[Gecko]

I decided I'd try and paint some shadows using complicated forms (well, complicated enough for me), and before I lose my faith I just wanna know if what I'm doing is the hard way and is there any easier ways to go about this.

Perspective isn't one of my stronger areas, so anyone with a little experience..

there's one vanishing point, light source is up in the sky and being sun it meets the ground at horizon, right? ERHF%�&/FG%

Drawing lines lines and lines is starting to annoy me.

OK, if any of that made sense and/or I presented a question somewhere in there, please answer, gah.

Oh and don't mind the shadows in the pic, I painted some of them wrong the first time, and am gonna get em togerher ret4t34t34ty3 bye.



------------------
Gecko
[email protected]
GeckoArt.Net

[edible snowman]

if thats you sucking at perspective, id hate to see you doing well at it. it looks like two vanishing points to me though. one thing i think about perspective is that sometimes you don't have to do a ton of work on it as long as it looks alright, even though it might not be perfect. I dont know a whole lot though so dont take my word for it.

[Nex]

I'm trying the same and got the same questions like gecko.

I wonder how francis does all this..

[Awetopsy]

hope this make at least a little sense.. after I draw all over it.

[edit] there!
------------------
Freeze, This is a holdup!! Give me all your Talent!!!

[This message has been edited by Awetopsy (edited February 21, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Awetopsy (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Gecko]

But that can't be right??

The point you are referring to as the second vanihshing point is the point where the lightsource hits the plane of the ground. It's needed to show where the shadows hit.

If it was the 2nd vanishing point, the other one couldn't possibly be right behind the the end of hallway, it would make things really distorted.

The end of the hallway is faced from dead ahead, the only vanishing point that would matter visibly on it would be a third one up in the sky?

Ok, let's modify the question a bit, if anyone who has experience with this, could tell us if this is the way they would go about creating a scene like this. How? In which order?

Of course if it looks good, the perspective rules can be broken, but I've noticed that things may look right to me even if everyone else points out distortions, more experienced eye needed.

------------------
Gecko
[email protected]
GeckoArt.Net

[Awetopsy]

I c what you mean... but in what youve shown us we are looking at the wall, of a hallway, not directly at the end of it.. which means there should be a vanishing point to that wall. ok my first pic was drastically wrong. so maybe this is better.



the way you are doing the shading is right and is a good idea.

sorry for my gimped up eye in the earlier one.

[This message has been edited by Awetopsy (edited February 21, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Awetopsy (edited February 21, 2001).]

[quaternius]

Gecko -
For one-point perspective you've got it right. Light ray's vanishing point above, shadow's vanishing point at the horizon line below it. I assume you've put all the construction lines for walls, floor, shadows, etc., on different layers so you can turn them off and on?

I think what may be throwing others off is that a one-point perspective generally has the vanishing point a bit closer to the centerof the pic - not so far off to the edge. When It gets towards the edge like this you probably want to use a 2 point perspective - but obviously that creates a new set of problems. So stick with this one-pointer for now, it's lookin' interesting and I wanta see how this works out!

Since I do this regularly, the two other methods I use are 3D grids from a 3D program; I know Spooge uses this method also (his macross box cover) - that way it saves you from drawing all the lines; but you have to make a few educated guesses here and there. Secondly, I build a simple 3D model and sunlight it, 'cause I don't like drawing lines and lines either - that's what I'm doing more and more,(a lot of the detail shadows can be guessed when the major shadow shapes are correct).

Hope this helps, or at least lets you know there aren't any superfast tricks - at least that I've come across. I'm all ears if someone else has got some quicker tips.

Q

[Gecko]

Ok, thanks. Having only 1 vpoint on the edge of the pic seems not to be the best of choices :]
So if I put the 2nd vanishing point in the pic like awetopsy, I could not have the other one right behind the door, but I'd have to move it farther to right and repaint the whole pic :Q

Then again, with simple cropping I can add a little wall to the right, the left side will be cropped once i don't need the light source or the shadow vpoint anymore.

This is already making more sense. Soon, I'm not going to have to see much more of those 'your perspective sucks' replies when i post my pics :]

------------------
Gecko
[email protected]
GeckoArt.Net

[Snake Grunger]

What would be easier would be to simply model this in 3DSMax and render it and paint over it or use it as reference.. There's too many lines and it's hard to determine where the shadows go, etc..

