1. Soldier
Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
37
Thanks
28
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
At this point, I am really just getting a feel for drawing those boxes. I have in fact deliberately tried to keep the parallel lines parallel instead of having them converge on vanishing points, because I have noticed that this is in itself a skill I lack. I struggle mightily to draw two lines that are neatly parallel to each other. Also, I struggle even more to draw two squares or rectangles that are exactly the same size and shape (as they should be if I draw a box without converging lines). So I am now first trying to get that right. I think a lot of this is going to boil down to lots of practice.

In the meantime, thanks for all the input.

2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
3. ## The Following User Says Thank You to brianworx For This Useful Post:

4. You can easily practice parallel lines by just drawing lines next to each other
-Or getting into just section out pillars of for example old Greek architecture and just make them square?

Regardless, it's exciting to see your progress.
Personally, I agree with Eezacque's way of practicing the squares and spent most of my day with basically that exact procedure, just with trying to fit cylinders into the cubes instead...
I think it's not that bad of a start, just make sure to make some boxes with rulers too so you don't develop bad art habits... If you want to do the floating cubes in random positions, try first doing them with the help of 2-point perspective lines. Then practice 2point for a while before jumping to 3point?

Also, if you want to make random floating cubes, maybe get a real cube you can arrange in various angles and practice the real thing a bit just for kicks and lols?

5. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Trixtar For This Useful Post:

6. Soldier
Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
37
Thanks
28
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
A few quick scribbles before I once again had to go attend to other matters. Some more boxes in the 250 boxes thing:

I followed Trixtar's advice and did some in simple 1 and 2-point perspective, but soon abandoned the idea and, for the moment, returned to perspective-less boxes. Or at least, so I tried! Still have a mighty struggle to get opposite sides have the same size and shape. I also notice that I often get my 90 degree angles completely and utterly wrong: they look fine when I draw them, but once the box is done, it's all wonky. Same with parallel lines. On a scrap piece of paper I confirmed that I have no problem drawing 90 degree angles and parallel lines as such; it's when I do them in a box that they go all wrong. This happens particularly when I turn the paper into an unusual angle; II think I tend to look at the sides of the paper as a guide for horizontals and verticals, and with paper turned, that won't work!

For all these reasons, I am very enthusiastic about the box exercises: they really diagnose all manner of stuff I wasn't aware of, and they are forcing me to look and think in new ways. I don't foresee that I'll get them remotely right within 250 boxes. I'll likely draw far more than that.

Another two analyses of photos:

Not sure whether I am getting anywhere with these, but here too, I am forced to look and think in new ways. I notice that I struggle to work out whether a figure is remotely in proportion when the limbs are twisted. One more thing to pay careful attention to.

Have to get to work; gotta run.

7. Jester
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Posts
3,247
Thanks
282
Thanked 1,219 Times in 969 Posts
Originally Posted by brianworx
Not sure whether I am getting anywhere with these, but here too, I am forced to look and think in new ways. I notice that I struggle to work out whether a figure is remotely in proportion when the limbs are twisted. One more thing to pay careful attention to.
The legs and ribcage are too long. I suggest you study http://www.proko.com/human-figure-pr...ium-unit-hale/ for another way to tackle proportions.
Last edited by eezacque; 2 Days Ago at 10:36 AM. Reason: fixed tag

8. ## The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:

9. Soldier
Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
37
Thanks
28
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by eezacque
The legs and ribcage are too long. I suggest you study http://www.proko.com/human-figure-pr...ium-unit-hale/ for another way to tackle proportions.
Thanks, that will be of some use. I kind of struggle to measure proportions when the body is not in a neutral, standing position, and it helps to have a unit to use on individual limbs and stuff. Of course, in the Hale system it presupposes that I drew the cranium correctly to begin with! :-)

10. Soldier
Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
37
Thanks
28
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
More boxes. As with the previous bunch, I tried to draw them perspective-less, just trying to get near and far planes the same size. And once again failed with most of them. Some have improved a bit, I think, but many are still so far off I might as well have drawn two independent rectangles. I see I still struggle to draw 90 degree angles too. Well, maybe in another few hundred boxes it will improve. I do notice that I am increasingly aware of what kind of things I have to pay attention to while drawing them:

Some organic shapes. These I find much easier because they don't require the exactitude of the boxes:

And more figure analysis from photos. I followed eezacque's suggestion and studied the video on Hale's proportional system, and tried to apply it. Not sure I had much success; they all still look out of proportion to me, but it is difficult to say when figures are bent in strange angles:

I also don't quite understand Proko's video. More specifically, his explanation of how to use Hale's boxes to foreshorten. The problem is, I don't understand how to draw square-based boxes in perspective like this (still from the video):

Length 2 obviously must be less than length 1 in the image above, because it is a square seen in perspective. But how much shorter? How do I know how long to make it? I ran into the same problem with Loomis' flat figure in perspective, and I cannot find a book or website that explains it; Loomis and Proko makes it look logical and easy, but if I draw it I get it all wrong, partly because I can't work out what it is I am supposed to be drawing or aiming for.

Perhaps further study and practice will resolve this too...

11. Jester
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Posts
3,247
Thanks
282
Thanked 1,219 Times in 969 Posts
Originally Posted by brianworx
Some organic shapes. These I find much easier because they don't require the exactitude of the boxes:
Your ellipses are also a lot sloppier!

And more figure analysis from photos. I followed eezacque's suggestion and studied the video on Hale's proportional system, and tried to apply it. Not sure I had much success; they all still look out of proportion to me, but it is difficult to say when figures are bent in strange angles:
You may want to check whether the hip joint is halfway the figure, which is a quick way to check whether your figure makes sense. Of the standing figure, the legs are too short, of the figure bending over, the legs are too long.

I also don't quite understand Proko's video. More specifically, his explanation of how to use Hale's boxes to foreshorten. The problem is, I don't understand how to draw square-based boxes in perspective like this (still from the video):
You need to eyeball it. This is where the applicability of formal perspective ends.

12. ## The Following User Says Thank You to eezacque For This Useful Post:

13. Soldier
Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
37
Thanks
28
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by eezacque
Your ellipses are also a lot sloppier!
Still working on those - they are more difficult than straight lines because there isn't any "careful" way to do them! Nevertheless, I find this exercise far easier when it comes to visualizing stuff.

You may want to check whether the hip joint is halfway the figure, which is a quick way to check whether your figure makes sense. Of the standing figure, the legs are too short, of the figure bending over, the legs are too long.
Measuring with dividers on the bent over figure, the individual leg parts both seem to be three crania long, as they should be. But I can also see now that overall, they are too long. Not sure what went wrong, though I think these attempts are somewhat better than my earlier ones.

You need to eyeball it. This is where the applicability of formal perspective ends.
Ah, okay: simply knowing that already helps a lot, because I kept on thinking there's some trick here that I just don't know about.

As always, thanks for the input. Back to the drawing board!

14. Soldier
Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
37
Thanks
28
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Just to do something different for a change, quick, scribbled portraits. Neither is a good likeness.

Page 3 of 3 First 1 2 3

#### Posting Permissions

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

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast