Bootcamp Comic

Hello to my readers

The Understanding Loomis blog is going to pause for the next 30 days.  Fortunately, regular blog entries are not going to be pausing though.

Today, I am embarking on a slightly different project which I will post about here, in order to keep track of the progress, and record the event.

I am taking on a project inspired by a series of Youtube videos produced by a man named David V. Stewart, and his colleague Matthew J. Wellman.

https://www.youtube.com/user/rpmfidel

 

These men are authors of science fiction and fantasy, as well as deep fonts of knowledge and information regarding the aforementioned genres generally.  I have read one short selection from both authors, and the writing in both of their works is both engaging and well done. Their internet media content ranges from musings on Hollywood movies,  to technical considerations for writing novels, through political and philosophical commentaries, and even into music theory and practical instruction lessons.  They produce very intelligent Youtube videos as well as a podcast called “Writers of the Dawn”.

Their author sites on Amazon are here:

https://www.amazon.com/David-Stewart/e/B01H7K4GE6

https://www.amazon.com/Matthew-J-Wellman/e/B01LXA0A9P

In one of their presentations, they introduced a concept they called the “bootcamp” philosophy for writing a novel.  The idea is that given a constrained time frame, a person could be remarkably productive and achieve a single very large, set goal -despite the strain of working long hours.  The key of course being that the person acts rationally, and makes for themselves a schedule in which the goal is broken into manageable steps, constrained by time, and is something achievable relative to their abilities.

In this format, David V. Stewart was able to write a full novel, from conception to publishing in 30 days, which he did for National Write a Novel Month.

I became inspired greatly by these two authors, and have decided to complete a similar feat -to conceive of, script, pencil and ink a full comic in 30 days.  My wife suggested to not to try to do the lettering and colouring in that time frame, which after considering the rule of having the task be “achievable relative to one’s abilities”, I decided she was right.  I will colourize and letter it though, after the thirty days, then publish the comic.

In this blog, I will post the daily work I have done.  The script is original, and is called Strange Tales: The Trial of Ingretta.  It is going to be a pulp-style comic, set in 1928, with proto-nazi women warriors, ancient cities, prehistoric beasts and a giant ape who wears a crown of gold…  Here is page one!  Pencilled and inked by myself in one day.

This is Ingretta, and she and I are going to have a tough 30 days ahead.  Get to know her!!

Ingretta1 screenshot

Finding Equal Spacing using Diagonals

In this posting of Understanding Loomis, I will explain the primary method Andrew Loomis outlines in what he calls ‘depth by diagonals’.  This is a rule of drafting which accurately represents depth in a subject matter featuring a repeated pattern, or a repeated spacing of surface feature.  This particular treatment is useful for illustrating a sidewalk receding into the distance, or a tiled floor going off down a hall, or a train track with ties crossing the rails, traveling away to a vanishing point.  It is a very useful mechanic to know.

To emphasize why knowing this mechanic of perspective is important, I will describe a scenario where such knowledge would save the artist painstaking hours of ineffective trial and error, or unconvincing guesswork.  Consider; you as an illustrator have been given the task of drawing a rural road, where small trees and shrubs are growing along the side. Also standing along the road at regular intervals of 30 feet, are a series of 6 telephone poles on the shoulder.  The image is to be drawn with the vanishing point of the road in the centre of the horizon, as if the viewer were standing at the head of the road, looking off to where it fades into the distance.

Drawing the simple one-point perspective of the road is no problem, and the shrubs/trees needn’t be precisely drawn on account of their being organic and irregular in nature, hence their placement is not a problem either.  The telephone poles on the other hand are man-made, and erected with a constant distance of 30 feet between each of the pole bases.  To be able to accurately place each pole as they recede into distance, is a baffling task to those unaware of technical perspective.  Many artists would rely of approximate placement of the poles, by ‘eye-balling’ the spacing.  This may be acceptable in some cases, but where approximation is not acceptable, a technical solution is necessary.

This then is how it is done.

Depth by Diagonal

(For the sake of these perspective lessons, crude sample drawings which were done in Photoshop in a matter of a few seconds, will be used forthwith.  Proper, elegant drawings will be used as examples where actual drawing matters are being considered)
  1. First represent the road and the bushes in one point perspective.  Bushes and trees are organic, and can be represented by eye without difficulty.  The rules of perspective still apply, but the artist can be a little sloppy in representing their relative size, since trees and shrubs are not regular.road1
  2. Next place your first pole.  Use the relative size of the trees around it for its height. road2
  3. Next find the Vanishing point of the road on the horizon line.road3
  4.  Now, draw a diagonal line from the near corner of one of the Lines of Perspective, through the base of the first pole to a secondary point on the horizon line. Let us call this new point on the horizon Point One. road5
  5. Next, draw a horizontal line (i.e. parallel to the horizon line – natch!) from the base of the pole, crossing through both Lines of Perspective.road6
  6. From where this horizontal line meets the opposite Line of Perspective, draw another diagonal line to the secondary point you drew in step 4, which we called Point One.road7
  7. Cast lines to the actual VP from the top and bottom of the telephone pole, and pay attention to where the bottom line crosses the diagonal which you drew in step six.road8
  8. At the crossing point, draw your second telephone pole.  The top line will show you how tall to make it.  road9
  9. Repeat the process, and erase your guidelines.  The end result will show the poles moving off in correct perspective, spaced evenly apart.  road10
  10. Work in reverse  to fill in any posts which should appear before the initial one you drew.road11

The Uses of  Depth by Diagonal

Shown below is a sample of the nuts and bolts of the Depth by Diagonal mechanic.  This example is shown stripped of any context in order to help the student imagine the uses of this rule of perspective.  Some ways I have used this method of representing perspective in drawing comics are as follows:

  • representing regular sized plates of steel, clad on the hull of a ship
  • drawing the separation lines of ceiling panels on a t-bar drop-ceiling in an office
  • sidewalks, with contraction joints showing in the concrete
  • patterned carpet expanses
  • windows, or other architectural features on buildings
  • any regularly spaced series of object, such as telephone poles, the cars of a train, the ties between train track rails, the broken lines on a road which indicate a passing lane etc.

dbydiagonal

Next week, we will examine a variation on this method of finding Depth by Diagonals.  I hope you will join me.