[Gecko]

Yes, easier.
But that would be like doing the matte cube excersices with 3d programs, purpose defeated.
No 3d program will help me when I try and do this on real canvas, so I better learn it first, then use the 3d grids & models.

------------------
Gecko
[email protected]
GeckoArt.Net

[Nex]

hmm you dont have to render it with light and all, just a wireframe that you can paint on maybe.

I I sat 4 hours yesterday constructing an airport ticket hall with lines and all on paper.
Then I did the same thing in 3d and I took about 1 hour for the same construction.

well but as you said. working on canvas is not really possible when you do it in 3d (except you print it or project it) and after all I guess its not bad to practice perspective-


[This message has been edited by Nex (edited February 22, 2001).]

[edible snowman]

ok, the light thing makes sense, i just wasn't paying attention to the fact that those were shadows. god i sound stupid when i type stuff...

[Rag]

Hey Gekko,
I'm going to post a 3D rendition of this for ya. No need to paint over it all, but you could take it into photoshop and map out all the horizon lines and then use those as a basis for your painted work. I wouldn't paint over another work, not that it's wrong, ya just don't learn nuthin. But like I said you could use the 3d version as a tool instead of crutch if that makes any sense. If you have rendering software and don't want me to do it for ya let me know. I just have tons of time on my hands after work is all.

[Gecko]

Thanks for the effort, it'll be interesting to see how different it turns out.

I don't have any 3d programs, or maybe some freeware stuff i never cared to unzip, but I set this topic up for a reason. It's because I want to know how things are done manually, 5 or 10 years ago no computer was calculating things for artists, so I'm interested in seeing how it was made back then.

I also believe that to get full advantage of 3d, one has to know the basics behind the tools he/she works with. So, after I can do this with my eyes closed (or at least one eye), I'll be happily see what 3d has to offer.
Until then, I want to be able to draw this to sand with the aid of a stick.

I worked some more on it, it's starting to look good, at least to me.

------------------
Gecko
[email protected]
GeckoArt.Net

[Rag]

I see your point totally about wanting to know the method behind good perspective and I believe you are on the right track for sure. But before there were computers the old masters set up all types of devices to achieve correct perspective, some of them amusing and some quite complex. It's funny to me that they saw perspective every day but were just getting around to trying to capture it in 2D.
This is an excerpt from a theory of David Hockney:
David Hockney first postulated his theory that artists may have "cheated" a bit when contemplating why so many of Ingres' drawings, displayed at London's National Gallery a year ago, were so tiny. After close study, Hockney realized that the strength and sureness of Ingres' lines reminded him of certain Andy Warhol drawings that he knew had been traced from photographs. While the portraits in the Ingres show could not have been done that way, Hockney was convinced that some kind of mechanical aid was involved. He asked himself, "In 1810 or so, what could Ingres have used?" His conclusion: the camera lucida.

and"...This whole insight about optical aids doesn't diminish anything; it merely suggests a different story, a more accurate one, perhaps- certainly a more interesting one."
-----David Hockney
so as you can see, there were no computers, but many early artists used mechanical methods to achieve what we think of as genius.
Happy drawing!
[edit] Here is the url to the article, you may find it interesting to see that the "masters" may have used all types of devices to achieve their "masterpieces".
http://www.specialtyarts.com/disc-guide.htm
[edit] After further reading of the article, I noticed that it was written by a realist that is trying to undermind Hockney's theories. I guess I can't say one way or the other since I wasn't alive back then, but there are several illustrations of artists such as Durer and DaVinci actively using devices to achive the proper perspective.
Sorry if I changed the whole thread subject, didn't mean to rant on so much. Old age is what I blame.
------------------
There are those who lead and those who follow..I just set back and laugh at all of 'em..

[This message has been edited by Rag (edited February 23, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Rag (edited February 23, 2001).]

[Gecko]

Thanks for both the article and the support. I was starting to feel like a stubborn idiot here :)

The pic is coming along nicely, gonna post it after I get it finished.

------------------
Gecko
[email protected]
GeckoArt.Net