Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 65
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,484
    Thanks
    2,460
    Thanked 2,499 Times in 1,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Daafone, artistic perspective is not science. Its just a cheesy quick fix to get some stuff in certain locations on your picture to look correct. As soon as you begin to rely on it, it will make your picture awkward looking. You must keep correcting it by eye.
    It's very much a science, Kev. If you "fake it" and eyeball everything, it does not mean that there is no method to do it precisely.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    arenhaus: I love your method, I was trying to do the same. I'll try it ASAP!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Anid Maro View Post
    Deleted my posts on account I don't want incorrect information sticking around.

    I 'squared' away, so to speak, my earlier mistake but I'm not going to bother any farther, as evidently squares in perspective are some arcane secret to only be answered with "read the fucking manual" and "Look up your own tutorial, don't bother me".

    Not that it's everyone's attitude, but it seems to be the prevailing one.

    So sorry Daafone, I guess go read a book or figure it out or something.
    Gimme a fucking break Anid. If you need someone to show you how to read a book you're lost from the start.

    And I'm sorry, "read a book or figure it out or something" is exactly right.

    Perspective is well understood and has been for 600 years. There's mountains of material written on it. Some makes sense to some people, some makes sense to others...the individual needs to care enough, and be curious enough about it to not have someone walk them through their obtuse little micro-question.

    Edit: BTW, never, in my wildest dreams would I have whined about this kind of thing and kept pestering people about it. I would have read the fucking manual and gone and figured it out. I'm guessing any other professional artist on here did the same.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Can we please talk only about my question? This thread may be useful in future to others, so why do we have to flame?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by daafone View Post
    Can we please talk only about my question? This thread may be useful in future to others, so why do we have to flame?
    Sure, your question is best answered by practice, study and effort to understand the principles of perspective. A variety of books, that make sense to you, will be the best guide as you practice many of the challenges you will face when trying to learn perspective.

    Because Anid called me out on what I thought was the best advice I could offer.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 46 Times in 42 Posts
    Thanks for taking the time to draw that up, arenhaus. I'm curious about why the rightmost two points on the elevation (thought that was actually a "plan"?) square are directly below the points on the perspective square, while the rightmost point on the elevation square seemingly isn't directly below the corresponding point on the perspective square. Is that a property of perspective, or am I looking at the diagram incorrectly, or is it tiny accumulated errors, or something else?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,906 Times in 2,547 Posts
    Pretty sure you're right on the money there arenhaus - sort of reverse engineering a bit to get the plan view then moving forward again to establish the perspective. Nice job!

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 46 Times in 42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cider View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to draw that up, arenhaus. I'm curious about why the rightmost two points on the elevation (thought that was actually a "plan"?) square are directly below the points on the perspective square, while the rightmost point on the elevation square seemingly isn't directly below the corresponding point on the perspective square. Is that a property of perspective, or am I looking at the diagram incorrectly, or is it tiny accumulated errors, or something else?
    After puzzling through this a bit, I can elaborate my question. In step #3, I expected you to draw a line between pt A and the rightmost point in the perspective rectangle, and then drop a perpendicular from where that line crosses the HL to find the width of the rectangle in plan. If you feel like wasting more time on this, I'd love to learn more

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,623
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 537 Times in 384 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    I built this demo rather quickly from memory, so double-checks are welcome.
    That's a really helpful Fucking Manual for many to read. Note that it is limited to squares with the frontmost point dead in the center of vision, horizontally. I prefer to start with the stationary point and take it from there.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,082
    Thanks
    1,529
    Thanked 5,197 Times in 1,728 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    It's very much a science, Kev. If you "fake it" and eyeball everything, it does not mean that there is no method to do it precisely.
    Don't misunderstand me. I am a firm believer in the genius of the system you just gave a primer to. (Particularly fascinating is the addition of elevations and floor plans into the mix. It took a lot of brilliance to figure all this stuff out) I encourage every artist to learn it, master it, love it, appreciate it. Etc.

    However, it is a technique. It is not science.

    A linear retreat of perspective is not what actually happens as an object retreats from the eye. The fall off just seems linear from a certain distance. Objects actually retreat from our vision under much more complicated equations, the solutions to which become more or less asymptotic/indistinguishable with linearity beyond some distance only.

    Secondarily, the surface of the earth is curved. The consequences of this are enormous. Anything based on a single horizon line and straight perspective lines beyond a certain point will be incorrect because of the curvature of the plane at a distance, and will be even more curved at the deepest corners of our vision field. Any particular building can be correct in planar perspective in relation to itself (assuming good carpentry.) But using the same parameters to orient another building which is miles from it in the distance will not be a true relationship.

    So, taken together - the falsity of the use of perspective for things in close, and the falsity of the use of perspective for things beyond a certain point... we must appreciate that what we are talking about is a technical procedure which just approximates things (and which is enormously useful in doing so.)

    Let me reemphasize: I did not mean to discourage the understanding of the perspective techniques generally in use by the student artist. It is essential technical information.

    kev

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,623
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 537 Times in 384 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Secondarily, the surface of the earth is curved. The consequences of this are enormous.
    I beg to disagree here: it is really not noticable in daily life, just as it is not relevant for a carpenter.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,484
    Thanks
    2,460
    Thanked 2,499 Times in 1,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cider View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to draw that up, arenhaus. I'm curious about why the rightmost two points on the elevation (thought that was actually a "plan"?) square are directly below the points on the perspective square, while the rightmost point on the elevation square seemingly isn't directly below the corresponding point on the perspective square. Is that a property of perspective, or am I looking at the diagram incorrectly, or is it tiny accumulated errors, or something else?
    It's just a shortcut to get the scale of the square's elevation plan. Ultimately it does not really matter what scale the plan is, since every square with two sides lying on the same vp1-a and vp2-a lines will share the same diagonal vanishing point, so I just used the perpendicular.

    Of course, you'll want all other measurements to be done with diagonals from there on, or you'll get distortions.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to arenhaus For This Useful Post:


  15. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,484
    Thanks
    2,460
    Thanked 2,499 Times in 1,548 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    So, taken together - the falsity of the use of perspective for things in close, and the falsity of the use of perspective for things beyond a certain point... we must appreciate that what we are talking about is a technical procedure which just approximates things (and which is enormously useful in doing so.)
    Kind of like Newton's laws of motion are false, because you need Lorentz's model to get it really right... right?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 2

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
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook