For reasons discussed earlier (no 3rd point in eye level shots,) your entire city is collapsing. Were the buildings in the back falling into us rather than away you could call it Pellucidar but, this is London Bridge. Everything's falling down.
I remember the previous explanation but still I'm not convinced. I know that going over the HL in 3-point adds to the distortion but my HL is in 1/17th of this pitcture, so the distortion is minimal, especially that we're not looking up that much. I know that what I drew may exceed the cone of vision, but that is intentional as I wanted to add dynamism and push the sense of scale.
Could you explain exactly as to why there has to be another VP? I get it that it's hard to look both up and down at the same time but some degree of distortion is unavoidable. 1 and 2-point perspectives are distorted by definition yet look acceptable even though they don't represent exactly the way the world appears to us. I have browsed through my materials about perspective and the only place where it was explicitly said that the horizon should not be in the picture plane is Norling's Perspective Made Easy, but the book is from 1939 and he devotes only 5 pages to 3-point perspective (out of 200) and doesn't even call it that, just "looking down/up perspective". More than that, in both Scott Robertson's and Marcos Mateu-Mestre's books about perspective there are drawings in 3-point which are going slightly over the HL and they aren't presented as mistakes. Granted, it's not a common thing to do but a number of both photographs and drawings/paintings, from modern artists, expecially in concept art and sci-fi/fantasy illustration, do go over the HL in 3-point perspective. Moreover, even if it looks distorted, I really don't see it as if it's collapsing but judging my own work isn't exactly effective. I have consulted with other artists and none of them have mentioned that the buildings look collapsing to them either.
My guess is that today we are exposed much more to photography with more extreme perspective for added dynamism (same goes for movies) so the modern audience is not only more accepting of the distortion in perspective but simply expects it.
I'd really like to know more, so if you could point me to where these problems with 3-point perspective are explained and discussed in greater detail, I would be grateful
Edit: I have found an image which I believe is yours where you do have the HL in the picture despite it being 3 point! It's not very noticable but there it is, ha! Gotcha!
Last edited by SebastianSz; 03-13-2017 at 04:59 AM.
The threepoint does take away from the massive feel of two point imho. Feels more lofty. Unless thats what youre going for
Three quick points first
1- Finding an example where I, or another artist, have drop kicked the baby over the piranha pit into a vat of bubbling acid does not make me correct to kick the baby or suggest you should do the same. We can claim nobody told us NOT to drop kick the baby over the piranha pit but, does that really need to be said? Should you find a mistake in my work (and there are billions of them) repeating that mistake is simply that - a mistake. Two wrongs will not make a right.
2- Drop kicking the baby into the acid vat accidentally to prevent the baby from falling into a buzz saw is one thing. Drop kicking the baby because you think babies are stupid is another story altogether.
3- You've done nothing to locate my horizon. You simply projected a single line. Your horizontals indicate only that they are geometrically parallel to each other and therefore to the horizon. This tells us the angle the horizon will take but says nothing about the horizons location.
To locate the horizon we need at least two projections per item/object/structure. Using the far left building (red) we see the horizon is well below the drawing. We double check this by projecting lines from the front tower (blue) and see they come together at a VP on the same horizon. We triple check with projections from the right tower (green) and again, we come to a VP on the same horizon. Note all buildings use the same horizon but all three have different VPs. Why? Because the three structures are not square to each other and are of differing shapes.
Ernest Norling's "Perspective Made Easy" is the finest perspective primer ever made. The rules of perspective were discovered in the 1400's. They haven't changed in 600 years. Why would you think they changed since 1939? If you find an example where Norling tells you one thing and someone else tells you another, trust Norling because someone else is, most likely, either lying to you or they don't know what they're talking about.
While camera distortion exists, it does not exist for "added dynamism." It exists because "the camera never lies" is the biggest lie ever told. Given a choice of trusting a strung out psycho junkie jonesin' for a fix or trusting a camera - trust the strung out psycho junkie!!! NEVER trust a camera.
Can one break the rules? Sure they can. MC Escher made a career of it BUT, Escher was an absolute grand master of classical perspective while you're still struggling with Norling's primer for beginners. Can you do 3 pt perspective while placing the horizon inside the frame? Sure you can, we just saw you do it. We also saw the gross distortion that comes with it. You see it, I see it, Josem sees it, everyone sees it. How is that not reason enough for you to stop intentionally breaking your work?
What terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing will happen if you do it correctly? Will the earth open up and swallow you whole? Will your dog pee on your head while you sleep? The worst thing that will happen is you'll get a paying gig (oh, the horror!) Intentionally drop kicking the drawing into a vat of acid because you think rules are stupid will kill both the drawing and your career.
I think Josem fixed it pretty nicely.
