@@stefanj.593 what? the original drawing is real charcoal drawing that I have a video for, then I simulate the one to graphite, in-fact I gave graphite more credit cuz doing it this way made sure value is extremely well proportionally % wise decreased. But the point is you can have graphite with correct value at all points but it can't reach the darkest range of charcoal. I'm sure some extremely special brand of graphite from some where can get close, but in general, not even close. Its range is just not the same. Doesn't mean charcoal is better for all occasions. This is just one property difference between the two, and why 99% of all fine art schools use charcoal. This is not my opinion, this is just fact.
yes, the idea is to show the main difference of the medium. not for me to spend hours to do another drawing. (if anything I should exaggerate it.) If I have a red balloon, I don't think I need to get a separate blue balloon if you want something more tangible than imagination. They also do this for decent # of possible combination of interior and exterior color and design for cars at all major brands for custom order. But I'm am impressed by your acuity. Not many can tell those are the same image. Not many at all. I am truthfully jealous at your ability to laugh at, I'm not sure what... but definitely great for many reasons. Seriously, sleep, energy, over all mood, better immune system. So beneficial. ps. Exposure brightens whole image. It is not only inaccurate for this case, but also have a greater chance of losing information. While level and curve control allows a much more customized control over what % of adjustment at what tone level. If the whole image is mid grey for example, exposure would make one brighter, while nothing should be changed since both charcoal and graphite can achieve said grey tone.
Nice to get a response from you... I love your works and have personally found lot of inspiration from you ... Started using Charcoal after watching your works... Started in 2017 with one of your videos. That time I was undergoing my chemotherapy... Had lots of free time, but periods of painful times ... Sketching portraits was one way to get busy...🙂... Respect Sir!
I understand what you are trying to say but I'll just make a little correction based on my knowledge and opinion (Doesn't mean they are absolutely right, just matter of probability) "the main advantage being that I can draw very fine details in my portraits, which you can't achieve with charcoal" could be "the main advantage being that I can draw very fine details in my portraits more "EASILY for me to do", which "I" can't achieve with charcoal". Fair?
@@ThePortraitArt From the physical properties alone, it is not possible to achieve the same level of detail with carbon as with graphite. You are welcome to send me the reference photo, I will draw it in graphite and then you can make a video update. One with charcoal and one with graphite. That would be interesting. :-)
@@stefanj.593 The only reason I'm replying, and very long is so people who are not in the know don't get any misunderstanding and get some information if they so chose to read. (and I generally type out ideas fairly fast). Also I want to clarify the issue of logical communication. So this is not really strictly for you, but for all who might benefit from reading. Regarding chemistry and physics (I make / design pencil with manufacture and have my own pencil brand) : 1) Compositionally graphite and charcoal are both carbon based. Graphite is crystalline form where hexagonal structure is the norm. This just means multi-layer friction is lower. So they tend to be over all smoother and have that distinct metallic sheen, that even when treated with fixative, only diminishes it, not removing it completely. This structure combined with binding agent % plays a big part in giving it a grading in hardness. 