>>5997089Hm, I have the exact same cast.
Sight-size is good, once or twice, to teach you the basics. Move quickly to comparative measurements, much more practical of an approach; sight-size is terrible for most subjects, and unsuitable for anything that cannot be copied.
Sight-size is more of a special setup to ease measurement. It can hardly be compared to "constructive drawing", more to comparative measurements. "Constructive drawing" is, basically, about simplifying complex volumes into simple, often geometrical volumes, and progressively refining them. This can be used with sight-size, pure eyeballing, imagination or comparative measurement.
Note that this confusion arises because most people sticking to sight-size basically satisfy themselves with copying things, or are /beg/ that still don't know how to do better.
>>5997095I wonder how many time this should be told, but there's always some kind of interpretation when drawing from life that cannot be rendered through photography.
This interpretation is rather subtle to untrained eyes: camera compress values, tend to sharpen edges, can alter the proportions because of lens distortion, messes up with capturing accurate colors, etc.
To give you an idea, see how a professional painter can be nerdy on all those subtleties when taking picture of his own artwork:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk4tO7wd-tA 
