The beautiful reference photo is by WC member Sandy1, and is called Buster the Cat:

This is my version:

Since I wanted to work in black and white only, I decided to zero-in on just the cat and crop out the rest of the photo.  Just couldn’t resist all of that wonderful fur!

First, the inspiration:

I really prefer working from my own photos.  Not that they’re wonderful, but because the copyright is mine and I feel better about taking license with the images.

I just love the colors in this pic.  But drawing in pen and ink requires seeing beyond the color.  Value contrast: light flowers against dark foliage, texture contrast: ruffled petals against smooth leaves, and shape contrast: lush trumpet-shaped flowers against skinny, spear-like vegetation take on more prominence.

So, because the color was somewhat distracting, I grayscaled the image in PhotoShop to get a better handle on the values.

Some might call this grayscale-ing step “cheating”.  I don’t have a problem with it.  It sure beats squinting endlessly at a color image to differentiate values while trying to draw it!

There was waaaay too much information in the photo for what I wanted to draw.  Editing was required.  So, I cropped it down a bit.

Quite a bit.  I knew I wanted the two main flowers, the one “spent” flower head and enough of the foliage to provide a nice contrast to the flowers.

At this point, I saw that all of that busy-ness in the upper right corner of the pic was going to be an issue.  Part of it had to do with the diffuse light source: sun was filtering in, and there wasn’t an obvious lighting angle.  But also, some of the foliage behind the flowers was sunlit, making too much contrast and competing with the flowers for attention.  Not something I wanted to deal with in this drawing.

Part of the challenge of working from reference photos is to keep what works and get rid of/change what doesn’t.

So, my plan: darken that area to the point where the spent flower head and main diagonals of the foliage (the latter to behave like directional devices to help draw the viewer’s eye back toward the flowers) stay somewhat visible while the rest of the “stuff” (hopefully) faded into the darkness of the background.  I decided to do the same to the partially hidden dead flower heads next to the main flowers: push them into the background by making them darker.

Anyway, at this point, I decided that the overall composition was OK, and began drawing.  I started with the flowers; my thought was the amount of ink (detail) I put into them would determine how dark the background would need to be.  As it turned out: very dark.

Am I happy with it?  Overall, yes.  As with every drawing, I learn:

Probably my biggest issue with the piece is that the background seems to have a rather “flat” appearance… I think I should have planned the upper right hand corner better.   I know that it is necessary to minimize distracting details, like the bright highlights found in the photo.  But in darkening things so drastically, I changed the effect: the drawing reads as less realistic to me than it might have been… more like a ‘study’ than a ‘moment in time’ if that makes any sense at all?!  I need to pay closer attention to the play of light to get a more convincing effect.

Which is probably why I need to do more of them.

So, here are a couple from the Monthly Pen and Ink Challenges (December and January) on WetCanvas.com:

Reference photo: curly red hair, good lighting from WC board member jaimemonbebe:

(Obviously, I concentrated more on the face than on the hair. )

And reference photo: sun thoughts from WC board member devymarie:

I really enjoy participating in the challenges.  I don’t necessarily capture portrait likenesses too well,  but it helps me to work faster, and concentrate more on capturing the essence of the subject rather than being so hung up on the technique.

In my previous post, the flowers seemed extra dark to me… perhaps it was simply that they were totally surrounded by white paper.  Now that the darker foliage is taking shape, they seem somewhat lighter by contrast.  I’ll need to continue pushing the foliage into the background (darkening it) to make it more effective.

In treating this kind of background, I find that darkening by degrees is the best way to control my overzealous pen.  So, I draw the shadowing and other detail of the leaves in their entirety, then go back and intensify the darkness by adding cross-hatching on top.  Even though some of the detail may nearly disappear in the darkest areas, enough of the “structure” I’ve taken pains to establish remains visible, hopefully adding extra depth and realism to the drawing.

I have quite a long way to go.

Onward.

Yet another flower rendering is in on the drawing board:

My mother-in-law’s day lilies were especially prolific this year.  I couldn’t resist photographing this particular variety with its frothy ruffled edges and very dark throat striping… the contrast of that exotic extravagance against the smooth spikey foliage proved irresistible.  (The fact that they were the most amazing shade of light purple-y mauve may have had something to do with it, too. )  The spent flower heads have interesting star shapes and textures all their own.

The flowers have so much ink in them that in order to get some contrast, I’ll have to go dark for the background.  Probably very dark.  Again.

Try as I might, I don’t seem to be able to see my floral subjects as separate from their surroundings… my preference, apparently, is to draw complete compositions as opposed to studies.

The date on this drawing is February 13, 1978.  I was in college (the first time).  I was experimenting with techniques I was learning at that time, and with new materials: graphite sticks and conte crayons on pebble board.

The drawing classes were challenging: the instructors forced us outside our comfort zone.  The MFA grad student teaching this class, (First year general art students at that time usually had grad students as instructors. ) encouraged what I’d call “structural” drawing as opposed to fine rendering.  She wanted us to “follow through” when making lines.  There is a skeleton or framework behind things, and the construction shouldn’t be hidden.

