PDA

View Full Version : Anyone know where i can find a perspective guide PSD?


ArtZealot
January 9th, 2008, 03:01 PM
I'm just looking for a perspective guide in PSD form if anyone knows where i can find one. I don't feel like making one.

Earendil
January 9th, 2008, 03:50 PM
Actually, if you download M@'s brushset he has a "Vanishing Point" brush. Just click where you want, and you've created your perspective grid.

Don't forget to lock the layer tho. :bleh:

DavidCousens
January 10th, 2008, 02:24 AM
Is there a link to the brushes please? For some reason the search doesn't recognise M@...?

nofingers
January 10th, 2008, 03:06 AM
Its actually m@.
m@.'s sketchbook (with brushes) (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73169)

lavhoes
January 11th, 2008, 04:42 PM
These things are so piss-easy to make I really don't blame you for looking for one, just to save yourself the minor bit of effort and trouble. Though m@'s brush is absolutely awesome and I've been using it every day, I have been bumping into a couple things when using it in my own work. For one, it has a huge dead zone in the middle around the VP due to all the lines converging. You can see the individual lines when you zoom in, but for bigger, production-quality images it's really hard to get over that. Also, since there's a hard limit on the size of the brush, you wind up having to stretch and skew it so much you find yourself spending a little more effort to get it to fit with what you need than it would take to just go at it with a line tool.

But don't take me griping as a condemnation of the brush, it's absolutely fantastic, but with most things in art you'll find yourself doing a lot of the grunt work yourself to better work with the image you're creating. The successful creation of concept art, I've found, requires a keen sense of resourcefulness. You've got to learn when to use premade stuff to speed up the process, and when to just do it from scratch quickly to fit your purpose. If I relied on m@'s brush totally, some of my pieces would've suffered or taken longer, but if I didn't use it still others would've suffered as well. It's give and take.

ArtZealot
January 11th, 2008, 05:32 PM
Thanks guys! got the brush and got my painting going.

m@.
January 11th, 2008, 09:08 PM
These things are so piss-easy to make I really don't blame you for looking for one, just to save yourself the minor bit of effort and trouble. Though m@'s brush is absolutely awesome and I've been using it every day, I have been bumping into a couple things when using it in my own work. For one, it has a huge dead zone in the middle around the VP due to all the lines converging. You can see the individual lines when you zoom in, but for bigger, production-quality images it's really hard to get over that. Also, since there's a hard limit on the size of the brush, you wind up having to stretch and skew it so much you find yourself spending a little more effort to get it to fit with what you need than it would take to just go at it with a line tool.

But don't take me griping as a condemnation of the brush, it's absolutely fantastic, but with most things in art you'll find yourself doing a lot of the grunt work yourself to better work with the image you're creating. The successful creation of concept art, I've found, requires a keen sense of resourcefulness. You've got to learn when to use premade stuff to speed up the process, and when to just do it from scratch quickly to fit your purpose. If I relied on m@'s brush totally, some of my pieces would've suffered or taken longer, but if I didn't use it still others would've suffered as well. It's give and take.

agreed!
Glad you like the brush. And I've been thinking of that middle zone too. I'm gonna make a new one with less lines in the middle to have more precision there. Also, brush size is limited to 2500, so you will have some blur when stretching the brush to fit your perspective and even more when working in high res.
For Highres work I definitely recommend using 1pixel lines. A psd would be cool, but my everyday job is more oriented towards fast sketches than accurate high res pictures, and in this case the brush is quite useful I think.

Ian Mack
January 11th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Well I'm just going to have to see what this brush is all about then!

DavidCousens
January 12th, 2008, 02:42 AM
Ah. it was the full-stop that was throwing me, cheers nofingers. :) Oh and thanks M@ while I'm at it!

Sepulverture
January 12th, 2008, 10:29 AM
Ah. it was the full-stop that was throwing me, cheers nofingers. :) Oh and thanks M@ while I'm at it!

Not M@, m@ ;)

lavhoes
January 13th, 2008, 11:57 PM
agreed!
Glad you like the brush. And I've been thinking of that middle zone too. I'm gonna make a new one with less lines in the middle to have more precision there. Also, brush size is limited to 2500, so you will have some blur when stretching the brush to fit your perspective and even more when working in high res.
For Highres work I definitely recommend using 1pixel lines. A psd would be cool, but my everyday job is more oriented towards fast sketches than accurate high res pictures, and in this case the brush is quite useful I think.

I just wanted to take a moment and thank you profusely for the brushes you have provided! You have a damn fine grasp of handling the balance between too many and too few brushes; the brushes are specific enough to get the right details where you need them, but generic enough to where you can use a good number of them for more than one task and you don't wind up having to wait 5 minutes for photoshop to load up the vast selection.

I've been working on supplementing my own to your set, since I feel bad cribbing another artist's brushes for my own work (though you offer them up and they are pretty damn awesome), but the inspiration rests on your initial offering of brushes back in...'05 I think, and then this latest set in '07, without which I wouldn't have learned as much as I have over the past couple of years. So again, thank you for the immense help!

DavidCousens
January 14th, 2008, 02:41 AM
Not M@, m@ ;)

Hehe, actually I think it's "m@." not "m@" ...you realise this game could go on for a while? ;)