what is it in his work that sets him apart? I think your response to this photo is connected to Cezanne and the way he built overlapping planes to create space rather than tone and atmosphere.
Lovely work!
Thanks Timothy. I was amazed when I first saw his work in life how beautifully luminous the colour is. His rendering is certainly remarkable. Thanks for your thoughts. 😀
I am self-taught and I am amazed how clearly you described this process of « seeing »! ❤
That’s great Gala. All the best with your drawing journey. 😀
Excellent explanation!
Thanks 😀
An excellent explanation of a serious problem in using photos and how to resolve it.
Glad it was helpful Eddie. Will you draw it?😀
@@stephentraversart I would but community posts are not available on my iPad
Perhaps you can screenshot it. 😀
@@stephentraversart That’s a good idea but as I live in Western Scotland I have many photos of similar scenes.
Thank you! I read some of the comments and my thought was what about videos? But a comment I read about using videos as a reference has somewhat the same complications as a photo. And I agree but sometimes it is so difficult to get the exact lighting and darkness; sunlight and shadows. It is always shifting and there are so many beautiful layers and there is nothing like my own visual observations. But time is definitely not on my side. If I could only stop the exact moment and put it on canvas, that would be a treat! I believe that is what we all strive for, is catching that great glimpse!
And depending on our philosophy of art, we can always enhance what we are drawing to increase the qualities of the scene that inspire us. 😀
I know that for me, the biggest difference between drawing from life and from a photos is that drawing from a photo, I forget what it was that drew me to the composition that I loved in real life. I spent quite a bit of time drawing and painting out in very confusing places in Oregon wild places, where the hardest thing was to figure out how much to draw because it was so green. Separating the parts took practice. I found that I never drew or painted as much as I saw and when using a photo, it was much more difficult to leave things out. In real life, just a bit of movement of my head helped me to see what was and was not important to the scene. Watching and stopping the video, I would not have picked that spot, but one that was to the right, de-emphasizing that center tree. That's my point. We don't expect to draw the entire photo when we take it but that's what we forget. The photo includes what we like the best because of the limitations of a camera.
Yes, One of the great opportunities we have is we are not limited by the photo. Sounds as if you have a thorough experience in this with your painting Kathleen. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. 😀
@@stephentraversart Thank you! I had teachers that did not encourage us to use photos but to set up still lifes. It was the best start! Getting out and painting was wonderful!
IMHO I think it would be easier to show the sense of depth with painting, warm and cool colors.. warm colors come forward, cool colors recede .
I am a plein air landscape painter for the last 20+ years and have dealt with this issue Many times.
I prefer to paint outdoors, but sometimes the weather doesn’t cooperate and I have to paint from photographs.
Also, perspective is important factor, and a few other color techniques that work for me .
Absolutely. This is the sort of scene I painted in oils for ten years before I began drawing. However, because this sort of scene could end up 2 metres long, I did them in the studio. But my TH-cam channel is about drawing, so . . . 😀
very professional approach in all tutorials, thank you master!
How encouraging you think so. Thanks 😀
Important point! Actually, one can see when a painting is made outside in nature or is painted in the studio. Some artists speak of "the painting has more life" when painted onsite.
You think so?
I think it depends usually on the skill of the painter. On-site painting is much more demanding to achieve a high standard, but when it is achieved, yes, I find it usually captures something not found in studio paintings. But then again, I am enjoying more gestural art at the moment, so not everyone will agree with me. 😀
EXCELLENT TIPS!
My pleasure Madeline 😀
This is why I don't take good pictures. Whether with a mirrorless camera or with my phone, I always have results that sadden me. When I draw or paint it is so much better.
What a great alternative Tom. Great solution!👏
What helps me, is to blow up the photograph. I blow up certain parts of the picture to get a better look into the depth and detail of the shadows and forms in the distance, that is missed in the normal size of the photo. Thank you for your tips!!
Thanks for sharing this Nancy. Glad to be of help 😀
Thank you. The video helped me to see the difference between spacial relationships of foreground, mid-ground, and background. These are lost in photograph.
