figure drawing from stereoscopic pictures?

Join 500,000+ Artists

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: figure drawing from stereoscopic pictures?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    La Paz
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    figure drawing from stereoscopic pictures?

    Ok, so I have a problem, in my city there are no places where I can attend nude figure drawing sessions, I already know the importance of doing studies from life and all, I do draw from life, for example people in the street or public places, but I cant practice with nude figure drawing study sessions, because there are not in my city.
    I'm wondering if it could be possible to do "life" studies from stereoscopic 3d pictures. since the model is in 3d and not a flat 2d picture. like this one.
    (anaglyph 3d)
    http://www.3d6.com/3dartbits/becca515_A.jpg
    http://www.3d6.com/3dartbits/dawn235_A.jpg
    http://www.3d6.com/3dartbits/robin622_A.jpg
    http://users..be/thomasweynan...reo-nudes.html
    It's possible?

    Or
    if not a good idea then
    can u give some advice in other options to study anatomy and figure drawing?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    2,336
    Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,414 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Isn't better than a model. But beats photos, that's for sure.

    Another method would be getting the Virtual Pose books and "rocking" the Quicktime turnarounds back and forth a little. That also gives you a fair idea of the volume.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,669 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    Isn't better than a model. But beats photos, that's for sure.
    I disagree. There's some discussion of this (and photos vs. life in general) in this thread. Here's my take:
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwell View Post
    So, you're going to draw with anaglyph glasses on?;P

    I really shouldn't have to explain this, but...

    The problem isn't depth, it's form. A stereoscopic photo is still taken from one viewpont. Take a stereoscopic photo and look at it from an angle. It's not the same as looking at an actual object. If anything, viewing a stereo picture from anything but it's optimal distance/angle is more distracting than a flat photo, because the stereo effect is so dependent on reproducing the conditions it was taken under. I think this plays into why so many 3D movies are distracting rather than immersive. It's kind of like the uncanny valley effect: we accept flat images without question, we accept reality without question, but anything in between gets iffy.



    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    HELLsinki, Finland
    Posts
    4,860
    Thanks
    345
    Thanked 2,687 Times in 1,646 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by artista_solitario View Post
    since the model is in 3d and not a flat 2d picture.
    But they're not, aren't they? It's still a 2D picture you're looking at, only with questionable illusion. Or two 2D pictures. Also honestly I don't know how comfortable that would be in the long run.
    There's been lots of talk about drawing from photos and how to use them correctly in here, definitely suggest you to read this through: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=221546

    Also here's an option for you, a large mirror. Or hit the beach if possible. If you have friends who understand, ask them to pose in swimsuits etc.

    EDIT: GODDAMN ELWELL! Stealing my link thunder...

    "I eat comics and poop stylization"
    Comic!
    Sketchbook (Critiques, no compliments please.)
    Tumblr
    Website
    Livejournal
    DeviantArt
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to TinyBird For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    669
    Thanked 537 Times in 295 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Think of it this way:

    Stereoscopic images are a gimmicky illusion which garners reactions varying from "Nifty" to "Headaches".

    Classical paintings are a painfully handcrafted illusion tempered by a lifetime of training and are in every way successful examples of what you are attempting yourself.

    Which do you think would be a more fruitful resource? A photo with a gimmicky filter or a Velasquez?

    -My work can be found at my local directory thread.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,055
    Thanks
    2,336
    Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,414 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwell View Post
    I disagree. There's some discussion of this (and photos vs. life in general) in this thread. Here's my take:
    Point taken.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •