Before I develop this environment I'd like your opinion.
How is the lighting, perspective, and does it does the overall image read?
Is there anything about it that has you wondering wtf? I'm trying to get early stages to work well. thank you!
Before I develop this environment I'd like your opinion.
How is the lighting, perspective, and does it does the overall image read?
Is there anything about it that has you wondering wtf? I'm trying to get early stages to work well. thank you!
The perspective seems pretty skewed, especially on the upper parts of the picture, to an extent where it's starting to look like an optic illusion of some kind. Also I think some of the buildings don't exactly follow perspective. If you feel like going ahead with an extreme perspective like this, I suggest guide lines. Composition feels good, values are tight. What are those black borders on each side of the painting?
The black borders were an accident that I liked but I'm not sure why. They will go probably go away but I left them for now to see if anything comes of it.
Yeah, the perspective is really blown out. The original sketch was a skyline in a horizontal format. It's the same perspective and those buildings loosely painted at the bottom look more natural. I was experimenting and lengthened the canvas and kept the same perspective and just built upwards making the mega structures.
I like that it is blown out and think it could make for an exciting piece. But is it too blown out? Maybe I just need to go for it. Maybe it needs a third vanishing point with this much height.
Compare by yourself:
For stylization with wrong perspective on purpose, they're too close to a right perspective in order to get it as intended, so either correct it or more exaggerate it.
Derra: Yes, you need a 3rd Vanishing point when you see a tall building from above. Actually in reality there are always 3 VPs but one's distortion is so little that you may not see it. Remember that they lie to us in drawing books: VPs don't proyect stright lines, but instead curves, look at a train in a station, if your in the middle of the hall, you can see one VP to the right, one to the left, and the front seems pretty stright, but it ends in both this VPs, so clearly it's not stright.
You can achive the distortion needed for the 3rd VP copying the merged image and using Transform>Warp to curve it.
By the way is a pretty good painting, I overpainted a little not very well, but you'll see my points. Maybe it's a little foggy in the floor, you surley wanted the effect; but it may be too much. If I were you, I think I'd continue a little more, adding some tiny details and such.
Thank you for the crit. I didn't know about the curvature that takes place with perspective. Thank you. The paint over is appreciated too, something to work against. I'm going to read more about what you've pointed out and work it into this. thanks.
Thanks for taking time to crit this Lennon, Swamp Thing, and Kauil.
Atmospheric perspective is 3 dimensional. It applies to height of objects as well, so the shadow of the object in the sky shouldn't be that dark. Albeit more dust partciles are closer to the ground.
You shouldn't always rely on perspective lines for drawing forms if you don't fully understand it, sometimes you want to rely on your intuition. This is the case for because your boxes in perspective are distorted due to improper construction of perspective.
There is a lack of 3 point perspective. You want to convey a bit of 3 point perspective in a scene like this. It doesn't have to be perfect 3 point perspective, you need to construct it enough such that it conveys 3 point perspective to our intuitions, but it is important to read about 3 point perspectives first.
Last edited by Vay; January 13th, 2012 at 06:19 AM.
Twinkle, twinkle little star
I don't wonder what you are
For by spectroscopic ken
I know that you are hydrogen - Ian D.
Awesome, thank you Vay.
Your VPs are place much too close together is the problem. This causes distortion and makes it look off. While I agree you need a third VP in the sky for tall forms, I don't agree that the lines will curve. Parallel, straight lines simply don't curve...and it is the projection of these lines to a vanishing point that establishes the perspective (for that particular object). Objects perpendicular and parallel to each other project to the same vanishing points.
While this was probably taken with a fisheye lense as a few pictures and stitched together later, you could see this in real life
if you were to step there in the midle of the train and you were to tilt your head, you just have to think about it a little to see
that this is true. JeffX99VP lines ALWAYS curve. I have no doubt about it and there are no exceptions, but the
distortion is usually to little to notice, and you´ll never see much of the curve without tilting your head.