I have more than a few perspective books on my shelf, but if you just cut and paste Smitty's replies ,hints,draw-overs and comments on this board you really do get a master class level education. Just sayin'
Hey, don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the criticism and I'll take it into account. If I didn't want it, I wouldn't have posted it here. However, if I feel that I have a different point of view on things, I'll voice my concerns, maybe something good will come up while we're discussing this.
1- I'm not claiming that rules of perspective have changed, what I meant is that what counts as acceptable distortion has changed. Photography is obviously much more prevalent now than it was in Norling's times and we are more accustomed to seeing the world through the camera lens. The distortion it causes doesn't seem as jarring. This does translate into what looks acceptable in illustration in my opinion. Take for example curvilinear perspective since you've brought up Escher. Older books don't even mention it and except a couple of paintings or drawings of mirror reflections there wasn't much of it in use. But to the today's audience the fish-eye lens effect isn't something strange, it's distorted but not out of place since we see it in movies or photos.
There is a tendency to draw or paint objects as if they were a cool photo of that object, rather than the object as it is seen just through human eyes. I don't necessarily say it's the only way to create art or even that it is a good approach at all. Also, I am not trying to say "hey, a photo looks this way so it must be the right way to draw!" but ignoring the impact of photography on our perception of what constitutes a good drawing or painting is also limiting.
2- I may have been too hasty with my analysis of your picture and the point you make with two wrongs not making a right is obviously sound.
3- To be honest, Josem's first correction of my drawing looks to me as if it's collapsing much more than my own version. I also wouldn't say that the basic rules of perspective in my drawing are incorrectly applied. As we've already established it is somewhat distorted because of the HL in view but I woulnd't call it incorrect per se. The very basics are there, the VPs are spread apart and converge on the HL. There are problems with lines slightly curving or leaning too much, but as I've said, this was a freehand drawing. Still, it is not an excuse for genuine mistakes.
4- Not eveybody sees it this way, that the buildings are collapsing. You've mentioned it and as an authority figure here it makes others' opinions less objective. That is not to say I do not respect their opinions or yours or that I do not take it into account. I do and comments on both my previous drawing and this one have been very insightful.
Thanks for taking the time to critique my work and I will consider what you've said and revise the rules of perspective
Last edited by SebastianSz; 03-14-2017 at 07:58 AM.
According to you, the structures at left are: straight, parallel, uncrossed; the structures at right are: twisted, crossed, non-parallel. I, along with my good friends reality and the laws of physics, am here to tell you you're wrong.
This is a long winded rationalization for the intentional, premeditated murder of your drawing. "But, your Honor, everyone else is drop kicking the baby into the acid! Why can't I?" Because drop kicking babies into boiling vats of acid is wrong. I don't care if it's baby Hitler, it's wrong.
Originally Posted by SebastianSz
The function of distortion in modern movies is to confuse you while they pick your pocket. Modern film makers have conflated stories for carnival rides. Having no story, no plot, no theme, no characters, no motivations they choose to say nothing so loud, while hanging you upside down and blinding you with strobes, that you'll be too stupified to notice you've been robbed. The one thing you paid for (story) was the one thing you never got.
The "problem" with Josem's first correction is it's symptom based. Because of the number of mistakes, every little correction requires 100 more corrections which each require 100 more. His second correction works because it's problem based. By removing the problem (the horizon) 90% of the symptoms disappear on their own. Honor the VP above and that will remove the other 10%
And they're all wrong.
Originally Posted by SebastianSz
Stevie Wonder's inability to see the stop sign does not remove the stop sign from the intersection. Stevie's blind! He can't see! He wouldn't know if a sign was there if his life depended on it... and it does! Blow the sign once, by accident, you may live. Purposely blow the sign every single time because rules are stupid and don't apply to you and someone (your drawing, your gig, your career) is going to die... horribly! You're ignoring the doctors advice for that of friends, pets and neighbors (AKA: those that don't what they're talking about). There's a word for people who do this. They're called "corpses."
Joe Quesada tells the true story of a young turk displaying his pages. The turk has made EVERY panel an explosive money shot. Joe asks what he'd do for a baby sleeping in the crib. The turk says "I'D DO THIS AND THAT AND... Joe asks what if the baby starts to cry? The turk says, "YA GOTTA BOOM AND BANG AND...!" Joe keeps taking him up the emotional scale, the turk gets MORE AND MORE EXTRAVAGANT WITH EVERY SHOT!!! Joe says, "Now blow up the world." The turk was stumped, speechless, impotent. He had nowhere to go because he blew his entire bag-o-tricks on a baby sleeping in a crib.
Morals of the story: If everything is exciting, nothing is exciting. A money shot in every panel is bad storytelling and bad comics. Sometimes boring is more than good for you, it's required. Whatever we draw: bleeds, perspective, color holds, page turns, means something. It it doesn't, we failed.
So, what does your city's collapse mean? If you have no story reason to kill the drawing by intentionally drop kicking the city into the acid vat... don't.