08-16-2018, 11:28 AM
A few suggestions.
If using only two values it's probably best to analyse the image and break it down in terms of lit areas vs shadow areas and blocking up the midtones into one of those much more than with a full value accurate study but without diminishing accuracy on the basic shape and placement of things. This is a common mistake I see a lot of beginners make in notan studies. They equate 'quick study' to a licence to be really really sloppy. The time isn't important, the attention to overall comp read and general accuracy is what matters. Realise that any limited value study (<5 values) aren't really even proper value studies. They are more about training your ability to break up any image into a simplified abstraction of the major compositional shapes and overall accurate visual relationship between the major value groupings. As such this is exactly what you need to be spending more time and attention on if you want to be getting the most out of these types of studies. More will be learned if you know why you are studying and choose with intent where it pays off to be accurate and not shortchanging yourself for the sake of some arbitrary time.
What I see you doing here are essentially rushed looking inaccurate studies that I would argue you probably aren't learning very much from at all.
Restricting to a set limit can be a good idea for some studies, but not if it ends up in you training sloppy, hastily done and inaccurate work for the sake of time. In so many of these you don't seem to bother taking time or are too restricted in time to get accurate placement of the biggest shapes overall and this also tends to break the perspective a lot which is not something to ever be practicing. Doing sloppy study work is just going to be building up lots of bad habits. And since essentially what these kind of studies are meant to be training for is the ability to simplify and achieve a quick overall read for images you create yourself without spending more time fixing things later, it's best to aim for more accuracy and nailing all those most important basic fundamentals up front. Think of these as training yourself to take the time to get the most fundamental and basic essentials of any image looking good first. If your value studies, even the basic 2 value ones, look nothing like the image being studied, you're not focusing on the right things.
Work from biggest to smallest, paint zoomed out, squint your eyes, use threshold filter on original to help you see value blocks. Use all these tricks to help you determine an overall impression rather than getting bogged up in details or being innacurate because you are trying to rush to a deadline.
It would probably help to do analysis of the paintings before you even begin. Desaturate and colour pick the source, figure out the general value range. Try using closer values to what is in the originals for the shadow and lit sides. it's best to have a plan and figure out in general what areas are likely to be blocked up into what value before you even start.
Some study examples below
And lastly but potentially most importantly is your choice of study images. You seem to only be picking backgrounds from animation. Not a lot of them are particularly interesting in terms of comp and values; all are cel shaded and have very similar keys and value range and a lot rely on line to separate form. These establishing or background plates aren't designed necessarily to be looked at for very long since many also include camera moves probably..unlike standalone paintings. So I suggest you rethink the thought process behind how you choose. I recommend instead you start branching out and finding great master paintings/illustrations and studying more from those. You can learn from anything but may as well learn from the best work you can find.
If using only two values it's probably best to analyse the image and break it down in terms of lit areas vs shadow areas and blocking up the midtones into one of those much more than with a full value accurate study but without diminishing accuracy on the basic shape and placement of things. This is a common mistake I see a lot of beginners make in notan studies. They equate 'quick study' to a licence to be really really sloppy. The time isn't important, the attention to overall comp read and general accuracy is what matters. Realise that any limited value study (<5 values) aren't really even proper value studies. They are more about training your ability to break up any image into a simplified abstraction of the major compositional shapes and overall accurate visual relationship between the major value groupings. As such this is exactly what you need to be spending more time and attention on if you want to be getting the most out of these types of studies. More will be learned if you know why you are studying and choose with intent where it pays off to be accurate and not shortchanging yourself for the sake of some arbitrary time.
What I see you doing here are essentially rushed looking inaccurate studies that I would argue you probably aren't learning very much from at all.
Restricting to a set limit can be a good idea for some studies, but not if it ends up in you training sloppy, hastily done and inaccurate work for the sake of time. In so many of these you don't seem to bother taking time or are too restricted in time to get accurate placement of the biggest shapes overall and this also tends to break the perspective a lot which is not something to ever be practicing. Doing sloppy study work is just going to be building up lots of bad habits. And since essentially what these kind of studies are meant to be training for is the ability to simplify and achieve a quick overall read for images you create yourself without spending more time fixing things later, it's best to aim for more accuracy and nailing all those most important basic fundamentals up front. Think of these as training yourself to take the time to get the most fundamental and basic essentials of any image looking good first. If your value studies, even the basic 2 value ones, look nothing like the image being studied, you're not focusing on the right things.
Work from biggest to smallest, paint zoomed out, squint your eyes, use threshold filter on original to help you see value blocks. Use all these tricks to help you determine an overall impression rather than getting bogged up in details or being innacurate because you are trying to rush to a deadline.
It would probably help to do analysis of the paintings before you even begin. Desaturate and colour pick the source, figure out the general value range. Try using closer values to what is in the originals for the shadow and lit sides. it's best to have a plan and figure out in general what areas are likely to be blocked up into what value before you even start.
Some study examples below
And lastly but potentially most importantly is your choice of study images. You seem to only be picking backgrounds from animation. Not a lot of them are particularly interesting in terms of comp and values; all are cel shaded and have very similar keys and value range and a lot rely on line to separate form. These establishing or background plates aren't designed necessarily to be looked at for very long since many also include camera moves probably..unlike standalone paintings. So I suggest you rethink the thought process behind how you choose. I recommend instead you start branching out and finding great master paintings/illustrations and studying more from those. You can learn from anything but may as well learn from the best work you can find.
![[+]](images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler
