HOT BABES XTRA FUCKING BIG TITS N ASS

>>2335744
Loomis.

>>2335768
Seconded, hail Loomis

Read the sticky

just believe in yourself really, really hard.

also loomis

>>2335744
Disregad Loomis, aquire Jack Hamm.

>>2337637
Also, study George Petty. You can see pictures of his models and compare them to his pin-ups.

>>2335768
Pls don't fall for the meme

File: jack-hamms-drawing-the-head-figure-eyes-sketchbook-pervy.jpg (80KB, 469x358px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 469x358px

>>2337637
ayyyy

>>2337637
Jack Hamm is like a worse Loomis though.

>>2340851
Is Loomis a meme or something I should read and learn? I know the sticky says so but I'm second guessing it due this "Loomis is meme" talk

File: gsdsd.jpg (529KB, 1934x761px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1934x761px

>>2340914

File: kek.jpg (38KB, 450x495px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 450x495px

>>2341965

>>2341937
Loomis isn't for everyone. Try multiple approaches and see what works for you. Use Loomis if you want to be very formulaic in how you draw figures, which could genuinely work for you. It's all about how well you can wrap your head around somewhat abstract concepts. There are many different ways to draw, sticking to JUST Andrew Loomis is pretty closed minded though. Try exploring various other authors as well.

>>2341937
Loomis is a meme, and i fell for it. the only real good book of loomis is fun with a pencil, and is just useful for a beginer. I found it was more easy to go to an art class and have a teacher, but if you can't pay for clases, i would recommend Jack Hamm, Proko videos and sycra. as anatomy is always hard. the first thing that you need to learn is proportions and construction. when you learn that, you will have more freedom to adapt to your own style.

File: le hands up grimacing man face.jpg (56KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 450x450px

>>2342020
>Jack Hamm

Jack Hamm isn't bad but he's pretty much a Loomis knockoff.

File: moe as fuck, nigga.jpg (69KB, 437x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 437x600px

>>2342028
Also I don't know what it is but the way Jack draws women is just really off-putting to me. Loomis' girls always seem to look leagues better-his males too for that matter. The men, too. Hamm's work just comes off as a cheap imitation, though his book and work isn't bad by any means; he does have a lot of good information and is highly recommended. Hamm's big selling point is that his whole book "Drawing the Head and Figure" probably only has a couple of paragraphs of text in it; it's mostly drawings, whereas Loomis is much more verbose.

File: beauty_and_the_unconventionally_beautiful.jpg (198KB, 645x360px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 645x360px

>>2342037
In contrast here is a typical Jack Hamm grill. Just doesn't do it for me, for whatever reason.

>>2342028
>A loomis knock off
>What loomis tried to explain, but now everybody can understand it, instead of a mystical shit that tries to explain how to draw to fail miserably byin his own pointless tal

You are completly right sir

>>2342037
Drawing the Head and Figure is a portraiture manual. It teaches quick construction methods and visual solutions to suit the client, one of which is pretty much the same sharp+narrow pencil lineart as Loomis' illustration. It's like you didn't even read the book.

In my experience the difference beteen people who live by Loomis and those that graduate quickly into other instructors. Is that people who live by Loomis are still trying, years later, to find the needle in the haystack of his esoteric knowledge that will somehow make them instantly good. Meanwhile you can go through all the exercises in Hamm's manual a couple times a week and be ready to actually portray a person who looks like a person, from memory or reference, in little over a month.

>>2343211
>Drawing the Head and Figure is a portraiture manual. It teaches quick construction methods and visual solutions to suit the client, one of which is pretty much the same sharp+narrow pencil lineart as Loomis' illustration

Yes but Loomis' plates are better than Hamm's tho and there's tons of overlap between the techniques taught.

>In my experience the difference beteen people who live by Loomis and those that graduate quickly into other instructors. Is that people who live by Loomis are still trying, years later, to find the needle in the haystack of his esoteric knowledge that will somehow make them instantly good. Meanwhile you can go through all the exercises in Hamm's manual a couple times a week and be ready to actually portray a person who looks like a person, from memory or reference, in little over a month.

You literally don't know anyone that "lives by Loomis". You know that it's a meme on /ic/, if you or anyone else draws everything in any given book by a competent instructor "a couple times a week" they'll get better; no shit, Retardo. Do you really think that anyone here marathons entire volumes by Loomis, Hamm, Bridgman, Vilppu, Hampton etc. on a weekly, monthly or even annual basis?

>>2343229
Everyone here acts like they do.
Are you telling me they're not only retards, they're posers too?

>>2343275
>Are you telling me they're not only retards, they're posers too?

Yes.

>>2343275

Newsflash: /ic/ doesn't draw like /tg/ doesn't play rpgs and /a/ hates anime.