ElanaCenter line of Bugs' head should be in the center in perspective, not to the left of center. His face should tilt back more. His muzzle area should be more in front of his cranium. Especially the teeth which look like they have been punched in. Don't let the hairs cut holes in his skull.
Watch out for pointy corners (like at the back of his foot).
Not bad. He has actually constructed the drawing, not faked it like some tricksters. He could be a little more aware of the proportions. Bugs' body is too long and should have more subtle variation in shape between his chest and belly. The horse's head has backwards perspective.
IvanMickey needs center lines down the back of his head and body. This is a pretty good copy - by eye. The main thing that I see that needs improvement is better observation of the contrasts. They have all been toned down in this copy. The line of action is stronger and has more definite direction the comic pose. Mickey's black back of his head design takes up more space in the comic than it does in the copy.
Hammerson is naturally good at drawing clean smooth lines- which can be a handicap when going backwards and trying to absorb the more important basics of forms and their relative positions in space.Here, Tom's head is tilted at a different angle than the comic. His nose/muzzle area is backwards perspective.The half that is closest to us should be larger than the part that is farther away.
The face is taking up too much space in the head.
The body should have center lines, taking perspective into consideration. That bit of belly fur is split too far to the right of the center of his body.
GenevaGood feeling overall. I can tell she is using the negative spaces to get things in the right place. Nice hands.
The vertical construction line should be in the middle of Oswald's head, not to the left of center. The eyes should be spaced equally (taking perspective into account) on either side of the center line. But you can see that the left eye is closer to center than the right eye, which defeats the purpose of having a construction line.
This also caused his nose and muzzle to be squashed too flat against his face.
I would like to see the features be less vague, with more commitment to the shapes.
She is doing a lot of studies- which is the whole point. The more you do, the better you get and the sooner it all sinks in.
Here are some earlier ones. I can see she got a bit better with each new study.
Here, she is trying to figure out the painstaking process and concept of constructing figures out of their basic forms. Not bad and I only have 2 tips: the contrasts in the designs have been evened out or toned down. Everything is creeping towards the middle. - like the dog's skull should be smaller than his nose/muzzle area, but in the copy they are approaching the same size.
Also, be careful that details, such as little bits of hair don't get too big and eat away at the more important larger forms they sit on - like the dog's head.
She even tried her hand at copying a J.P. Miler painting and did a pretty good job. It's good to mix and match your studies and get well-rounded, because all these skills are related and use similar thinking. Construction is the most important concept, because it affects everything else - especially your thought process and ability to control your art.
Paul BPretty good
The details have a tendency to undo the construction - like the fur on his cheeks and feet.
Overall, pretty good
The finish looks good. The middle toes should be longer than the other toes. Bugs' skull should be tilted back more at the front. He doesn't have an oval-shaped cranium. It's trickier than that, but this is a pretty good copy.
To repeat: to get the the most out of these studies you need these things:
Talent (obviously) - but it isn't enough. Talent without knowledge has to rely on luck, rather than control.
Careful step by step thoughtful procedure.
Self-criticism - not at random, but careful and honest checking of where the copies are off - particularly in the realm of construction, solidity and hierarchy.
I see a lot of people asking for their phone doodles and sketch book doodles to be criticized, but there isn't any point. They are really just asking for you to tell them how talented they are. Only drawings that have been carefully planned and thought out are worth criticism. Randomness is just what it is. You don't learn anything by letting your hand go wherever it happens to go.
DRAWING LOTS AND LOTS OF STUDIES. The more you do (and the more you self-critique) the faster you will get better than everyone else who doesn't study. You are aiming to understand the fundamentals, not just to superficially imitate them.
The people who do the most studies will improve the fastest as I'm sure some of you are discovering.
Has anyone tried these yet?