Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Giant robot

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by SebastianSz View Post
    You've mentioned it and as an authority figure here it makes others' opinions less objective.
    I think this line is very disrespectful to all the people replying to your thread and trying to help you get better.

    "Objectively" you failed to apply correct perspective by leaving the horizon in the shot, then went on to try and construct a failed perspective in smitty's piece, and also gloriously failed at that.

    Then you write up an essay about cameras and generation Y's viewing habits, which is totally bogus btw, to then conclude that everybody else who chimes in and does not feel you have everything right, is just a lickspittle on smitty's boot who has no "opinion" on perspective.

    My opinion on this is do what you do, but please try not to shit on our feedback like that. Thanks.
    "Censorship is legal vandalization of art" - Urban Dictionary
    |LHW Bottomfeeder|
    PJ Sketchblog

  2. #12
    While you accused everyone of lock stepping behind Paul--you know, because he only drew X-men and Dr. Strange--I looked at your drawing right away and knew it was off, persective wise. You have a cool style that is very distinctive and people here are giving good advice. To say "we are used to cameras now" is a cop out. I once got feedback from Paul specifically on perspective and he said "if this is one panel in a 22 page book, it won't matter..." but then proceeded to articulate how to solve my perspective problem. The man knows when to apply and when to ignore the rules.

    PJers have been really nice with their feedback of your work. This isn't poetry class. It's chemistry, it's physics. Just like those, perspective has rules and laws instead of points of view.

  3. #13
    I'd like to share my thought on this as well, fine folks of PJvile.

    First of all, I'm a big fan/follower of Smitty's posts. I actually archive them..because they are that good..
    Having said that, there are times I don't get, or don't completely agree or need more clarification to agree.. And I feel that's good for me because I'm trying to analyze/understand things and not just follow because he says so.

    With that in mind..I'm not sure if we can shun Seba as Pete and Always did... just because he doesn't agree and offers defending points and wants more clarification he can agree to. He may be wrong.. but he can still defend what he believes in while being nice about it..
    That is of course if Seba wasn't sarcastic about "authority figure" remark... But there is no denying that Smitty's comments are that significant in this forum.

    Having said that.. here comes my question to everyone about a HL with 3 points.. This is one of things that bugged me for a while..
    I totally understand what Smitty's saying and I know he's right.. It's just not possible in real life to see converging skyscrapers with a ground.
    But I do see just that in books/illustrations time to time..and to my taste, they work and with effectiveness.

    Here are some examples of Jim Lee's pages.(including Hush) My apologies for offering only his examples. Relatively new to comics, I don't own that many materials.. And my point of offering his works is not to say he's the greatest so he's right, but to say they seem to work.

    There are 2 splashes, and 2 panels.. To me, he was looking for dramatic effect.. so did the 3 points with HL.
    The 2 panels, we can say the ground is downhill.. but, I would say it was done this way to give dramatic effect.
    I know these are not right if we think what we do as Chemistry or Science, but can we see these as artistic application ?
    I hope to hear many of your opinions...

    Last edited by humble-tomato; 03-15-2017 at 01:20 AM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Tha Creep View Post
    I think this line is very disrespectful to all the people replying to your thread and trying to help you get better.
    1- I was not trying to be sarcastic or to diminish the feedback of others. If I show someone a Rorschach test ink spot and ask "hey, do you see the butterfly here?" while being an expert on Rorschach ink spots (if such a person exists) more people would see a butterfly there than if I ask "what do you see here?". This is what I had in mind when writing this, that previous opinions, especially those of experts, do influence the opinions of others, not that the opinions of fellow members of this forum do not mean much to me or that others blindly follow what Smitty has said. I am sorry if you and others feel offended.

    2- Always Drawing, I know who Smitty is and I own a couple of his comics, we're not discussing achievement in the field of comics but perspective. If he were Jack Kirby himself I would still argue if I felt that my opinion has some validity. I also read his feedback on several topics here, some of which were mine, and found it very informative, along with the feedback of others, I never denied this.

    3- I don't think that my claim that photography influences what looks good in illustration is totally bogus, it is my opinion only however, that is true. I also think that films do have an impact on comic book aesthetics, including perspective, whethver this is good or bad.

