I'm learning about perspective and have some questions.
Look at the portrait to the left please.
1. Perspective is a way to show depth on plane.
2. As we see depth on this portrait (half-profile) this portrait is constructed within a certain perspective.
3. Perspective can be 1p, 2p, 3p and so on. What is the perspective domain of this portrait? 1p?
4. Can you mark please vanishing point (s)?
Still.
Hiii~
Aww :<
This is a very fundamental question, dont walk away please.
Guys?
I bet you know this...Share your wisdom!
>>2314341
Stop bumping every 5 minutes, this is a slow board.
>>2314365
Point taken.
that won't help you with portraits, when you're going from imagination you can draw heads from a box or sphere in perspective, but for portraits you have to imagine it, because it's not there, so it's better to focus on what you see, because you're gonna mess things up otherwise
drawing form with controled brushstrokes or hatching makes volume, but that's not related with perspective itself, as atmospheric perspective has nothing to do with perspective rules themselves
you're likely trolling but w/e, I just want you to stop posting
>>2314341
Done in 5000 hours on my phone
>>2314372
I get what you are saying.
The problem is: the idea that portraits get 'freepass' from classic perspective rules (with VPs and else) greatly contradicts a good load of material in the internet.
For example, VPs are determined for portraits here
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1300045
So?
So so?
>>2314341
its is two point perspective. the vanishing points are way off the canvas.
>>2314467
Intuitively i would agree with you.
But how we can definitely be sure? There are no visible sets of *real* parallel lines that change their trajectory on picture.
But ok, lets agree that we intuitevily take some parts of head for parallel and meauser their incline on pic.
Next question:
(please attention)
DOES THIS MEAN THAT OTHER PARTS IN THIS DRAWINGS MUST SUBMIT TO THESE TWO VANISHING POINTS OUTSIDE THE CANVAS?
>>2314477
No. Objects only share vanishing points if they are facing the same way.
>>2314341
Save the perspective for architectural and technical drawing.
Most portrait painters don't even think about perspective, nor do you need to when painting from life of reference anyway.
>>2314480
Sorry, did you mean this as an argument?
Because i dont see how portrait is not placed in your frame ("vision cone")
>>2314514
What part of
>Objects only share vanishing points if they are facing the same way.
you don't understand?
>>2314536
How the portrait IS NOT facing the same way in your opinion.
>>2314341
There is a way to determine it through landmarks. Although if you're even asking these questions it is clear that you need some perspective education before tackling humans. Stick to boxes for now.
>>2314540
The head and torso are NOT facing the same direction and therefore would NOT share vanishing points.
>>2314548
Going by that logic on your own pic half object is facing different way. Yet they belong the same 2p perspective.
How do you determine whether (in your terms) 2 objects share 'the same face-way" or not?
>>2314546
THis? I'm aware.
>>2314554
>>2314555
No you're not, this is plan on horizon projection method and is better applied to technical drawings.
Study more perspective, you are clearly not ready for humans for now.
>>2314558
What specific material would you suggest then? Im currently on Robertson and Norling.
>>2314560
Keep at them, they are k. In this order: Norling-Robertson. Vandruff is also good supplement.
You need to internalize all perspective information on simplest objects available: boxes. You will know you're ready when you can draw a simple box from any angle without thinking about all things technical and build any form using section or substractive methods from Robertson. After that, come in beginner thread and ask what to do next.
This thread is retarded
Basically perspective when dealing with heads keeps all of the features in line.
No, you don't always need to know how far off the VP is on the horizon...but as long as each feature shows convergence, you will be fine.
Portraits don't get a "free pass"
Perspective is still important. If you don't want perspective in your portraits, feel free to exist somewhere in the beginner thread.
Anyone that pops into this thread, please just disregard everything these morons are saying. I am now dumber from having read what these rubes think about perspective.
>>2314581
And what is the valid opinion, good sir?
>>2314574
This, also, answering OP's question, the VP of this painting would be out of it, on the "o" in "know" on the post I linked
Technically, there are others, but I bet the painter who did this used them as a reference instead of just panting the way he felt things should be, actually, I would not be surprised if he didn't care about vanishing points at all.
>>2314467
You are wrong, the horizon line should be about as tall as her eyes, not above her head, you would not see the top of the cube you made, just the two side faces.