As mentioned in this picture you see to VP that are too close; but this doesn´t need to be a mistake, it could be an effect, and
if they are to close and the artist wants them that way, the curve will show. People like Escher use this effect a lot, an many
others too will add some curvature to show a bigger image.
You don´t need to study perspective, you just need to mediatate about it, and understand why it happens the way it happens.
A wide angle or fish-eye photo is a really poor example to illustrate this point as it is not even close as to how human binocular vision sees. Perspective is simply the effect of parallel lines converging in the distance. Parallel lines do not curve. They don't appear to curve...at least to human vision...they are by definition, straight.
And of course artists can play with perspective as much as they want for dramatic effect...it doesn't mean straight lines curve in reality. I think you don't really understand perspective well enough and have been too influenced by photography.
Anyway, if you're going to offer advice and give examples please make sure you understand what you're talking about. Not saying this to be rude or create conflict, but perspective is confusing enough for inexperienced artists without adding a bunch of completely inaccurate information.
I have to aggree with Jeff. For the example with the train: I saw some good artworks with this curve, however this by combining 2 different perspectives - for example with the view on a tower up in the sky and at the same time down to the ground - camera positioned in the mid. But that's kinda experimental and also the curve mainly was in the mid, where both perspectives are connecting, barely in each perspetive (up and down view) In the photo with the train, that proves - the curve is where those perspectives connect only.
When you look into both directions of a train at the same time, you're not having human eyes (not entirely sure but I even believe the curve is only created because you're turning your head in a curve when switching perspective). You can just decide which direction you're looking at, left end of the train, right end of the train or directly on the wagon in front of you. But each standing for it self, without involving your turning head wont really show a curve.
So imho the main issue is, like said, where you put the VPs, usually I find that they're more dynamous when they're closer to each other, however at a certain point it is too close, resulting in having them look wrong, and this is basically where the right feeling is needed. I used to built my reference with sketchup (really nice 3D prog for perspective help, very easy and fast to learn and also fast to operate with) because you could switch the VPs in this programm with the advantage of seeing before if it works or not, while maya for example didn't allow me this (sorry if that is a wrong information, I just never found any possible way of doing so).
As stated before (when I clarified that this was stitched probably from a Fish eye lens) you can see this in real life. You can always just go to your train station and see it..
The fact that YOU can`t see both VP at the same time doesn`t mean that the lines aren`t curving, they are curving even if it gives the illusion that thy`re not. The train example is a real life example. if you watch a train you`ll be able to see both vanishing points by just by tilting your head, but yet if you watch the middle part it looks stright, if it weren`t slighlty curving, both VP would meet in the middle in a very unrealistic way producing an angle. But that doesn`t happen in real life. It may have happened in those "draw perspective the marvel way" books they used to gave us, but not in real life.
You can all line up again this but doesn`t make it less true. VP lines always curve an always will.
Swamp thing said that the curving was just “experimental” since no human could see both VP points at the same time, but, Swamp Thing: you don`t need to see both VP to see the curve, it will start progressively as you approach the middle from eithr side. A fish eye lens would make this more evident, but this is there all the time. So, in our case, since the building was starting to tilt to the upper VP, the curve would start to get more pronounced there. True that mine was a little exaggerated, that`s an effect, but the fact of VP lines curving is real, and foundamental to understand VPs well, and not the other way around.
Conflict is unnecessary, I don`t have anything against any of you for not believing what I`m saying. I know that both think honestly that you`re making a good thing by posting, so I don`t recent any of you in any way, you`re only trying to be helpful. But since we can communicate, let me say that after hearing your views, I think that my first post was accurated and shall not change it, nor will I stop saying that VP lines are curved to people that`s learning them, since it describes the optical effect in an adequate fashion.
I`ll let Derra and any of you decide what you may or may not believe.
Sorry for the OT...
