(Am a newcomer, hope I understand correctly the system)

Here is the original and a copy of a master portrait (a 16th century painter). I unfortunately do not remember the name of the master. On the photos, I see many mistakes of my copy, but I wish to have your criticisms. Thanks in advance, NVA

I find it excellent.

NVA

I think it's v good. If ever I copy something I like to do it in a different medium and all the 'mistakes' I make make the masterpiece my own!

NVA,

Very good, accuracy of the original is dead on. Would you care to tell us what materials you used?
Trish

I like your version very much especially the way you have done the hair.

I think you've done a fabulous job on this. Yes, there are a couple of things that are a little off, but you've captured the essence of the piece. I'm quite taken by this drawing, could you tell me the size of paper and what pencil you used to create it?

As for critique, the nose seems a tad long perhaps, you may like to remeasure that. Also look at the ear in relation to the eye and nose and see how yours is a bit low in your drawing.

Thank you all. It’s really agreeable to have criticisms, that we miss in the general group, because there everybody are precautious and wanted to be friendly.
To all : The paper is ordinary drawing paper, and the pencil, a Conté.

ElenaM: Thanks (I read with great interest, your comments in the portrait topic)
Vickywheaty: Good idea, I’ll test a different medium, but may be with another portrait!
Pmowen49: thanks for encouragement!
Kev2grey: Hi! Happy to read you!
IslanderNL: Yes, the errors come from the too long nose, this deforms the lower part of the profile, the teeth and chin are somewhat too prominent, the ear too big, it must be a bit more backward, and the form of the head is not correct. As I forced me not to use a ruler, well, I had to pay!
If you ignore the original, I feel the copy is quite agreeable. But, when we copy, we must be precise, mustn’t we ?

(I wanted to contribute to Venus Portrait topic, and made an error, sorry!)

Critique by others is always really a replacement for, and second best to, constructive self-critique.

While this drawing is already very good, what I find even more praiseworthy here is:



Which is a fair and accurate assessment of your own work. You should rightfully be proud of the work, for, as you correctly state "If you ignore the original, I feel the copy is quite agreeable." And you are correct, this is certainly so, the work would stand in its own right. However, the fact that you are also training your own eye, and can now see the various ways in which it is slightly "off", and can do so in a positive fashion which does not undermine your self-confidence in your own accomplishment, means that you are also ready, willing, and able to make further progress.

I congratulate you.


Dave

Thank you so much, Dave.
Is there a place in this forum where we can drink a beer together? I am new here.

it is excellent...why would you want it EXACTLY..sheesh you already have the orig..the exact right there..
this is most excellent for copy..anything more you may as well just take a picture..

all of your work is most excellent

this is very well done ....almost perfect .. i notice the face you have drawn is a bit farther out then the work of the other artist ...but really it is a master of drawings ...you have done well .

THANK YOU ALL!
Finally, I think I must square the original and my paper. It's safer although I don't like it !

There are various alternatives to "squaring", which are better suited to working from a range of different reference sources, including working from life.

One of these is sight-size - there are good descriptions of the approach here:
http://480bc.com/sight_size/sightsize.htm

also see:
http://www.sightsize.com/approach.html
and
http://www.sightsize.com/castdrawing.html

and
http://www.charlescecilstudios.com/doc/the...itTradition.pdf

Another approach is that of Tony Ryder, where the drawing is started by getting general angles and proportions as a set of straight line-segments which are gradually refined. (This is a similar technique to the David Kassan video-demo I posted as a thread here a few weeks ago). See his slideshow demo here:
http://www.tonyryder.com/demo/block_in/index_slideshow.htm
continued:
http://www.tonyryder.com/demo/block_in_fin...x_slideshow.htm

These approaches can be used to achieve great accuracy, and are equally applicable to drawing from the live model. (The approach shown by Ryder and Kassan could also be used for drawing from imagination, some here might care to note , as a way of getting general proportions correct!).

I'd suggest that "squaring up" is actually the least useful and flexible of the technical approaches to learn, as it encourages people to concentrate only on fine detail, rather than starting from getting general large-scale proportions correct, which is the sounder approach. Note that among the commonest problems is that of having the individual features and details well-drawn, but that they are not in quite the right place or size in relation to each other. "Squaring up" doesn't address the fundamental problem here, of concentrating prematurely on fine structure. These other approaches do.

Dave

Thank you very much, Dave. I have copied all the ref and will read them seriously.
I think we agree in the depth: to draw creatively and with full freedom, one must first master the techniques. Without a good command of the techniques, we of course can draw freely and create things, but our space of freedom risks to be limited.
I've learned various things. I'll show them in my Drawingplace. Please come from tim to time and give a look!
Thank again,
An