For example: the horizontal lines of the window sash are visible through the girl’s arm.  The rim of the flower pot is visible through the hand.  The window sash handle is another example: it is drawn incisively with straight intersecting lines, and the lines are not tidied-up.  The instructor de-emphasized surface treatment, so I’m sure I was pushing it to have done as much detail rendering as I did.  (Sorry, I have no idea what grade I received, or if indeed this was done as an assignment.  It was over 30 years ago, after all!)

Anyway.  I’m posting this image because it reminds me of things I’ve not thought about in a long time.  Mostly, it reminds me of what used to inspire me to draw.  I remember vividly that the inspiration here was a photo of this child peeking out from behind a parent’s leg.  The photo accompanied a magazine article about shyness in children. Other than feeling a kinship with the child (I was a painfully shy youngster), I was mesmerized by her eyes.  The drawing grew from there.

The other stuff in the drawing?  Not sure where it all came from… except that back then, I was fascinated by all things ephemeral/emotional/evocative.  I was very comfortable blurring the lines between the real and the unreal as well.  Some might think the drawing unsettling with its references to death/loss: the ghostly child, the pot of dandelions going to seed, bare tree branches and cracked window pane.  Others see nothing dark… just an interesting drawing.

I’m not sure what I see in it.  Mostly memories, I guess.  And a reminder that inspiration can come from anywhere.

How about you?

The main things I’m taking away from this project:

1. Work on editing.  When working from a photo, it’s very tempting to try to render everything in it.  Rarely a good idea.  Which bring me to:

2. Be more aware of the value range.  The eye can discern almost limitless colors, but far fewer values (the steps from light to dark).  Pen and ink marks approximate values, and they need to be well defined for maximum impact.

3.  While this point is more subjective, it’s certainly worth taking into account:  Fit the technique to the subject.  Perhaps a different technique or combination thereof would have worked better for this flower.  The rose petals are so smooth that the pen lines (especially when viewed close-up) are a bit jarring.

4.  While the technique is what it is, it’s still only the means to expressing the essence of what one wants to say.  When it competes with the subject, it’s not a good thing.

5.  Try not to over-do it.  (Bwwaaaaahahahahaha!)

Sorry about that.

It’s not finished, so no critique for now… though I will say I’m beginning to get concerned about my seeming obsession with dark backgrounds. Egad.

Time to tack it to the judgement wall, and back away for awhile.

At present, it’s pretty much out of control: right on the edge of being overdone … perhaps even unsalvageable.  I’m sure some would say it’s way past it’s sell-by date already, and is starting to stink up the place.  They may be right.  I don’t know.

Honestly, most of my drawings feel that way at some point during the process.  I know I tend to go overboard with the ink.  I don’t edit very well.  In my zeal to capture the image in all its detail, I sometimes end up losing control of the drawing.  Perhaps this time, preoccupation with a still-challenging technique has made this weakness more obvious.

Am I struggling?  You bet.  But it’s not a bad thing.  I’ve been told that it’s not the “successes” you learn the most from, but the “failures”.

Hmmm.  In that case, I guess I’ll press on and learn all I can.

These drawings challenge me to do faster work… and to try subjects I might not choose otherwise.

Case in point: This one took @6 hours, and was a stretch for me.  The expression in the reference photo (by WC member brooklyn) is very subtle: just a tiny hint of a frown, and mouth positioned as if the subject is just on the brink of speaking.

Portraits are *such* touchy things, and I almost threw this one away… because the subject’s right eye is out of position: a tiny bit high.  I really couldn’t see it until I flipped the image vertically and then it became very obvious.  Oh well.  Practice makes perfect.

The flamboyance of the ladyslipper orchid (by WC board member lisilk) caught my attention, so I decided to give it a try. Originally, I intended to do minimal pen work and tint the drawing, (the colors are very striking) but, as usual, I got overzealous with the pen.  So I left it untinted.  And, every time I look at it I have to chuckle, because from a distance, I see a character in the orchid.  Do you?  Time-wise, this one took @4 hours.

And finally, something a bit more traditional.  The reference photo (by member hazegry) is very striking, with lovely deep red spots in the throat and on the petals of the white lily.  However, translating the image to black and white proved quite a challenge:  I should have remembered the maxim when rendering white flowers: exaggerate the contrast!  The light source is above and behind the flower, so practically the entire interior portion is in shadow…but since it’s a white flower, going too dark is not an option.  Ah well.

Thank goodness for all of those spots, the very prominent stamens, and the dark background: they provide *much* needed interest and contrast. Drawing time: @18 hours.

Such was the case with the iris I (thought I had) finished awhile ago.  After completing the hollyhock and peony drawings with their dramatic dark backgrounds, I saw that the iris, by comparison, was beginning to look a bit a lot anemic in the contrast department.

Re-working isn’t always a good idea; overworking can happen really fast. But it was really bugging me. So, I decided to give it a shot.

The first image is the before, the second is the after.

I’m happier now.