2) Charcoal is made by heating wood (most common) without oxygen, the black mass left behind, while still made out of carbon atoms, do not have any crystalline structure. Hence over all it's matte, and softer, and darker. (it can also be combined with binding agent at different % for different degree of hardness (in this case binding agent % doesn't affect dark/value as much if at all) Also there are different binding agents but no need to make it more complicated. Regarding communication logic: With absolute statement such as "From physical properties alone, it is not possible to achieve the same level of detail with carbon as with graphite." This is already problematic on few accounts: 1) graphite and charcoal are BOTH carbon based. So statement is wrong already if one were to take it at face value. (but lets assume you just mistakenly typed a wrong word, we all make mistakes) If you really want to be scientific about it, as you implied with the phrase "physical properties". For something to be considered graphite it has to have the crystalline structure made from layers of carbon atoms, while the charcoal in charcoal pencil doesn't have this constraint, it doesn't have the ordered structure needed to be classified as graphite. So technically, from physical properties alone, it's the other way around to what you said. I can make a thinner line with at 1 carbon atom thickness, and it can still be considered charcoal, but you have to make a thicker crystalline for it to be considered graphite. But lets take it easy and say you meant more toward practically: 2) "Not possible to achieve", is an absolute statement. Physically I already proved you stated the reverse to fact. What you probably meant is: GENERALLY, it is MORE DIFFICULT, to achieve SIMILAR level of detail with graphite vs charcoal by MOST people, at the level of typical observation of drawing. This statement is much more true. When you speak in absolutes, you get pined into a corner real fast. For example: My 1) already proved it wrong at the pure logic end. Now if you had said, with same force, charcoal is generally thicker / less detailed. That would be fair, or practically most people will find it easier to generate more detail with graphite, that would also be fair. But you said it is not possible from physical properties alone. But I'll take another step back. I myself can make a line so sharp with charcoal, as I can with graphite such that human eye would find it hard to distinguish which is which, not everyone can immediately do this as charcoal is harder to control. But if I can do it to the point that human eye is hard to distinguish the two, practically it is also possible. So again for practical purposes, the sentence I changed for you above is more correct. With experience one can achieve detail at a level with charcoal that is very difficult to distinguish from graphite. I do not suggest you to test me on this part, nor will I be so petty as to prove you wrong at all cost. A scenario designed that you have little chance of proving your point is very easy. (you made the absolute statement, so burden of proof is on you). Extreme logical end: 1 atom thick, while graphite has to have structure. "not possible" is already wrong. Practically, by human eyes, I will just draw 1000 little lines, say 9 of which is different (graphite or charcoal). I'll of course turn the value to same shade so we can only focus on detail/line thickness). You should have no issue by looking, immediately point out which those lines are with 100% accuracy. (a mistake, taking longer, using a super magnifying glass, means practically you also proved my point) I don't think you would like your chances. Even your suggestion to demonstrate you are right is overly complicated. To prove your fine point, pun intended, no need to draw a whole picture. Just single lines or small circles would be enough. The sharper (skinnier the width of the marking), the more detailed it can be. Any thinner than the human eye can naturally discern, is no longer necessary or relevant. I don't think most looks at a drawing under a microscope. Art forensics uses it, but almost never for the purpose discussed here. So...summary: Is it harder to draw in detail with charcoal vs graphite, sure. Is detail always better? Subjective. Is it possible to create just as fine of detail with charcoal, of course. Does it have same level of ease? no. So for most people, is detail easier with graphite vs charcoal, at expense of value in vast majority of case, of course. You admitted this yourself by saying "the main advantage being that I can draw very fine details in my portraits, which YOU can't achieve with charcoal" (I assume by "you", you mean "one", "I", or "most people") Of course it is ridiculous to have our every sentence and word examined in such manner. (I would be wrong pretty much in most of my own comments If I were to apply scrutiny) it's youtube comment, not a contract. But that means a quick casual comment with mistakes and a longer comment are both doable and acceptable. While in large real deals, only one is acceptable. In this case, I just think it is important for people to get the right information regarding what is, or isn't possible, or correct.