Perspective Continued

Being “Effective”

I just finished an interesting discussion with my brother Eryn.  Our discussions are varied and wide ranging, but a common topic which we return to is the idea of being effective.   Webster’s dictionary offers the following as its primary definition of effective:

producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect effective policy>

Cambridge Dictionary offers this definition:

producing the intended results, or (of a personskilled or able to do something well: an effective policy/strategy

The commonality between the two definitions is the idea of producing something specific well.  What is not included are the terms understood to categorize something as being ‘well done’ as opposed to something which is ‘poorly done’.  Those terms are not stated, but I believe that there are 2 fundamental traits within the concept ‘well done’ which are universal and therefore not subjective.  Here are the fundamental elements which are a part of all things termed as ‘well done’:

  1. The result objectively achieves that which was desired at the endeavour’s inception
  2. The result was achieved exclusively, without any secondary results which counteract  the original endeavour.

For instance, it cannot be said that when a baseball player is trying to hit a baseball, that he has been effective when he instead makes a strike;  he failed to achieve his primary objective of hitting the ball, thus he has not been effective in those terms.  This example covers the first of my two fundamental traits of ‘being effective’.

Secondarily, let us say that there is a trucker who is dispatched out to transport a load of eggs safely from the east coast to the west coast.  He sets out, and from prior experience knows that excessive speed causes bumps and jostling in his trailer.  To counteract this, he drives very slowly.  When he does reach the west coast, he has indeed achieved a safe transportation of the eggs.  Unfortunately, he is a week late, and many of the  eggs have spoiled on account of the time spent in transport.  It cannot be said that the trucker was effective at transporting the eggs because his method introduced two secondary and contrary results to the overall intent of the endeavour; transporting the eggs safely so they could be sold.  The transport of the eggs was not an end it itself as the trucker thought.  Indeed, the transport is a stage in a series of events, all of which need to be achieved.  The fact that the trucker brought the eggs 1 week late cost the merchant money, and the fact that some of the load were rotten makes their safe transport irrelevant.

This second of the two fundamental traits is the one most often evaded by people seeking to achieve an ends of some type.  The evasion occurs on account of their hope for success outweighing their objectivity.  In the end, these people can only save face by compromising the principles regarding any terms which should disqualify their effort as being effective.  As a result they say, ” ah well, it is good enough!”  without considering the long-term results of the equivocation.

Andrew Loomis 

The talk regarding being effective was meant to set out the groundwork for Loomis’ next major idea, which is being effective.

Loomis makes a very strong case for artists to free themselves from the need to use reference.  Although he acknowledges that the use of a model is the best way to achieve a realistic end in drawing, and that photographs are needed to reference particular information, he clearly states that too many artists attempt to work professionally without really knowing how perspective works, or how the human form is put together.  He indicates that the primary subject matter of the illustrator -the human form- is so multifarious and so pliant that to lack specific knowledge of it, forces an illustrator to rely on photo refs and other external sources of information in order to get by.  In addition, he states that to draw anything, one needs to understand the principles of how perspective works.

He accepts that the ends of such efforts may be achieved by compiling reference, but Andrew Loomis is not willing to consider that method to be effective.

Consider this excerpt from Successful Drawing (pg 22-24)

Suppose you were asked to draw a series of columns, spaced 10 feet apart, set on cubes measuring 5 feet each way, with some figures standing at the second and fifth columns, and the bases of eight columns going back in the distance.  This is very simple if you know perspective.  Which would take the most time, to hunt up such a building, take photographs, develop films, make prints, and set the assembly on a projector, or just to sit down and draw it?  Almost daily, lack of knowledge of simple perspective can hack away an artist’s time.  The amount of motion and time which you save by knowing how to solve your problems far exceeds any saving by the projector.  The more you lean on your crutches, the more your strength ebbs, and soon you cannot get along without them.

It should be evident to most people that to know something is better that to not know something, so then is it evident that integrating the principles of perspective is better than trying to guess at them, or to rely on reference.

In order to expand on this, Andrew Loomis indicates a few facts regarding drawing the human form from photos versus knowing how the form is put together, and working from your knowledge base.  He states that photographs do not make good drawings in that they impartially record the subject.  An artist who uses the photo as a reference risks the suspension of artistic judgement in place of the recording of anatomic detail and an obsession over its correct placement.  Loomis encourages us to be more concerned with geometric shapes present in the human form, and the activity of light and shadow rather than on any attempts at recording the tiny muscular bumps and lumps recorded in photographic reference of the human form.

He also cautions against the use of ‘swiping’ magazine models, and integrating them into one’s artwork.  He makes no evaluation of the artistic honesty of such practice, nor does he comment on copyright infringement.  Instead -ever practical- Loomis reminds us that most modern photography is taken under highly unreal conditions, using several light sources.  The visual language of the photo studio he says creates images which ‘…defy every principle of good drawing.  There is no authentic form in them; it has been broken up in meaningless light and shadow; and good drawing is essentially a statement of form.”