>>2314594
> you would not see the top of the cube you made
He would not see it if horizon line was at her eyes.
>>2314598
My point exactly.
I think it should be something like this, but this whole thing is stupid, when the vanishing point is this far away I guess most artists just draw to them instinctively, no need to actually find it.
>>2314376
there's no a single way to handle things, you can handle paralels by mere observation, you don't need to draw the vp, it won't even be possible due to scale, just measure, that's a reality check, theory helps to short it out, but it won't help that much with a face, it's more a bout measuring and being successfull about drawing different forms and not just shapes.
>>2314605
You can see the top of her head though. It is just a bad painting desu.
>>2314376
It all returns to loomis.
>>2314612
Judgin' how this is a portrait, maybe he really could see the top of her head at the moment? (is it possible?)
>>2314612
Maybe because human head is not fuckin square? Jesus Christ this thread is hilarious
>>2314623
>Maybe because human head is not fuckin square?
Is it not?
>>2314467
Horizon is at eye level.
>>2314654
Yeas, it's not.
>>2314623
An object doesn't have to be a cube to follow the rules of 3d perspective. Post your work, I want to see how you draw 4 dimensional hyper-heads.
>>2314676
Your turn. Post your work
Perspective is more than a way to show depth in the plane, but a way to show the presence of an observer.
There are many ways to show perspective, from the position in the plane (chinese paintings for example), from changes of contrast and color in aerial perspective, inversed perspective in byzantine iconsetc. Linear perspective, the one with vanishing pointsand so on is but one technique of perspective, that emerged during the renaissance and that coincides with the flourishing of the european cities. The vanishing points are used as a mathematical way to represent clear cut straight geometric shapes. The fog and the mountains of a natural chinese landscape need no vanishing point, but to draw a city, you'll see you're going to need them to show which lines are parallel to which ones and how they are positioned in relation to yourself.
That painting has no vanishing points whatsoever, and no clear lines to draw any conclusion on that matter. It would be like measuring the position of the light source in an exact way. We know the light is from above and difuse, not much more. In the same way, we understand the depth of the figure without going further in perspective, most likely the painter didn't need to go there either. We can agree we are on the same level as her face (and so is the horizon), we can agree she is at a 3/4 pose and thus her left cheek is farther away from us, but to derive any more conclusions would be meaningless.
The vanishing points would be too far away and to search for them would mislead us, because the face is assymetrical (as all faces are), the curves are soft and the effect of paint on canvas is much more simple. We are used to drawing straight lines for the mouth or to connect the two eyes, but we must remember these are not really there.
In short, just because it has depth, doesn't mean the linear perspective system can be applied in any satisfactory way.
>>2314682
>claims heads aren't cubes
>posts cube head
hmm
>>2314656
horizon line is at the eye level of the fucking viewer, not the eye level of any person depicted in the work. This is an incredibly strange thing to write.
>>2314686
Post your work.
>>2314686
You have a weird definition of cube.
>>2314654
just because you can fit it in a box it doesn't men it is a cube you retard.
>>2314574
You don't know what you are talking about.
>>2314686
You got called out. Post work.
>>2314691
You're right but how can you say the viewers eye level was above the person in the painting?
>>2315137
>>2315146
That pic is probably better than you can draw.
>>2314477
If you really care, you can study head anatomy and find some anatomical points on the image to compare. Bony brow ridges, corner of the eye orbit, etc. Then do perspective lines.
Or, you can spend that time drawing heads instead. Poking holes in things like this may not be the most efficient way to improve. Sage
>>2314623
i hate to break it to you dude but human heads are fuckin square
>>2315988
I hate to break it to you dude but you are an imbecile.
>>2314593
Personally, I don't actually think about vps for humans because the boxes are angled in all sorts of ways so it would be a waste of time. I just eyeball the size scaling with distance and the foreshortening. Doing it this way has the benefit of avoiding perspective distortion. I hate perspective distortion because you don't see it with your eyes; why should I put it in the drawing? Because of this, I'm quite liberal with the perspective and I skew it according to my needs.
>>2314623
It is a pretty bad painting though. For instance the perspective of the mouth is wrong. Plus it's just ugly
>>2315988
I hate to break it to you, but you should seek medical help if you have a square head.
>>2314683
Best answer in this thread of dipshits.
