Are these books good?
no
>>7864567i bought oneNope. it's nothing but just 'draw a circle, draw the rest of the owl'It is too advanced for literal newbsBut it is worthless, or even detrimental to someone who is starting to get seriousIf you are a newb, i highly recommend that you just buy some anime coloring books.it will teach the first, and most important lesson of all - how to have fun
>>7864567This one is quite good:https://archive.org/details/howtodrawanimegamecharactersvol.1basicsforbeginnersandbeyond.r
>>7864593I always hated colouring.
>>7864567some are fine.some are just pose reference drawn by someone in the 70s-80s with bad proportions and bad anatomy (ESPECIALLY from the "how to draw MANGA" series)some are pretty good.overall? don't bother.
>>7864725the f brought you to this board then? thats half the process isn't it
Man I'm fucking old. I mail-ordered the first of these decades ago. I remember the first book was like the first day of art class where they go over the syllabus and describe things you need to buy, but you've already paid and you have a pencil and paper so just fucking teach me. If you want to learn a specific topic in a retro manga style they're probably pretty good, but at least the one I had was for a fully trad workflow so you may just have better results learning with any resource and just using cool old anime for your master studies
>>7865458I don't mind painting, but colouring books always bored me. Maybe it was also my grade 3 bitch teacher who made me colour over the graphite shading of Beethoven I did for a project. The fat cunt. I really do love black and white, or nearly monochrome art, though.
For the longest time I thought these books were drawn by Americans and it was fake anime but that wasn't the case. Although who exactly is the artist of these books? I can't find his identity anywhere. It's weird he doesn't have a website or anything.
>>7864567Not as good as this one
>>7865538Katy Cope was ahead of her time.
>>7864567A lot of them are translated books so the information should be at least theoretically good but the drawings will be extremely old fashioned.
>>7866232old fashioned is returning though
>>7864567The ones published by Graphic-Sha, yes, though very dated. A lot of the artists who worked on them were published mangaka so they know what they're doing, though it's a variety of artists from different genres, different skill levels etc. The books are also very 90s, so if you're doing that kind of work these are invaluable as a resource. That also means that one of the volumes is about drawing using Flash, which was discontinued ages ago. They're also VERY FUCKING hard to find. I've managed to find a bunch, some in better conditions than others. Here's what I've managed to collect so far:https://pastebin.com/XnMLMzFeIf you guys have any missing volumes somewhere online I'd appreciate you adding a link so I can update my list. Thanks in advance
>>7865521They're by Hikaru Hayashi
>>7864567This one was very 'educational' to young me when I found it in the school library
>>7866852Which one is this?
>>7865521Same. Just because the art sucks. Even if you used the "old-fashioned" excuse. I would guess Hikaru Hayashi is just a pseudonym of a non-Japanese group. Or even if he was actually a Japanese animator, he wasn't a very good one.
>>7866858Vol 23 Illustrating Battles
>>7866237by "old fashioned" he really meant "ugly" btw.
>>7866880AI proof art.
