Total drawing

Very relevant! In a total drawing, you can select the most important details of the structure to determine, which you can't do in the photo, plus it's still art at the intersection of genres - scientific and artistic.

Very relevant! In a total drawing, you can select the most important details of the structure to determine, which you can't do in the photo, plus it's still art at the intersection of genres - scientific and artistic.

this is important only when the majority of people, unfortunately, do not have access to a serious digital photo. And when the equipment is as it should be, then all the details can be highlighted at once, and the human factor is minimized.In addition, very few people can make a really good total (I don't know how) .

Sorry for the lack of awareness... What does "total" mean? In the sense of drawing an insect completely, and not in parts?
In general, everyone who knows how to draw insects efficiently - my respect! I'm not much of an artist, for instance.
As for the comparative value of the drawing and the photo , I would give my vote for the photo. But only if, as KDG correctly noted, the photo is really high-quality and you can easily make out the details of the insect's structure that interest you. For example, for most photos of beetles taken "in their natural habitat", I would prefer a high-quality drawing. In these photos, everything is usually very clearly visible, except for the beetle itself

For example, for most photos of beetles taken "in their natural habitat", I would prefer a high-quality drawing. In these photos, everything is usually very clearly visible, except for the beetle itself

So don't confuse art photography with special photography. I also think that the drawing is more informative, because you focus on the defining features, and it is very difficult to take a picture so that these features are clearly visible. Is that from all sides to take pictures and make 3D.

Are there any canons for total drawings? It's just that I've been doing this kind of creative work for some time now. There is no information about drawing techniques anywhere. There are also not many specialists and you can not always consult them. For this reason, I try to comprehend all the subtleties myself on the principle of "what I see is what I draw". I tried to post an example of my drawings, but something doesn't work out, so I give you a link on the Internet
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/tromandr.htm
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/dysyezdr.htm
It is interesting to learn your opinion and useful tips on this issue.

I think the drawings are beautiful! I've tried it myself, but it's not even close. Especially when it comes to drawing all the dots, grooves and dimples, as well as the incident light. How much does it take approximately for 1 such drawing?

I think the drawings are beautiful! I've tried it myself, but it's not even close. Especially when it comes to drawing all the dots, grooves and dimples, as well as the incident light. How much does it take approximately for 1 such drawing?

Thanks! In terms of time, it all depends on the complexity (and size of the insect), usually about 10-15 hours. But I had to work on Trox longer, around 25.

I think the drawings are beautiful!

Absolutely agree! The drawings are very good, I especially liked the beetle (this is where they are found, I wonder? in the Far East, perhaps?)

2 Bolivar - I evaluate the photo primarily from a pragmatic point of view - how much it can help in determining how characteristic an insect looks on it. Of course, art photography is a special conversation - maybe I just don't understand anything about it. But some of the "natural" photos, in my opinion, even from an artistic point of view, have a very dubious value. As an example, I give a photo of a beetle. made by one of the forum participants (may the author forgive me )

Pictures:
  xz1.jpg — (19.72к) 10.02.2007 — 24.02.2007

[quote=Necrocephalus,10.02.2007 14:43]

Dinusik, don't listen to anyone! If everyone were crackers like KDG, how terrible the world would be! The only significant disadvantage of total drawings is the monstrously painstaking work done by the author. And those who know how to make totals, much less than those who know how to shoot high-quality. You have a wonderful gift in your hands, and I'm sure it will be useful to many people. I apologize to the KDG, but if a person is a cracker, then he is a cracker, and there is no other way to say it.

I totally agree with the majority. Despite progress with photos, insect drawings are a parallel branch. And to consider drawings only in the context of comparison with a digital photo is absolutely incorrect!

Dinusik, don't listen to anyone! If everyone were crackers like KDG, how terrible the world would be! The only significant disadvantage of total drawings is the monstrously painstaking work done by the author. And those who know how to make totals, much less than those who know how to shoot high-quality. You have a wonderful gift in your hands, and I'm sure it will be useful to many people. I apologize to the KDG, but if a person is a cracker, then he is a cracker, and there is no other way to say it.

1. if everyone was an incorrigible romantic, this world would be dead by now
2. give "flies separately-cutlets separately". I don't think I wrote anywhere that drawings are complete garbage (especially since I often had to draw myself). And I never mentioned their artistic value anywhere. I have several entomologist friends (you won't believe it, but even crackers have them) they draw very well and I enjoy looking at their work (especially in color).
3. As has been repeatedly mentioned, there are only a few serious artists. And what if those who do not know how to draw well, and the need for pictures is estimated in the hundreds-hang themselves? In my previous post, I talked exclusively about the application side of the issue. If you need to quickly "merge" an article with more than a hundred images, then 15-25 hours per image is an unacceptable luxury, and artists very often also take up the camera.

All "white and fluffy" greetings

Yes, KDG, your problem is that the drawings are not complete garbage for you. And about romantics somehow unconvincingly comes out...

The verdict is that if you go completely overboard, it's decadence. You have to be a dry romantic who likes to photograph drawings

Bravo, Ripper! I didn't expect it!

The verdict is that if you go completely overboard, it's decadence. You have to be a dry romantic who likes to photograph drawings

Well said! It is necessary to enter in my citatnichek and close up where-thread on occasion!!!
Thank you for your flattering reviews of my work!
Now about the romantics... Among my friends, both artists and entomologists (so I was lucky in my life, first I will learn to be an artist, then I will do entomology) all incorrigible romantics! There is a truth among them two or three actively hiding it, but we know ... Something tells me that you are a respected KGD just from among the hidden romantics, otherwise you would hardly hang out on this forum!!! In terms of articles with a lot of illustrations, I agree with you. Now the Japanese have a lot of atlases designed only with photos. But when you love what you do, 15 hours fly by unnoticed. And if you also distribute all the activities correctly, then you can do a lot in time.

Determinants with photos are certainly better, but you can supplement them with drawings of individual body parts to determine. Well, in general, if someone has seen handmade albums where butterflies or beetles are depicted, everything is painted, it's such a magnificent, delicate work - you can't take your eyes off. Such things are really valuable. The world doesn't stop at just one definition.

Determinants with photos are certainly better, but you can supplement them with drawings of individual body parts to determine. Well, in general, if someone has seen handmade albums where butterflies or beetles are depicted, everything is painted, it's such a magnificent, delicate work - you can't take your eyes off. Such things are really valuable. The world doesn't stop at just one definition.

I totally agree!

Yes, KDG, your problem is that the drawings are not complete garbage for you. And about romantics somehow unconvincingly comes out...

No trouble at all. Except that I am a professional entomologist (but I do not consider this a "disaster"). There is an opportunity to take pictures, I take pictures. If it disappears , I'll pick up a pencil or ask someone who does it better. Nevertheless, I prefer a good (!) photo in the determinant. Especially when it comes to image types. Especially the ancient ones.

Back to everyone else: do not mix the artistic component and the applied one. By the way, why do you think that a good photo does not have an aesthetic beginning? Yes, it does.
And one more point, also applied (sorry crackers). There is an atlas that identifies the barbels of Japan. More than 600 species were captured, for most of them both sexes+individual variability. It costs 250-300 bucks. Now imagine if these pictures were ordered to a cool walker who could draw a beetle so that it could be identified. You can safely add a zero to the price...

For how you could be happy for the well-being of the artist...

Something tells me that you are a respected KGD just from among the hidden romantics, otherwise you would hardly be hanging out on this forum!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection. romanticism (both hidden and explicit) is absolutely not necessary to communicate with people.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection. romanticism (both hidden and explicit) is absolutely not necessary to communicate with people.

Duc, it's not about communication, it's about entomology!!! Neromantics don't usually go there.

Oh, come on! KDG just dropped out of math or theoretical physics for some reason and decided to take up entomology. We can congratulate you on a worthy choice...

Congratulations!

Of course, art photography is a special conversation - maybe I just don't understand anything about it. But some of the "natural" photos, in my opinion, even from an artistic point of view, have a very dubious value.

What kind of photographer - these are the pictures

I agree with KDG, but I prefer photos to drawings in the determinant. And then there are such" artists". Although very often good drawings are spoiled by a disgusting print, as, for example, in the book "Insects" of the Encyclopedia of Nature in Russia. I've seen the original drawings - nothing like the horror in the book.

There you are, Brutus... And Russian polygraphy is a special conversation in general.

I don't know what's better in the qualifiers... I also used to draw insects at one time - just for myself, it was a hobby, a pleasure of the same kind as finding an insect, spreading it out, and all our other joys. The motivation was not to compete in accuracy and completeness with the photo, but simply the desire to draw a beautiful bug as similar as possible.

Colleagues, I am afraid to be too original, but if there is an alternative: a drawing or a photo (of course, of minimal quality, otherwise there is nothing to talk about) , you should think about what this drawing is intended for. If the goal is to get satisfaction from the author (I did it!), then the question has no solution, because someone is closer to the photo, and someone is closer to the drawing. IMHO, if the drawing needs to show the details of the color, then a photo is preferable, and if the morphology... You can, of course, remember about scans, 3D, etc., but still this is even more exotic.

I myself get more pleasure from drawings, probably because I photograph poorly.

A high is when you can make a good quality drawing for yourself or to order and enjoy the process. In general, happy people are those who have a job = favorite thing! I am a happy person!

I'll shake it up a bit. In general, a real artist (the one with a creative streak ) always sees some kind of defect in nature and always tries to add a little bit of otsebyatki. I once saw scientific drawings made by professionals from art academies. That there are bristles, additional segments on the legs and eyes on the wings appear.
Perfect graphics can only be done by a specialist, so to speak, a cracker who draws only what his eyes see, and not his imagination. Imho
I will keep silent about the photos, since the kettle itself. I make quality a quantity. Fortunately, the figure allows it.

No need to be original! And you just need to take, for example, Yakobson, those drawings that Olga what's-her-name did, and take that wonderful, super-high-quality digital photo that is inaccessible to anyone except KDG, which again, it seems, except for KDG and his Japanese friends with their most advanced technologies (remember the movie "Courier"?) no one saw it, look carefully, and choose, first with your mind, and then with your heart, and decide what is more important in this particular case.

Or you can just look on the Internet and compare what someone likes best...
And it all depends on the purpose of using certain materials - in a drawing, photo, or scan...
And as for the drawing, many years ago (I don't know if he does it now) I was fascinated by the illustrations of Sochivko's "pen".

And as for the drawing, many years ago (I don't know if he does it now) I was fascinated by the illustrations of Sochivko's "pen".

Oh, I was just talking about his drawings:

Although very often good drawings are spoiled by a disgusting print, as, for example, in the book "Insects" of the Encyclopedia of Nature in Russia. I've seen the original drawings - nothing like the horror in the book.

By the way, he takes a lot of photos now

and take that wonderful, super-high-quality digital photo that is not accessible to anyone except KDG, which again, it seems, is not available to anyone except KDG and his Japanese friends with their most advanced technologies.

Well, tell K. Makarov, for example, what kind of photo is not available to him there... And a big bunch of people putting up their photos at Lobanov's. And of course the Japanese...Niisato, Ohbayashi and other lazy people who don't want to draw 200-300 images per article.

And according to many drawings from Jacobson, and from Reitter, beetles are not only difficult to determine, but impossible. So, by the way... The determinant and other scientific works should primarily meet their direct tasks. And with "pink ruffles" - this is for the worst exhibition.

This post was edited by KDG-02/13/2007 00: 44

Yes, but just to buy such equipment, I need to sell the apartment and settle down with my husband and child somewhere in the heating main. Not all dakhodas are allowed, despite the proximity to Japan...

Yes, but just to buy such equipment, I need to sell the apartment and settle down with my husband and child somewhere in the heating main. Not all dakhodas are allowed, despite the proximity to Japan...

read my posts again - I never said anywhere that the equipment I use is my property. If I work,I'll take pictures; if I get kicked out, I'll look for other options. And to buy an average digital camera and attach it to an MBS or a microscope is not such a terrible amount of money. You are not in danger of a heating main

But it's not about that at all - no one pulls the brush out of your hands, draw as much as you want. But in the determinant...
I post an article-a description with a photo - what's wrong?

This post was edited by KDG-13.02.2007 09: 50

File/s:



0426.pdf

size: 208.3 k
number of downloads: 33
13.02.2007-27.02.2007

Actually, no one talked about pink ruffles. Many of the German drawings taken in Jacobson from Reutter are indeed of poor quality. I specifically referred to the author of the drawings in Jacobson. And it is not clear who can not be identified there? As for the photos of Makarov, these are beautiful pictures that can be envied. And as for the lazy guys, I completely agree with you here, if you need to quickly create a review article with a bunch of images, then there is only one way out - photos. Yes easier, yes cheaper, but better? hardly...

Duc, no one disputes that photos are good (and good photos are even better!). I would generally single out total drawing, photography and scanography in separate types of art and everyone is free to choose what is more convenient and pleasant for him. K. Makarov is a great photographer, but he draws no worse. At the same time, looking at the drawings of K. Dovgailo, you always think that the existing digital technology has not yet grown to such a level.
So, dear KDG, if suddenly, our native polygraphy will not be able to convey all the nuances of photos that you need, and my modest abilities will suit you, please contact us. We'll make a deal!