    4- Going back to perspective. What I fail to see is why the buildings would be collapsing if they share the same vanishing points? Even if you squeeze the vanishing points right next to each other with the horizon in view it would be terribly distorted but not collapsing, like here:

    They would have to have different VPs for that, I think. I kept the perspective simple in my drawing, with things being parallel to each other and with only 2 VPs on the HL and 1 for the 3-point perspective. I am not trying to say that my drawing is perfect or that my perspective is spot on. But distorted doesn't mean that the perspective itself is incorrect mathematically speaking, even if aesthetically it is. If the buildings were the way Smitty drew it, they would need separate VPs.

    Again, I want to say that I do value all the opinions here, that's the very reason I'm posting here. If some of the things came across as insulting to some people, I'm sorry as it really wasn't my intention. When I'm voicing my doubts and opinions, I'm not questioning people's expertise neither am I trying to be disrespectful to people who spend their private time talking about my work.

  5. #15

    I have a background in 3d rendering and I've drawn a lot of guidance from people in other fields like Scott Robertson. So I'm not against distortion in illustration. But I agree with Smitty's critique of the perspective. I don't necessarily see buildings falling over but it looks off. And reviewing some of the sections of Robertson's how to draw book I think he finds fault with this approach as well--there's a part where he criticizes 3d game engines for doing what you are doing here:

    How to Draw, p.62

    "The straight line-perspective grids with no lens distortion are typical in video game environments and 3D programs that don't have a lens-distortion option. What the computer programs do is look at how much of the scene is above or below the Horizon Line, and then all vertical lines converge to a Vanishing point located on the side that is being shown the most. This is a weird distortion, and the only place you'll ever see this effect is inside digital environments.

    In real life, when looking at a physical building projecting into the sky, the vertical lines converge to a Vanishing Point high in the sky, and the same building's vertical lines cross below the Horizon Line and converge to a VP far below. This is clearly not the case in the video-game examples. In order for the vertical lines to converge above and below the Horizon Line, lens distortion must be added. This lens distortion bends the appearance of the lines and creates curvilinear perspective grids"

    So I think therein lies your problem. You're including both sides of the horizon line with your VP in the sky--while keeping your lines straight. Secondly, by doing so you're hampering the realistic distortion effect that you seem to be after in the first place. The image is distorted, but not actually realistically distorted. It's in this weird place where I couldn't tell if you were going for some effect or if it was just a mistake. You can either fix it by following Smitty's advice or fix it by pushing it further with a true curvilinear perspective. If you take the robot as the center of the composition, keep those lines vertical and increase the curvature as you move out towards the sides.

    I think you're trying to use this approach to evoke the grandeur of this huge ass bot. I think done correctly the distortion can help. It can also be done in more subtle ways to maybe amp up the realism or documentary feel of an image. These two on the right from Tatsuyuki Tanaka are effective examples:

    Anyways, cool image. I like your drawing and your line quality and everything. But I think there are a couple paths for improvement listed here in the thread. Good luck!

  6. #16
    Monkey with Crayons [Moderator] Veritas71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    UR Castle
    I think you guys are being way to harsh. We are all here to learn. Seb questioning of the accepted rules of perspective will bring all of us greater insight into why those rules have held up unchanged for so long. Reading about perspective is one thing, understanding when and why to apply those rules will make us all better.
    My Blog
    My DeviantART Page
    PUMMEL Statistics: 8 Wins - 3 Losses (6-KO's) 2 Month Champ

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas71 View Post
    We are all here to learn. Seb questioning of the accepted rules of perspective will bring all of us greater insight into why those rules have held up unchanged for so long.
    Agree to that..

    Anybody want to share their thoughts on Jim Lee's examples ? Is it okay to break rules sometimes and get artistic ?

  8. #18
    Did Jim Lee really break the rules? The horizon line and ground level are not always the same. I'm not sure any of those horizon lines are on the page.

  9. #19
    I meant horizon line as eye level. If you look at the Joker splash, and look at the door's lines, you can see the eye level is inside frame. Other panels are not very clear, but if you look at the character's belt/skirt line, I believe eye level is inside frame.

  10. #20
    battlewraith, thanks for that quote, I missed it. I did in fact hope for enhancing the feeling of scale , that's why I went with 3-point perspective. This was meant to be an in-class illustration for our robot design, so I didn't put much thought into perspective details, I just went with my best guess. The look I was aiming for was sort of like that in the Jim Lee images that humble-tomato posted.

    And I agree, it is distorted and next time I draw something like this I'll leave the HL way out of the picture or go for curvilinear perspective. What I'm still not covinced to is that the buildings are collapsing because to me don't look like they are, even if they do look unnaturally distorted.


Posting Permissions

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