Really important understanding. Expect your drawings to fast track improvement 😀
This was very informative, thank you!
My pleasure Birdie😀
Excellent, Stephen. Thank you.
My pleasure Greg. All the best with your drawing. 😀
That photo you drew looks like the thick tangle of woods near the river over here in Wisconsin USA! I have photos of that on my phone. And yes, I certainly noticed that somehow the photos looked different than what I saw when I took them. Something had been lost but it was hard to say what it was. The depth I guess.
That would be it. If we observe it back into the photo it usually improves our drawings, I think. 😀
Thank you for your explanations of PleinAir and draw from photo, excellent!
Glad it was helpful Alice. Have fun with your drawing 😀
Photographers tend to put the main subject in the center of the photo. They also tend to over expose the photo too.. learning to use your camera is vital to taking photos..
I’m always trying to take photos of the scene I’m wanting to draw. My own ‘drawing filter’. Forever telling family members to get out of the way!🫣
I enjoyed that... 😊. Thank you for sharing your talents with us out here 🤗
Glad you’re finding it helpful. Please tell your friends, that would help me too. 😀
Good audio this time, whatever you have done, keep it there. Now the only thing left to tackle is the camera shake!
Thanks. Yes, the camera stand is barely standing these days. It could be the table a bit too. It’s next on the list. 😀
Good video, good commentary, thank you. Now subscribed
Welcome aboard Matt. I have some playlists that might help you choose what to watch. Have fun, and I hope it all helps your drawing. 😀
"Breaking reality" by implementing multiple station points in a picture is a technique that could be exploited to interesting effect. This is often done in large murals where the viewer is expected to view the piece from multiple places.
This is a great way of thinking about it Travis. Thanks for sharing it with us. 😀
THANK YOU. 😇 GOD BLESS.
Appreciate that Bruce. Thanks 😀
Thank you for responding to my comment about this subject.
😀
Very interesting!
Thanks 😀
Very useful information. I have noticed that effect but hadn't heard anyone specifically articulate it.
If I were drawing that scene, I would stress about the background not really articulating a mountain range. I'm thinking putting detail enough in the horizon might detract/confuse the the scene - is that why you left them abstracted?
It’s actually the other size of a gorge. Mountain range is a bit of an overstatement!😀 But it’s the sort of detail which is a challenge in drawing. It’s the furthest point which sets the limit for the sense of depth so we want to it to be clear and clearly far away. It has a slightly stronger presence in the actual drawing than the photo of it. If it is too strong though, it will link up all the mid ground elements into an even more solid blob and close off any sense of far distance. In the end, it’s one of the choices we all get to make. 😀
Thank you so much Stephen!😊
My pleasure Siny 😀
Thanks for your efforts here. It's great to be reaffirmed in one's thinking every now and then by someone so eloquent as you! Enjoy your draw.
Glad to be affirming. All the best with your drawing. 😀
I am self taught and always tried to find the 2D in the 3D. Looking around at subjects, I have tried to find the 2D in all things, such as a tree with all its bright leaves. But just as poignant and impressive is the the shadows. As Castaneda said, not doing. Looking at the shadows with the light in the background.
Photography has helped that.
Thanks Brent. Seeing the 2D shape accurately can certainly be helpful, and I talk about this particularly in my video on drawing cars. But overall , our scene is usually one of 3D forms, and it’s hard to create this from a 2D image without some effort to visualise its 3D reality in our mind. It’s not just accurate outline we need. 😀
I have a question. Why in the world do my eyes draw to the shadows? I do this all the time. It's just natural for me, then I draw pictures in my mind with the shadows. What is up with that?
We’re often drawn to contrasts - which shadows may provide. You’re drawing in your mind through negative space - the space between objects which are often in shadow. It’s a really helpful way for an artist to visualise the world. 👏
Botanists, zoologist use drawings of different species, A photograph can not capture the specimen's anomalies or slight difference's, but someone with drawing specimens talent will show those unique features that the camera never will or can;t.
I didn’t know this Lance, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for sharing it. 😀
Thanks for the video. I noticed that sometimes you held the pens closer to the nibs and other times you held it further from the nibs. How do you decide how close or how far to hold the pen to the nib?