Beautiful as usual. just finished a digital portrait (in Procreate) using one of your recent charcoal portraits as a reference. From this experience, It seems to me that the arguments for using charcoal versus graphite only apply to traditional methods (using paper with graphite or charcoal). Is this the case? Also, I seem to have better success doing digital portraits using so-called "charcoal brushes" than using real charcoal on paper. This makes me wonder if I am in some way cheating by using digital methods. In addition, even when I use conventional methods with charcoal I end up photographing the work and thus converting it to a digital file. This allows me to more easily show my work to others, edit the work in the future, and to avoid the mess of handling charcoal portraits.. Finally, I am an amateur who draws portraits strictly for fun and thus I do not really need a "hard copy" in the way a professional artist does when he/she plans to sell their art. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
1. Thank you for the compliment and kind words. 2. No it's not cheating IMO. In Art, cheating is a subjective term that people draw different lines in the sand in their mind, regarding at which point they consider something is "cheating'. But what you're doing for most would not consider as cheating. 3. Correct this is mostly for traditional, real tangible pencil on paper stuff. While some digital brushes are designed to mimic charcoal or other style, because you really have no limit on how small you can make the the brush and zoom in and still draw, digital work is still just a matter of brush style/design, there is pretty much no constraint on tone value range. So every brush can go from pure black to almost no tone. (I have a fairly high end wacom cintiq for many years now with not just typical brushes and background, but ones that actually runs on programming script with multilayers that adds effect and randomness that mimics watercolor/pencil drawing so realistically that it is hard for me to tell which is real which is HQ photo of digital work if I didn't know better. (this is years ago before AI).
The incel graphite versus the chad charcoal. Just no contest. Respect people who with with graphite, but its range is very limited; and I'm not saying that just by looking at artworks; I've worked with both mediums, so I know how they look and feel.
No need to argue over words guys. I can see both of your points. What Coolshah said here is an humours analogy of incel vs chad (which both lies on same spectrum or gradient of idea), and compared/applied this to charcoal vs graphite. While NaPH focused on incel in its own common meaning. Just a little misunderstanding :). Thanks guys for watching the video.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
So beautiful, charcoal or graphite ❤
Both are unique but only one can be so bold
Beautiful work as always
Hehe the bold and the more reserved! Thank you! Cheers!
Either way, too me, they both are beautiful works of art❤
its a fake. both the same images. just lightning dark values digital
yes :) one can create good stuff with both. cheers.
@@stefanj.593 what? the original drawing is real charcoal drawing that I have a video for, then I simulate the one to graphite, in-fact I gave graphite more credit cuz doing it this way made sure value is extremely well proportionally % wise decreased. But the point is you can have graphite with correct value at all points but it can't reach the darkest range of charcoal. I'm sure some extremely special brand of graphite from some where can get close, but in general, not even close. Its range is just not the same. Doesn't mean charcoal is better for all occasions. This is just one property difference between the two, and why 99% of all fine art schools use charcoal. This is not my opinion, this is just fact.
Both are charcoal portraits🤣... I suppose only exposure correction
yes, the idea is to show the main difference of the medium. not for me to spend hours to do another drawing. (if anything I should exaggerate it.) If I have a red balloon, I don't think I need to get a separate blue balloon if you want something more tangible than imagination. They also do this for decent # of possible combination of interior and exterior color and design for cars at all major brands for custom order.
But I'm am impressed by your acuity. Not many can tell those are the same image. Not many at all. I am truthfully jealous at your ability to laugh at, I'm not sure what... but definitely great for many reasons. Seriously, sleep, energy, over all mood, better immune system. So beneficial.
ps. Exposure brightens whole image. It is not only inaccurate for this case, but also have a greater chance of losing information. While level and curve control allows a much more customized control over what % of adjustment at what tone level. If the whole image is mid grey for example, exposure would make one brighter, while nothing should be changed since both charcoal and graphite can achieve said grey tone.
Nice to get a response from you... I love your works and have personally found lot of inspiration from you ... Started using Charcoal after watching your works... Started in 2017 with one of your videos. That time I was undergoing my chemotherapy... Had lots of free time, but periods of painful times ... Sketching portraits was one way to get busy...🙂... Respect Sir!
@@nyigambole1925 remission? best thoughts
I get nearly as dark with graphite, the main advantage being that I can draw very fine details in my portraits, which you can't achieve with charcoal.
The problem with graphite is when it become darker it also reflect light more?🤔
@@VivungisportNo. You must use a fixative, just as you would for charcoal. I have a fine matt surface. no reflections at all
I understand what you are trying to say but I'll just make a little correction based on my knowledge and opinion (Doesn't mean they are absolutely right, just matter of probability) "the main advantage being that I can draw very fine details in my portraits, which you can't achieve with charcoal" could be "the main advantage being that I can draw very fine details in my portraits more "EASILY for me to do", which "I" can't achieve with charcoal". Fair?
@@ThePortraitArt From the physical properties alone, it is not possible to achieve the same level of detail with carbon as with graphite.
You are welcome to send me the reference photo, I will draw it in graphite and then you can make a video update. One with charcoal and one with graphite. That would be interesting. :-)
@@stefanj.593
The only reason I'm replying, and very long is so people who are not in the know don't get any misunderstanding and get some information if they so chose to read. (and I generally type out ideas fairly fast). Also I want to clarify the issue of logical communication. So this is not really strictly for you, but for all who might benefit from reading.
Regarding chemistry and physics (I make / design pencil with manufacture and have my own pencil brand) :
1) Compositionally graphite and charcoal are both carbon based. Graphite is crystalline form where hexagonal structure is the norm. This just means multi-layer friction is lower. So they tend to be over all smoother and have that distinct metallic sheen, that even when treated with fixative, only diminishes it, not removing it completely. This structure combined with binding agent % plays a big part in giving it a grading in hardness.
2) Charcoal is made by heating wood (most common) without oxygen, the black mass left behind, while still made out of carbon atoms, do not have any crystalline structure. Hence over all it's matte, and softer, and darker. (it can also be combined with binding agent at different % for different degree of hardness (in this case binding agent % doesn't affect dark/value as much if at all) Also there are different binding agents but no need to make it more complicated.
Regarding communication logic:
With absolute statement such as "From physical properties alone, it is not possible to achieve the same level of detail with carbon as with graphite."
This is already problematic on few accounts:
1) graphite and charcoal are BOTH carbon based. So statement is wrong already if one were to take it at face value. (but lets assume you just mistakenly typed a wrong word, we all make mistakes) If you really want to be scientific about it, as you implied with the phrase "physical properties". For something to be considered graphite it has to have the crystalline structure made from layers of carbon atoms, while the charcoal in charcoal pencil doesn't have this constraint, it doesn't have the ordered structure needed to be classified as graphite. So technically, from physical properties alone, it's the other way around to what you said. I can make a thinner line with at 1 carbon atom thickness, and it can still be considered charcoal, but you have to make a thicker crystalline for it to be considered graphite. But lets take it easy and say you meant more toward practically:
2) "Not possible to achieve", is an absolute statement. Physically I already proved you stated the reverse to fact. What you probably meant is: GENERALLY, it is MORE DIFFICULT, to achieve SIMILAR level of detail with graphite vs charcoal by MOST people, at the level of typical observation of drawing. This statement is much more true. When you speak in absolutes, you get pined into a corner real fast. For example: My 1) already proved it wrong at the pure logic end. Now if you had said, with same force, charcoal is generally thicker / less detailed. That would be fair, or practically most people will find it easier to generate more detail with graphite, that would also be fair. But you said it is not possible from physical properties alone. But I'll take another step back. I myself can make a line so sharp with charcoal, as I can with graphite such that human eye would find it hard to distinguish which is which, not everyone can immediately do this as charcoal is harder to control. But if I can do it to the point that human eye is hard to distinguish the two, practically it is also possible. So again for practical purposes, the sentence I changed for you above is more correct.
With experience one can achieve detail at a level with charcoal that is very difficult to distinguish from graphite. I do not suggest you to test me on this part, nor will I be so petty as to prove you wrong at all cost. A scenario designed that you have little chance of proving your point is very easy. (you made the absolute statement, so burden of proof is on you). Extreme logical end: 1 atom thick, while graphite has to have structure. "not possible" is already wrong. Practically, by human eyes, I will just draw 1000 little lines, say 9 of which is different (graphite or charcoal). I'll of course turn the value to same shade so we can only focus on detail/line thickness). You should have no issue by looking, immediately point out which those lines are with 100% accuracy. (a mistake, taking longer, using a super magnifying glass, means practically you also proved my point) I don't think you would like your chances. Even your suggestion to demonstrate you are right is overly complicated. To prove your fine point, pun intended, no need to draw a whole picture. Just single lines or small circles would be enough. The sharper (skinnier the width of the marking), the more detailed it can be. Any thinner than the human eye can naturally discern, is no longer necessary or relevant. I don't think most looks at a drawing under a microscope. Art forensics uses it, but almost never for the purpose discussed here. So...summary: Is it harder to draw in detail with charcoal vs graphite, sure. Is detail always better? Subjective. Is it possible to create just as fine of detail with charcoal, of course. Does it have same level of ease? no. So for most people, is detail easier with graphite vs charcoal, at expense of value in vast majority of case, of course. You admitted this yourself by saying "the main advantage being that I can draw very fine details in my portraits, which YOU can't achieve with charcoal" (I assume by "you", you mean "one", "I", or "most people")
Of course it is ridiculous to have our every sentence and word examined in such manner. (I would be wrong pretty much in most of my own comments If I were to apply scrutiny) it's youtube comment, not a contract. But that means a quick casual comment with mistakes and a longer comment are both doable and acceptable. While in large real deals, only one is acceptable. In this case, I just think it is important for people to get the right information regarding what is, or isn't possible, or correct.
Beautiful as usual. just finished a digital portrait (in Procreate) using one of your recent charcoal portraits as a reference. From this experience, It seems to me that the arguments for using charcoal versus graphite only apply to traditional methods (using paper with graphite or charcoal). Is this the case? Also, I seem to have better success doing digital portraits using so-called "charcoal brushes" than using real charcoal on paper. This makes me wonder if I am in some way cheating by using digital methods. In addition, even when I use conventional methods with charcoal I end up photographing the work and thus converting it to a digital file. This allows me to more easily show my work to others, edit the work in the future, and to avoid the mess of handling charcoal portraits.. Finally, I am an amateur who draws portraits strictly for fun and thus I do not really need a "hard copy" in the way a professional artist does when he/she plans to sell their art. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
1. Thank you for the compliment and kind words.
2. No it's not cheating IMO. In Art, cheating is a subjective term that people draw different lines in the sand in their mind, regarding at which point they consider something is "cheating'. But what you're doing for most would not consider as cheating.
3. Correct this is mostly for traditional, real tangible pencil on paper stuff.
While some digital brushes are designed to mimic charcoal or other style, because you really have no limit on how small you can make the the brush and zoom in and still draw, digital work is still just a matter of brush style/design, there is pretty much no constraint on tone value range. So every brush can go from pure black to almost no tone. (I have a fairly high end wacom cintiq for many years now with not just typical brushes and background, but ones that actually runs on programming script with multilayers that adds effect and randomness that mimics watercolor/pencil drawing so realistically that it is hard for me to tell which is real which is HQ photo of digital work if I didn't know better. (this is years ago before AI).
Thanks for the helpful information.@@ThePortraitArt
The incel graphite versus the chad charcoal. Just no contest. Respect people who with with graphite, but its range is very limited; and I'm not saying that just by looking at artworks; I've worked with both mediums, so I know how they look and feel.
do you even know the meaning of the word "incel"?
@@NaPH273 Yes? What I referenced is a very popular meme. Are you serious right now?
No need to argue over words guys. I can see both of your points. What Coolshah said here is an humours analogy of incel vs chad (which both lies on same spectrum or gradient of idea), and compared/applied this to charcoal vs graphite. While NaPH focused on incel in its own common meaning. Just a little misunderstanding :). Thanks guys for watching the video.