Sadly it's deep in the night here and I'm horribly tired. But istead of photographing a train to proof, I'll try it this way:
Again, I didn't said that drawing such a curve is "wrong", as long as you are going for it, when you try to combine 2 perspectives. But as long as you're not making a camera movement by turning the camera in a curve (or the eyes in your head), saving the captured route in a single picture, there wont be such a curve. Try to make normal photographs of a train into both directions, moving it slightly with every single snap you take (not like the photograph example), what will come out is something like this:
(sorry for the ugly train)
Okay and now the key message:
Cut them together, the more photos you made while turning, the shorter the snips will be - result - the more smooth the curve will look.
In my case itd be like that - pretty cornered because I didnt make many "photographs" between left and right end of the train
Put thousands or millions of pictures between those, and cut them together, taking 1 row of pixels from the first, then the 2nd row of pixels from the second photograph etc etc. The ultimate way would be an unlimited amount photographs. What will come out? A curve. But pick out just 1 of them and you wont have a curve, just straight lines. In RL (or with a camera flow) it's like taking an unlimited amount of pictures on the way from left to right. BUt still when picking out 1 of them, it's straight line (of course taking the whole picture from this perspective, since - if cut together, it would be one of unlimited amount of pictures, so a ... well a blank short snippel.) It's basically like with creating a sphere out of polygons. The more polygons, the more it will become looking like a curveand again, the ultimate curve (RL curve or nurbs) would be then with an unlimited amount of polygons. However cutting out one of the unlimited polygons (unlimited small, so in this case so small that it is not existing) will be not round, it will be flat.
Pretty confusing, especially with my english, but I hope it's understandable.
Now however of course, you can make this curve in artworks too, but with the knowledge of showing a scenery you can't view with normal human eyes in 1 sight (only with a sight-turn).
Last edited by Swamp Thing; January 14th, 2012 at 02:37 AM.
Reading through these comments is awesome. I think a lot of us learn with those kind of straight to the point debates.
Last edited by Derra; January 14th, 2012 at 05:56 AM.
Last edited by Derra; January 14th, 2012 at 09:07 AM.
adjusted cropping of ship in image. created three points of interest in a triangle. working the colors against each other symmetrically and values are mirroring each other roughly.
Nice update, though I think I might be seeing it too dark as well so maybe a secondary light source Like Lhune suggested would counteract that.
No comment to make on the perspective thing, other than an instinctive recognition (I'm no expert on perspective by any means) that just because the human eye might perceive a curve in lines running away to distant vanishing points, that doesn't necessarily mean they curve in real life (if they did, architects would really struggle). And while the curve thing might be cool to try to incorporate in art, I don't think it reads well from a viewer point of view and tend to see it more as a failing in photographic scenes rather than a must-have.
But thats just personal taste on my part, and without reading all the comments above, I'm probably adding an irrelevant two bob's worth.
Anyway, back to Derra's image. I really like what you're doing and I just wanted to post some encouragement. Good luck, and I'll be watching to see how it turns out.
This should clear all doubts:
"The system uses curving perspective lines instead of straight converging ones to approximate the image on the retina of the eye, which is itself spherical, more accurately than the traditional linear perspective, which uses straight lines and gets very strangely distorted at the edges."
Aparently DaVinci and most of the renacentist knew about this when they created the first method.
Swamp, Since you don't say that lines don't curve, just that it's perhaps more practical to draw them stight, you and I don't really desagree. About your picture It's easy to see that what you end up in the second case, it's an image with closer VPs and a curve more apparent. If you bring the VPs further from each other, the curve will be less apparent but still be there. It may be imperceptible for the most part, but it's there. Just think of having the train infornt of you, and if I say this it's only because many years ago I did the test, and I did catch the curve.
Fisheye lens it's just like our eye, but it's still more round. The opposite is a tele lense. If you get very far away and you exagerate the use of this lense it flattens the image to an unrealistic way, giving the sensation of the image beign almost completly orthogonal (no perspective). Then the lines will be almost perfectly stright. It's good to reflect about this to understand what's happening and the important of the lens that the spectator is using (even if it's the lens in his eye).
And Candra: Architects don't use VP to make buildings, they use actual matter. VPs are an optical effect. In reality parallel lines never converge, so VPs are just an effect of us watching. But architects don't draw with perspective, instead they draw it how it really is: In ortographic. Perspective, I repeat, is just how we percieve it.
The new version of the drawing: I think it has improved tremendously. I'd probablly put some whiter colour under the spaceship, but it's a very solid composition this far, you have done a great job with it.
You may still throw in a few little details here and there to add the final touch. I think that if you smooth every corner, make every texture and material work as good as possible, you'll have a great piece. And add a few tiny details if you can, to bring an extra life to it, perhaps putting garbage, or some wires hanging, a tiny architecture detail here and there, and antena, you know, those things that give a real sense that people lives there.
Congratulations, it's really looking very good.
Last edited by lennon; January 14th, 2012 at 10:31 PM.
It is took dark, I'll keep that in mind as keep working.
I brought some background blue in to help carve the silhouette of the foreground ship.
Next, I think I need to get more specific about the ship, cop car, and building designs.
I'm experimenting with the color, I brought more blue into the left half of the piece as the complimentary color of the fire. I'm trying to use the color tension to insinuate a connection between the foreground ship and the fire taking above. That's one the experiments with this painting.
I just posted before seeing your update. That's a good link. thanks.
Yeah, I think you're right, I need to tighten it up and start designing out and adding details.
thanks for info and crits.
Thanks Candra and Lhune!
Last edited by Derra; January 14th, 2012 at 11:30 PM.
Everything in your design is saying "look up!" and the frame within a frame created by the building (combined with the high contrast) means my attention is going primarily to an area that...has nothing in it.
The fact that the ship running away (which took me a few minutes to figure out - I thought it was entering from frame left) is so...'flat' (we don't see a bit of the top or the bottom) is a little odd, considering the idea that we the viewer are looking up at what's going on. What purpose does the fire on top of the building serve? How does it add to the story?
Also, regarding the whole perspective discussion: Considering that created images are meant to serve as the center of the viewer's visual interest where distortion tends to be minimal, there's no reason not to use linear perspective. It really depends on what the artist is doing. It also allows ANY part of the painting to serve as a visual center, so the painting doesn't look strange as people allow their attention to wander.
As for the picture: I'm not sure if it was mentioned yet, however wthout any explanation on this, I just keep asking myself what exactly those elements are representing? Are they going to be buildings with windows and such? Or is it just something experimental? Because the in general futuristic scene really doesn't point out anything that would make sense in relation to these elements. Also I'd leave some space on the upside, completing the forms and adding some focal point there. Right now, all they do is leading out of the picture.
Sorry I hope it's ok to add this on this topic. If not, please move to a fitting place with its own thread.
Wikipedia (also not always including right information) isn't really stating that perspectives have a curve, just that a curve is possible, but not in 1 single perspective. The way you have a perspective on an object depends on the way you are viewing it. And no, by looking on a train, standing in front of it you will not have a curve to your left and to your right, as long as you are looking at it fixed and straight, without turning your head or trying to focus on the views edges in your canthus. The curve in perspective is a phenomen that happens in action. That's what I tried to explain with my example. A fixed perspective, not combined with a second perspective or caught in action of a perspective change wont have any curve. So if you're looking at a train in front of you, you wont see this:
Instead you will just see paralel horizonal lines. By going away further, you will still just have horizonal parallel lines, you will just see more of the train. It will only tilt as soon as you change your sight, turning your eyes either to the left or the right.
A curve only is made by switching the perspective, and it will be depending on HOW you switch perspective.