It usually connects to the type of lines I’m wanting to draw. The quicker, more gestural they are, the further back from the end and more loosely I hold the pen. The more precise, considered they are, I move down the end. Most of the time I suspect this is quite intuitive rather than conscious. 😀
I drew after a photo WITHOUT watching this video. I am alive. No indications of me being subject to a curse have come to my attention and avoiding advice presented as commandment served me well for decades...
Haha. Well done!👏👏👏
Paintings / drawings based on photographs and artwork based from life are very different things. Artists that stand in the world, work taking the 3-dimensional and applying it to a 2-dimensional surface. With a photograph this struggle is done / instant 2-dimensional / easy. Should art be easy?
Life/location artwork has its challenges, but it has the wonderful advantage of inescapable 3D to provoke our creativity to capture. Photos are literally 2D already, but that not only does some of the harder work for us, it also often confuses the depth of plane various elements sit in. We have to sort that out before we can start and put it back into our artwork . It is often easy to tell an artwork is created from a photo whether a landscape or a portrait from the flatness that has been copied along with the subject. Art should be fun, rewarding, challenging, satisfying and sometimes infuriating. But it is always work. Ease in the work comes with considered practice. I often draw the parallel with learning the piano. No shortcut to excellence. 😀
@@stephentraversart Well, the fact is a great many artists take the shortcut and get praised and get away with it.
Worth note (say... an addendum) ANYONE who's been out and about with a camera, and tried snapping a photo of some small animal in their sight, only to get that pic' up on the screen of their computer, OR pick up the developed film (remember those days??? Anybody???) and sit there scratching their head with a "What the f*** did I take this picture for???" rattling around their brain forever can attest... YES, film and photographs might seem great in their richness and fidelity on the surface, but they certainly CAN seem to "lose" a lot when you start to study closer... or longer... or both.
It's part of why photographers have gone to such ludicrous lengths about altered lighting, 3 light studio standards, and "chasing the light" in the field when they get out for "professional results"...
I rather like the idea that I'm not drawing what's in the picture... I'm instead, using the picture (whether a piece of art work, itself, or a photo or some other image) as a basis for INTERPRETATION... and then rendering what I prefer to interpret. I can then shamelessly be as faithful or otherwise to what's supposedly in the image reference, as I see fit to determine what I'm exactly choosing to express through my own finished work.
The short short version of this process is "Use what works, change what's close to working, and dismiss what you don't want or need." ;o)
Understanding the weakness of the camera, particularly for grand vista subjects, is a great starting point to overcoming it. 😀
You can try this out yourself. Go outside, loot at some trees and see how much they suddenly blend together when you close one eye.
Great point Schwarzer. Thanks for sharing 😀
on the photo the light is a little boring, with more contrast like in the morning or in the blue hour a photo has also more depth and details
The sun was as high as it gets in June, for where I live, but I liked the shadows because it may have just been too complex to draw clearly with pen otherwise. Nothing would have been discernible 😀
The availability of Cameras made me seldom see people paint on site. Most of them take pictures on subjects then do the painting indoors. Yes, that's true Sir, there are some subtle info that photo can't be seen, even more on quick snap shots. Going for a walk, spend time with nature and paint on site, for me is still the best.
Sounds a great idea for so many reasons Sonny. 😀
A painting/drawing is also a 2D 'picture'. So I think, in the future, we will be painting in 3D.
That sounds challenging 😀
Thank you for those secrets you shared.
I invite you trying to draw with a G dip, as japanese manga artists does, il will allow you creating depth even on the lines themselves.
Thanks again and have good time drawing.
Thanks Isigael. Haven’t heard of that. It’s it a common manga style drawing pen? I know drawing with a fountain pen can produce lots of different effects, and there are so many nibs of course. I’ll Google it. 😀
@@stephentraversart It's the most common manga dip.
Please tell me if you trys it, once mastered it creates really lively lines.
