As far as friending goes, sure. I mostly don't talk art (most of the f-list writes, and I do some writing as well), but I'm more than willing to talk art with you.
Having the head too short, even by a little, will definitely make things look strange with the facial features. It throws off all the proportions of the head. That, and three-quarters view is an awkward view to begin with. The face will always seem slightly too thin if you've done it right.
Actually, his arm isn't too terribly close to his body. If he's really focused on his work, he probably wouldn't notice the awkward position he's in until he's been at it for a bit (do I sound like the voice of experience with awkward positions?). That, and if his arm is resting on anything, it alleviates a lot of the strain.
Backgrounds are my problem too. I'm not so great at them, even knowing all the principles. Generally, a midtone won't neutralise the contrast, if there's enough contrast to begin with. A solid white background works to give a drawing "oomph", but it doesn't quite work in the sort of drawing the second one is. It works best for portraiture. A dark colour, so long as you keep either the texture or medium distinct from that of the hair or shirt, won't blend in too much. However, it's worth noting that in black and white photography, generally dark areas do blend to-gether a bit. So long as you can control the blending, it shouldn't be a problem if there's some fuzzing of the boundaries.
Also, the light source should remain constant between background and subject. That would keep some of the hair distinct. That, and most of the time the part of the background near the focal point is lighter than the rest, and gradates out to the full darkness. It mimics how eyesight works. The thing you focus on is always brighter and more colourful than what's in your peripheral vision due to distribution of cones and rods (but that's a lot of biology stuff, which I don't think you're interested in. This is also why a lot of art profs dislike photo references, as a camera lens does not work like the human eye). It looks more realistic to have that focal point, and then everything darken and lose detail away from that point.
Whew. I think that covers it. :P And I'm glad you're eager for the knowledge. I've gotten flamed before for running my mouth off about art technique even after the person asked for it. Reason #539 why I do not use devART for much anymore.
no subject
Having the head too short, even by a little, will definitely make things look strange with the facial features. It throws off all the proportions of the head. That, and three-quarters view is an awkward view to begin with. The face will always seem slightly too thin if you've done it right.
Actually, his arm isn't too terribly close to his body. If he's really focused on his work, he probably wouldn't notice the awkward position he's in until he's been at it for a bit
(do I sound like the voice of experience with awkward positions?). That, and if his arm is resting on anything, it alleviates a lot of the strain.Backgrounds are my problem too. I'm not so great at them, even knowing all the principles. Generally, a midtone won't neutralise the contrast, if there's enough contrast to begin with. A solid white background works to give a drawing "oomph", but it doesn't quite work in the sort of drawing the second one is. It works best for portraiture. A dark colour, so long as you keep either the texture or medium distinct from that of the hair or shirt, won't blend in too much. However, it's worth noting that in black and white photography, generally dark areas do blend to-gether a bit. So long as you can control the blending, it shouldn't be a problem if there's some fuzzing of the boundaries.
Also, the light source should remain constant between background and subject. That would keep some of the hair distinct. That, and most of the time the part of the background near the focal point is lighter than the rest, and gradates out to the full darkness. It mimics how eyesight works. The thing you focus on is always brighter and more colourful than what's in your peripheral vision due to distribution of cones and rods (but that's a lot of biology stuff, which I don't think you're interested in. This is also why a lot of art profs dislike photo references, as a camera lens does not work like the human eye). It looks more realistic to have that focal point, and then everything darken and lose detail away from that point.
Whew. I think that covers it. :P And I'm glad you're eager for the knowledge. I've gotten flamed before for running my mouth off about art technique even after the person asked for it.
Reason #539 why I do not use devART for much anymore.