This is the curve that happens when you're turning like in the photo example you showed:
Rotating (curving) camera with you being the pivot point:
However now what if the pivot point is the object, or to make it less confusion, the way you rotate your view is visa versa? Then the curve in the viewed object will automatically look appropiate to this:
If however you are not changing perspective by rotating but moving in a straight line, there wont be a curve, the object will stay in horizonal lines too:
The simple explanation is, that there is no curve in the lines coming from the VPs, the curve is what you are making, depending on how you change your perspective in action. Of course some artists do implement such curves in their paintings, it's just a dynamous way of combining all perspectives that are created from switching your view from point A to point B in action. And of course the first example (the curve with the pivot point being you) is used rather than the second example (the pivot being the object or any fictive point in front of you) - just because it feels strange this way. Because people looking around will rather look at long objects like trains or high buildings by rotating their head to look around, than focusing on a fix point on this object, rotating themself around it (this would be rather an option for looking on a small object like a sculpture just to see it from all sides /perspectives). Also in some cases this way it's impossible to draw, as changed perspective on any object could - if it is a more complex form - hide elements of itself and revealing them from another point of view.
But, as long as you are not changing perspective in a curve (may it you who changes position in a circle, or you rotating your head), or as long as you're not changing your perspective, there wont be any curves anywhere. And eventually to consider, what you may have in your canthus (edges of sight) or what happens through the 2 different pictures you see permanently in general (2 eyes in different positions = 2 perspectives - the thing that allows us to see in 3D) already is showing a different perspective.
Last edited by Swamp Thing; January 15th, 2012 at 01:05 AM.
rabbit run -
I agree, The fire isn't actually adding to a story in the shot right now, I put it in but have been fighting myself to keep it. It feels cheesey right now, if I keep it, I think the whole scene needs to play into the structure fire, at least the mega tower. . . not just one area.
The ship is wonky, I have been painting and repainting that. The last version is even flatter. I set it aside and I'm working on the architecture right now. The ship was entering the scene. I was imagining a moment where the ship was hiding out and this shot is right where one of the cops finds him. A moment where there is just a few seconds of pause/ realization before a chase takes off.
Swamp Thing: thanks for taking the time to put that together. That might be a post to have added to a sticky thread for reference.
I'm going to work on the architecture some more, then do some small thumbs rethinking the flying vehicles.. maybe the ship is flying up and cop cars are in the foreground cranking hard to change direction and move vertical in pursuit.
Lennon, you seem to have confused "curvilinear perspective" with linear perspective, which explains the miscommunication. The eye is of course spherical, however the area of the retina where light is focused and we see detail is called the "fovea" and is extremely small..not at all spherical. Focused human vision is only about 2 degrees...a larger area about 60 degrees of relatively good color and motion perception and then peripheral vision which extends out to roughly 140-180 gegrees...but is essentially just motion oriented.
Anyway, I'm all for discussion and differing opinions as well, as long as there is mutual respect and that people are open to learning. I don't have any resentment toward you either, I'm glad we can discuss the point. I've been studying and working with perspective since taking drafting and architecture classes in middle school....so roughly 40 years. I have nine books on perspective on my shelf right now that I can see, from technical architecture rendering oriented ones to perspective made easy, none of the "how to draw perspective the Marvel way". And I agree, it is up to the individual to research, study and decide which is the correct understanding of perspective theory.
I feel bad for hijacking the thread so much, apologies derra. The recent updates look much better...there is both drama and a sense of reality to them. Good job!
Jeffx99 - I think the critique section is great when points like these are brought up and tossed back and forth, have at it!
here's an update. So the black in the tower is a place holder for the next step of definition. I've worked the large masses first.
Really liking the latest update. There's a lot more interest in those buildings/block shapes now. I also think it might be cool if you had the foreground ship hiding at the base of the left most building just below where you've got that orange smudge. It would bring it into the composition better and read like it was hiding from the cop car rather than just randomly floating in the left corner the way you had it previously.
Aw, that's a good point Candra, thank you
towers are now under construction.