From Tim Wootton's Studio (1 Viewer)

[timwootton]

Just camera distortion (I hope) - in the same way that the perspective on the drawing is flat, whereas the real bird, obviously, is not - if you take a peek at the third image and follow the angles of the paper, they should form an invisible grid which relates to the bird and the painting. The final post should show the bird looking, erm, dead on a table . . .
. . . and 'life' size . . .

 

[colleenc]

wow, like painting a persian carpet design... fantastic job

 

[nickderry]

working from a grid - how it should be done! - I'll be honest and say that sometimes I just trace round the dead bird to make it life size (being careful not to push the feathers in too much!) Though the only dead birds that Seb allows into the flat come ready plucked so I don't get the chance that often.

 

[jomo]

Beauty bird, and gorgeous study, Tim!

 

[Woody]

Just camera distortion (I hope) - in the same way that the perspective on the drawing is flat, whereas the real bird, obviously, is not - if you take a peek at the third image and follow the angles of the paper, they should form an invisible grid which relates to the bird and the painting. The final post should show the bird looking, erm, dead on a table . . .
. . . and 'life' size . . .

I gotcha. So you're not going to the lengths of using calipers but you're moving your hand down from the bird and making a mark of some sort to get accurate proportions, which is possible because the bird is lying on paper of the same size as your drawing surface? Clever, and I'll be using that for my next study :t:B

Mike

 

[timwootton]

Indeed Mike - I don't draw a grid, but I do, as you suggest, make marks at strategic points along the paper which relates to the bird (ie, tip of bill to lores; forehead to nape; nape to apex of rump etc, etc - then I have to make sure the angles and depths are correct and the whole image ought to correspond to the real thing.
My brief spell on the Scientific Illustration course at Middlesex Poly (prior to my defection to Manchester to complete my degree) well and truly put me off calipers and other measuring devices (and the course) - I spent 8 weeks drawing a fish - the same fish, the same drawing. Having to measure the radial marks on each and every scale on a fish's body made me realise that 'scientific' I would never be.
If I can't do it by eye, I won't do it at all.

 

[Apodemus]

Eight weeks on one fish??? Weren't you tempted to coat it in breadcrumbs and drop it into the frying pan?

 

[timwootton]

I was more than tempted to do that to the tutor!!!!

 

[nickderry]

Eight weeks on one fish??? Weren't you tempted to coat it in breadcrumbs and drop it into the frying pan?

probably not after eight weeks - trust me, I used to serve the best fish and chips in Aberystwyth.

 

[Woody]

Eight weeks?!! I thought my 15 hour drawing of a mackerel was long enough! I nearly did a natural history scientific illustration course at Brighton, I'm glad I didn't now.

Mike

 

[timwootton]

The first study is just about finished.

 

[nickderry]

what a beauty - so curvy!

 

[ARTHUR BISHOP]

lovely study Tim

 

[timwootton]

This fine little bird is off into cold storage now.

 

[colleenc]

beautiful study, you really nailed it.... are you using hot press watercolor paper, it looks very smooth?

 

[ed keeble]

This fine little bird is off into cold storage now.

that's gorgeous- as well as the detail, I really like the shaped bits like the contours on mantle, scaps and the bit of curve on the underside of the opened primaries

before it goes into the freezer it would be a nice little extra tribute to it to remove the two pin feathers and then use them to paint some detail on your next little masterpiece..

 

[timwootton]

I considered that, Ed - but the bird seemed such an embodiment of perfection that I left it intact. I may have it mounted though.
Hi Colleen - far from it. This is Waterford 600lb - has a tooth like an old sow! I like it cos it's so heavy (it's thicker than a lot of boards and cards) that it could never cockle when I'm making studies. All my postmortems are done on this stuff. As I mentioned before - the detail is entirely illusiory (I can't see well enough to do real detail - I'll leave that to the other guys who know what they're doing!).

 

[birdboybowley]

Great studies Tim - as for the illusionary detail....works bl00dy well if you ask me! Rather Tunnicliffe-esque, love it

 

[nickderry]

just had to come back and marvel!

 

[colleenc]

me too, I think it 's the best study I've ever seen you do.

600 lb! wow heaviest I've seen is 300, looking at so much Tunnicliffe lately and a lot of his studies are done on toned paper, wonder what he used. Maybe you know? I'm trying out some toned Swarthmore just to see, the good part is the tone provides the mid value so all he added was darks and lights.

RE the eye thing, Tunnicliffe had incredible eyes to do all that engraving illustration, then later in life when he had diabetes he could not do that or see so well anymore and it caused him great frustration. As my own eyes are not sharp anymore like when I was younger I've been thinking a looser style has advantages as one can keep painting in to later years with no loss. So I'm really for having it look detailed by suggestion without having to make it have every little thing, but there is some fine line without some precision the pattern is not good. In yours the balance is perfect. BTW LJ said he tries for what I just described and does not want to do every little detail, I saw him use reading glasses now and then at BIA