The problem here is not the camera, it's the photographer. Open up the lens, and use a shorter shutter speed, and you get depth of field. Near objects are in focus, more distant are less so, more distant still are even less focussed. It doesn't have to be extreme, we can easily pick up on very subtle clues. You might want to take a photo where the background is in focus, to use as a reference for the background, but your main reference photo should have depth of field. You could also exaggerate the depth in the photo by using a wider lens, and getting closer, so the ratio of the distance to the closest object to the farthest is greater. It looks to me, even in the video, like there really isn't much depth in the scene, so move in and make the most of what little there is.
All you've demonstrated is that bad photos make bad reference pictures - that's hardly surprising.
Thanks for this photography insight. Clearly, I am not a photographer. I just use my iPhone. And I have also realised that TH-cam has used the reference to photo in the title etc to start pushing recommendations of it to photographers, who understandably find my photography lacking. I hope this is helpful for anyone wanting to take better reference photos. Thanks 😀
Great videos! I was wondering what graphite pencils you would use to match your pen tip numbers? Would the .05 be mid range or soft, and the succeeding further back one's be harder value numbers??
That equivalency is a B*TCH... Graphite doesn't ONLY change values for thickness... There's hardness values in the stuff, too... AND then (gods help us all) there's charcoal... and a whole new kettle of beans...
For me, usually, in pencil-sketch, I tend to use thicker for softer, since part of the line value comes from darkening, and so thicker leads spread the force out a little bit more, allowing a lighter and softer line to be left with every stroke and motion... Thinner leads tend (at least in my heavy hands) to leave darker lines, and although technically thinner, they just take on a heavier and sharper sense of every measure...
Obviously, with the inclusion of hardness values as well, this can be modulated to varying degrees just depending on what YOU personally want out of the graphite performance...
Up Front... I'm referring to what they (now) call a "lead holder", but was either a Draftsman's Pencil or Architect's Pencil even only a decade ago, and holds 2mm leads from 9B(soft) through a full scale to 9H (hard)... though I've rarely seen much need for more than 4B to 4H and then farting around with more popularly available (and easier/cheaper) 1.3mm down to 0.5mm regular mechanical pencils/lead holders... (just so we're clear on what the actual f*** I'm talking about)... haha...
If you're interested DraftingSteals.com advertises them available on order, and at least once you've ordered the lead-holders, they can last you a lifetime. Just don't sit on them or do silly things like hit them with hammers and stuff... The leads hold up decently, too... and I'll add that you'd be well advised to get some fine sandpaper (anything between 300 to 1000 grit) for occasional shaping and sharpening of the graphite points as you may find that VERY useful, if you feel adventurous...
BUT for the beginning, just picking up a few mechanicals... say 0.5 , 0.7 , 0.8 , 0.9, and 1.3 mm would give you a fair demonstration of how thicker CAN be softer where graphite is involved...
In ink, since it's generally ALL the exact same color and shade, it gets difficult for our brains to differentiate much of anything but exactly width/thickness of lines as the line weight, so there needs be more attention to it... while graphite offers a certain freedom and tolerance, which in turn CAN also be expanded as you gain skill and finesse with your hand pressure and repeated strokes... at least to some degree.
Hope this helps... AND whatever you do, fart around and have regular fun just playing with it. SEE what happens. ;o)
The graphite changes in nature with different grades, but the ink stays the same, only the width changes. At the thinner end (less then 0.1mm) used briskly this can create a lighter line I feel, but generally using pens have more equivalency with using the same pencil but varying the sharpness. The best way to go is experimenting. You have possibilities with pencil unavailable in pen. Why not explore them. Have fun. 😀
What is even worse is using the camera lucida.
Art is when one uses a photo at first, then one goes into another realm.
Copy is pointless
We each have more to offer. 😀
16 or 20mm on full frame sensor can solve some of this issue
Thanks for telling us. I’m afraid I am limited to what my phone can do. 😀
@@stephentraversart My bad, didn't realize your camera is a phone. So phones aren't as good as real cameras? I've been hearing they are, but my phone could never do what my cameras are able.
Thanks for the inspiration to improve my sketching. I usually take 1 photo for composition and 2 or 3 for the focus of my watercolor painting. This also helps with value study.