Peony in the Rain

7-1/2″ X 9-1/2″. Ink on Strathmore 500 smooth bristol.

Because the range of values (highlights to very dark) in the reference pic isn’t that great, I’m finding I need to be really careful to make sure to exaggerate what contrasts I do see.

I left off working on the top of the flower to instead focus on the background for awhile. I don’t want to lose those very light areas by getting overzealous with the pen, (which seems to happen before I even have an inkling. (Sorry, no pun intended.)

The need for some extra contrast led me to a decision: the background bits at the top of the photo that are light (there is a building with light colored siding behind this particular peony bush) are being inverted to very dark instead… hopefully making the flower appear lighter by contrast, and adding to the “rainy weather” feel of the piece.   While the wished-for contrast is *beginning* to happen,  I realized while ago that there is probably no way this peony is going to appear to be white!

One thing I might mention about working from reference photos in general: Just because it’s a nice image doesn’t mean that all aspects of it will work in a drawing. The art needs to be interesting to look at by itself… it will hang on a wall by itself to be judged on its own merit; the reference photo(s) won’t be displayed with it.

Here’s the drawing so far:

I’m trying to concentrate on the total image… not just the flower, but also it’s relationship to what’s around it. Pen and ink can look very antiseptic or “cold”… it can bring to mind scientific/botanical illustrations in a field guide: drawings used for identification purposes.

So it’s become very important to try to capture the “life” of the subject rather than to focus only on its attributes as a peony.  The lines are intentionally fluid and as organic-looking as I can make them (at present).

To my mind, the context is nearly as important as the flower: the subdued lighting, the raindrops weighing down, then dripping off the petals, the dark foliage… the opportunity to delve so deeply into the subject helps me to see more than just a beautiful flower.

It has been extraordinarily rainy here all month; outdoor chores have been crammed into a scant handful of rain-free days. One would think that in being confined indoors for most of that time, I *should* have been more productive in the finished art department.  Alas, such has not been the case.

Ah well! I was, however, able to finish a drawing for the May Pen and Ink challenge on Wet Canvas:

(The reference photo is by WetCanvas member Patrick Hedges.)

I chose to use cross-hatching because the lion’s fur suggested the technique. Hair has always been very challenging for me to render effectively, so I thought I’d give it a go. The photo has really wonderful contrast; a full range of all tones from very light to very dark. Plus, I adore felines of all sizes.

As I usually do with a portrait, I started at the eyes… because if I don’t get them right, for me, the essence is lost. As luck would have it, I got them right the first time.

(Post edited to add the reference photo.)

The background proved to be a bit much for the technique I used… it almost has a life of its own with all of that “swirly” stuff going on.  Pretty sure I’d try something different next time…

The somewhat dramatic result reminds me of the scratchboard I did in school:  black india ink was painted over a special paper which had a layer of white china clay adhered to it.  A special tool was then used to scratch away the black ink where one wanted white to be seen.  The process of subtracting black rather than adding it (as in pen and ink drawing) was a challenging exercise.  To see lots of wonderful examples of this technique, just Google “scratchboard art”.

Next up… another flower drawing, I think.  (I told you I have flowers on the brain!)

Have a wonderful weekend!

Ink-wise, this is what I’ve been working on lately:

I have flowers on the brain; it’s been such a cold wet spring here: only the spring bulbs have been brave enough to show themselves so far!  I was drawn to this image because I adore hollyhocks, but also because of its high contrast: dark background, sunlit flowers and lots of interesting shapes/textures. The organic subject suggested another stab at the same technique used for Forest Watcher instead of my usual favorite: cross-hatching.

Working in this different technique is proving challenging:

Primarily, I am bothered by my lack of control of line thickness.  With this technique,  lines are drawn in a much more deliberate manner, and the technique is enhanced by controlled variations in line thickness.  (While they are great for cross-hatching because they make nice uniform lines, the technical pens I routinely use don’t allow much variation in line thickness.)

I’m having trouble capturing the delicacy of the flower petals especially.  The lines made by the technical pens seem an appropriate/acceptable weight for the buds and stems, but a bit heavy for the texture of the petals.

I’ve tried using a dip pen with a very fine nib (crow quill), but I am frustratingly out of practice. Not to mention that using a dip pen is just a whole lot more inconvenient: the ink dries fairly quickly on the nib and must be cleaned every few “dips”, the nib can catch on the paper fibers causing blots, and it’s notoriously easy to drop a loosely held pen… usually with a fully loaded nib… onto one’s work with unerringly spectacular (and horrifying) effect.

So, when this piece is finished, I will be breaking out the big clunky nibs (which in reality *aren’t* that big…they just *seem* huge next to the crow quills) and gradually retrain my less-than-nimble hand.  And my patience.

After looking at it from a distance for a day or so, I decided to try to try to balance the darks in the rest of the drawing to make the hand look less dark.  Most of the additional ink was added in the drapery and the staff.  Also, some tweaking was done in the areas away from his eyes to remove a few “bright” spots (highlights)… hopefully  helping to direct the viewer’s eye toward his.