How The fuck Do I SEE All of the values in realistic textures

>>3046905
Here's this thing, you shouldn't draw what you see.
You should simplify the object you see into boxes and draw based on that. This will allow you to easily place the shadows.

When you rely purely on mindless observation, you confuse the halftones, the shadows and reflected light, and you lose the overall form in the drawing.

File: hand.jpg (155KB, 874x781px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 874x781px

>>3046905
Have you tried using only black and white photos? I would suggest you isolate values first by using B&W references, because color can make it harder.

Like the other anon said, think of your forms as very simplified.
For example, take that hand on the right, and look there at the back of it, where the tendons are.
Now, if the "main body" of the hand was a box, then the back of the hand is one plane of the box, right? Those tendons and bumps get flattened. At its simplest, that plane will be one value. And what value would that single plane be, if you could only choose light and shadow? It seems like it's not quite in the light, so it would be shadow.

Another tip on references: That particular picture is lit in a studio so the light is a bit indistinct. White light coming from all around.
When first learning values, I might suggest using references which are lit by the sun, on a day with clear skies. Then you have one main light source with a distinct direction and you've got sharp, contrasting shadows (no clouds diffusing light)

>>3046926
nonononononononono, no! no! you should draw what you see, its a skill so you get better at it if you do it more. try this, stare closely at a blank paper, if you see little shapes form from the texture of the paper draw them.

>>3046905
It would help if you didn't use your pic seeing as how it's a shitty omnilit hand.

>>3047118
wat

>>3047034
Your last paragraph really resonates with me.
I've been struggling with light and shade too and I found that many reference pictures I used have multiple light sources that make shading extremely complex so I too found that pictures with only one light source and not much reflected light are way more clear when you're trying to grasp the basics of shading on complex shapes.

File: old-hands-and-tired-feet-cameron-hampton-psa.jpg (129KB, 900x734px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 900x734px

>>3046905
I FEEL you nigga.

The average brain will never innately understand fully the countless complexities of a hand by just looking at it.

But you can learn to break it the fuck down.
You don't see just the hand, you see the form, values and color. And the rules that govern them. They all conform to solid understandable rules.

You understand the form because you understand it's generalized shape. The simple geometries that form it. You know what shape it is. And how envisioning the hand as such will give you a foothold to start from.

You know what's under the skin, from the bone to to tissues, veins then the veil of skin the lays over it. You know the subtle indentations.

You see light. How you must be aware of each light source that influences how the hand if lit. How shadows will let lesser sources showoff.
How light can be discernibly reduced from highlight to half tone to occlusion and all the subtleties in between.

And you see the colors because you understand everything above. That as skin gets thinner around the edges, more light gets through and bounces around in the hand creating subsurface scattering.
How retracted skin will be slightly darker for the skin is compressed.

And if you don't then be happy man. The process of learning to find imminence beauty and infinite complexity in the oldest most simple of humans tools is joyful.

File: you.jpg (17KB, 233x285px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 233x285px

>>3046905
Squint your eyes, /ic/ tip of the day coming at ya