My pleasure Connie. Sounds like a good idea. All the best with your painting. 😀
The implicit assumption in this video is that all photographs have everything in focus, like the example photographs. This is true for all hand-held phone cameras, which have VERY short focal length lenses. But a "full-frame" digital camera with an inexpensive 50mm lens could render the first two example images with the foreground and background progressively out of focus compared to the principle subject. You simply choose a wide aperture (f2 or f2.8, for example). A photographer using a wide aperture WILL consciously decide what subject in the field of view is "in focus" and what will be rendered out of focus. I hasten to add this is NOT exactly the same as the artistic choice of "sharp subject" and "indistinct object" process so ably described by S. Travers. A lens can't make one branch "out of focus" and another at the same distance "in focus". But some cameras allow some artistic choice beyond "everything in focus".
You are correct of course Fred. Clearly photography is not my expertise. Thanks for adding your insight on this. 😀
@@stephentraversart My late mother was an art teacher. So I have nothing but respect for your clearly-rendered introduction into the drawing process. It applies to lots of subjects besides just photographs!
I always wondered what people meant about this and I still kinda don’t get it. What exactly is going on with the photography and why is it bad?
Does it have to do with composition and focus? I hear flatness and lack of depth, but I don’t see the flatness or lack of depth. Sometimes I just don’t like a picture and observe it enough.
When I observe photographs, I assume that what I’m looking at has a 3D counterpart and it isn’t just a 2D image but a moment captured. That’s sort of what the “it feels real enough to confuse me about reality” comes in with the photograph.
When I was around older people who take traditional photography, they’d only take one shot and be so happy that they took that one shot instead of 301 shots like digital photographers, but it’s like…why not? What’s actually wrong with it?
I take a bunch of shots when making references for my characters, I have the ability to see certain objects with some spatial awareness, but I can’t necessarily keep that image in my head for long or I want to distort so I’ll take a ton of photos and keep all of them on my phone and camera. Sometimes they’re not bad shots, I just was chasing something. Sometimes I don’t even like the picture after a while and liked the trash photo I took. I get those but I’m not understanding depth.
It sounds like you’re able to recognise the shortcomings in the photos and overcome them, possibly intuitively even, in your visualisation, which is great. Some subjects present a greater challenge than others, in my mind tree canopies most of all. I see many drawings and paintings of all subjects clearly painted from photos where this visualisation hadn’t taken place and the weaknesses of the photo have been captured as well. (And as someone who spent their teenage years with cameras where the films were expensive, the photo quality poor, the number you could take 12 - 24, the processing costs high, and you had to take them somewhere to be developed, had to wait a week, they could often be duds, and you had to pay for them all, and you only got one copy unless you paid more - I think digital photography is GREAT!😀
@@stephentraversart amazing. Thank you so much.
But... we don't practice 3D like that. We practice interesting shapes. We can always add depth on our own. The way we want. Maybe I wanna make it look flatter, like a green hedge. Or maybe I wanna make the dark areas look like a far away forest. We need dynamics for understanding but in the end we do draw 2D. Sure, it would rock to always have a real model or nature to practice on. But we're often limited. Photos are a lazy solution for one people and a miracle way for others. For those who have... less opportunities. For any reason: financial, anatomical or geographical.
My point though Mallory is how to create a 3D effect from a photo. I draw Paris from photos because I can’t get there often, but I hope to create the same freehand drawing I would draw if I were in the street in front of my subject. So this video is about how I try and do this. 😀
Well done. The camera is generally a completely unchallenged liar.
Well, certainly prone to be misleading at times!😆
Interesting video, but I had to stop watching the drawing part, because the camera shake made me nauseous. The theme is interesting and relevant, so not I am watching the comments and listening. :)
Yep, need a new camera stand. 🫣
It’s drawing. Not “drawRing”! 😂🤦🏻♀️
Tough audience!😝
Your words are solid but your example falls flat and really doesn’t support what you are expanding on. It’s still a tangled up take on the scene.
Glad the content made good sense to you Anthony. Oddly enough then, this is one of my favourite drawings I’ve done all year. I was very pleased with how it turned out. I guess that’s what art is all about!😆