loomis: figure in perspective? help
i hope this is the right part of the forum to ask for help. i've been been going through loomis's 'Fun With a Pencil' and i've found it extremely helpful in how to build figures, but now i've gotten to the perspective part of the book and i'm struggling with this part as it seems very light on explanation compared to the previous sections. in particular, im struggling with page 100, where he begins to show the figure in perpective with form. he has a large cylinder representing a figure in one point perspective but i cannot figure how exactly he builds the form of it. like the ellipses and how they narrow as they get closer to horizon. i don't get how he establishes the depth to make this exact. the figure itself in perspective looks much more difficult. im not sure where to even begin with that.
i have some ideas based on other perspective stuff i've read, but i don't see how he expects me to build it on my own if this were the first book i were to ever have read on drawing (since i think thats what its goal was). but i don't know, maybe im just complaining because im frustrated. i was making a lot of progress with this book but now it's come to a halt.
any help would be very appreciated
Hide this ad by registering as a member
Fun with a pencil, while a good book, is a little light on the technical explanations. For a more thorough look at perspective (and a bunch of other stuff), check out Loomis' other books, particularly Successful Drawing and Figure Drawing for All It's Worth.
The Following User Says Thank You to Noah Bradley For This Useful Post:
Loomis eyeballs perspective. The exact sections of each form don't matter, because noone knows exactly what they are, that's why he use ellipsesque sections for everything. To be more accurate the torso could have a 6 sided section, the calves a 3 sided one, but like I said it doesn't matter because noone has x-ray vision. The most important thing is that when things are above our eyes we see their bottoms, when things are below we see their tops.
An alternative to thinking of these cylinders as forms is to think of them as volumes. Form is an exact physical thing with specific contours. Volume refers only to the general amount of displaced air with disregard to the exact contours of the object. Volume only depicts the amount of space that will be occupied when the actual drawing is put in.
"Beliefs are rules for action"
"Knowledge is proven in action."
"It's use is it's meaning."
The Following User Says Thank You to armando For This Useful Post:
All that he's trying to show you with that diagram is that a figure always has perspective, horizon, eye levels and vanishing points because disregarding those is a classic beginner mistake.
Hit up the other books for the technicalities.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:
Shouldn't the ellipses be free of foreshortening since they represent a circle in perspective?
Absolutely not. One end is going to have a smaller curve than the other, because it's farther away.
Originally Posted by Ninjerk
If Ninjerk meant what you understood, MiniGoth, i think i disagree with you. I went into photoshop to try to draw what you described and it didnt work, have an example? I always visualised ellipses as symmetrical shapes.
Yep there's probably a bit of that. Like Noah and Flake said, check out the other books too, "succesful drawing" has a chapter that addresses all this stuff.
Originally Posted by royaltea
Last edited by SM; August 18th, 2009 at 10:08 AM.
Reason: think i'd misunderstood Ninjerk
Nah, MiniGoth is quite right. Perspective is law, not even ellipses can escape it. It's just how reality works.
Originally Posted by S.M
Hmm reread Minigoth's post, s/he describes an ellipse that has a smaller curve (the farthest end) and a fatter one, meaning that ellipses can be/are not symmetrical and that's what i disagreed with.
In your diagram, a) b) and c) all show symmetrical ellipses. Only d) doesnt but d) is also incorrect as its inscribed on a cube constructed with two too close vanishing points, a common 2pt perspective mistake.
Frankly i dont care about being right, as long as im not wrong...
Last edited by SM; August 18th, 2009 at 04:03 PM.
Reason: tryin 2 spel gud
This is where you have to start combining many different ideas and concepts. There''s alot to swallow. What you see on those drawings by Loomis, are simplified and conceptualized forms. If you don't know exactly what that means, Bridgman has a great pointer in his introduction in this book. (Apologize if I'm not very helpful here).
the figure itself in perspective looks much more difficult. im not sure where to even begin with that.
Search the user kChen. He has a bunch of great drawings that demonstrate how you can simplify the masses of the pelvis, ribcage and so on. If you can apply convincing anatomy to the simple masses of eggs, bell shapes, cylinders and boxes etc, you have come pretty far. Apply this to life drawings,with the focus shifted on to natural appearance....
'tis a long road ahead
By iByron in forum ART DlSCUSSION
Last Post: April 17th, 2013, 11:34 AM
By rktoons in forum FINE ART
Last Post: December 19th, 2012, 04:58 AM
By Xeon_OND in forum ART CRITIQUE CENTER
Last Post: September 15th, 2009, 11:30 AM
By whitepython in forum ART DlSCUSSION
Last Post: January 18th, 2009, 12:10 AM
By Death in forum ART DlSCUSSION
Last Post: March 14th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Members who have read this thread: 1
Developed Actively by vBSocial.com