Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

Cheers Peter.

I believe that the reason for tendency to draw with a pull to a certain direction is more complex than just the nose reason. particularly since I don't start my drawings from the nose. I often don't even start my drawing from a character, but from sporadic strokes of a brush, or areas of paint, with no figurative or descriptive intention. (that's why I love exploring brushes so mush, in pursuit after the brush that will ignite my imagination most, with the least intention on my side).
Still, when a drawing do shape into a character, it tends to face leftwards. And I think that some while ago, my characters always faced rightwards. But that was when I did start my characters with the nose. And that's me being right-handed.

If you would be asked to draw a series of half circles, being right handed I believe you would draw these in the easiest to control swooping motions, thus they would resemble a face looking left. Wouldn't you admit that swooping half circles is harder to control if they would have to face to the right?

Paul Fierlinger wrote: Wouldn't you admit that swooping half circles is harder to control if they would have to face to the right?

for sure it is. but I'm saying that my construction does not start with character in mind, nor with any of its parts. The swoops that I personally make, initially, are random strokes, working abstract shapes. And then, if something in the strokes triggers my imagination, I take it in that direction. if not I press that ever so useful button with a skull and X of bones on it.

If you say that those initial swoops are still determinants in sending my later-to-become characters facing to the left, then it might be so.

If you say that those initial swoops are still determinants in sending my later-to-become characters facing to the left, then it might be so.

That's what I meant. The flip key is one in ten of my best friends.

Paul Fierlinger wrote:The flip key is one in ten of my best friends.

Didn't think of it actually. good idea. maybe i can experiment with flipping the image every couple of strokes or so, constantly, so that my brain (and hand) won't know how to deal with this peculiarity and will drop all guards as a result.

Michelangelo's best friend was his mirror (and a young boy).

Paul Fierlinger wrote:Michelangelo's best friend was his mirror (and a young boy).

could be that mirror=young boy? Narcissist?

p.s - strange that I don't use the Flip much. I was even one of those requesting this feature (flipping the view, not the layer)

malcooning wrote: p.s - strange that I don't use the Flip much. I was even one of those requesting this feature (flipping the view, not the layer)

its a very powerfull feature i use it a lot,
the only disadvantage for me is that if i flip while working zoomed in, and out of center, the part that i'm working on disappears from view and i loose time looking for my drawing, ... same thing flipping back.

Peter Wassink wrote:

malcooning wrote: p.s - strange that I don't use the Flip much. I was even one of those requesting this feature (flipping the view, not the layer)

its a very powerfull feature i use it a lot,
the only disadvantage for me is that if i flip while working zoomed in, and out of center, the part that i'm working on disappears from view and i loose time looking for my drawing, ... same thing flipping back.

I agree. But it's only a minor thing.
I have been the biggest flipper in the world. 10 years ago flipping on the lighttable was very close to masochism, because my drawings sucked so much that I flipped every time I flipped.
But nowadays it happens once in a while that I flip......and the drawing is alright YEEEEAHH.

By the way, I always use a mirror when I'm painting with real paint. When I look back over my shoulder, I see the painting mirrored, but also twice as far as from where I sit, so I don't have to get up and walk back. It saves tons of time, and I'm not thrown out my workflow.

hisko wrote:By the way, I always use a mirror when I'm painting with real paint. When I look back over my shoulder, I see the painting mirrored, but also twice as far as from where I sit, so I don't have to get up and walk back. It saves tons of time, and I'm not thrown out my workflow.

This reminds me of a movie house in Paris I went to once in the 60's. The room was wider than it was deep and the tiny projection windows were in front, just above a very large screen. I had no idea what to think of it and we began to worry that we might be sitting just in some waiting room when the lights went out and it turned out that there was a mirror in the back of the screening room which stretched the throw of the image to twice the size of the room.

hisko wrote:By the way, I always use a mirror when I'm painting with real paint. When I look back over my shoulder, I see the painting mirrored, but also twice as far as from where I sit, so I don't have to get up and walk back. It saves tons of time, and I'm not thrown out my workflow.

It's been long while since I've been painting standing up holding a real brush, but remembering the sensation (almost uncanny) that one gets when lifting the head from the painting and looking at it externally (mirror, in this case), I get all softly romantic about it. It's like waking up one morning and seeing your long time wife through the eyes of a stranger (although I can only imagine conjugal life..)

Paul Fierlinger wrote:This reminds me of a movie house in Paris I went to once in the 60's. The room was wider than it was deep and the tiny projection windows were in front, just above a very large screen. I had no idea what to think of it and we began to worry that we might be sitting just in some waiting room when the lights went out and it turned out that there was a mirror in the back of the screening room which stretched the throw of the image to twice the size of the room.

clever idea, and a nice surprise! I guess they bought the room and then came up with this solution. I love such deviations from the norm. Just shows how much you can with so little.

A wonderful idea, but even fantasy has it's proper and improper anatomy. The ass's neck comes a bit too close to the edge of the tub; it doesn't allow for the tub's thickness and actually the same might be said about its legs and also the tail which isn't coming out of the tub from the place where the ass's ass would have its crack.

Then there's the water level in the tub that would make the water spill out as soon as the duo would take a deep breath and the water being at a downhill slant should already be spilling ...

These imperfections spoil the illustration's whimsy for me because it throws the result down a few notches to the realm of mere decorativeness. If you were to animate this creature it would all come out in a second (12 frames). I'm sure I'm seeing this with an animator's eye and this is obviously a book illustration -- yet ...

(So what is it for? A doodle to test an idea out? A finished illustration?)

Same question here: considering to animate it ?

Another one comes to me: it looks a little bit artistic mannerism as illustration sometimes do when they go breeding-in. This happens when work is not primary connected to real life or feelings but stew in one's own juice. Here nobody is forearmed.