next »

[gimymblert]

em yeah, basically the z scale is equivalent to the focal, wide focal flatten more, your focal is too short basically.

Rules of thumb (2D)x = (3D)X/(3D)Z+focale is the basic math, where x and X can be y and Y. So if something is 1 meter big at 1 meter depth it will be 1 meter on the projection, however at depth 2 it will be 0.5 on the projection, it's linear (hence line that converge to the vanishing point).

Another tips if you are making perspective that most book gloss over too quickly, the horizon is the height of the eyes, that mean that if you have a vertical that goes to the horizon line to the (converging) ground line it has the exact same measure to the arbitrary height you choose to place the eyes up (assuming eye is parallel to ground), that mean if the eyes are at 180cm the line is exactly at 180, no matter where it is in the drawing, so doubling the line make it 360cm and halving it makes it 90cm.

Now you can check and measure anything in simple perspective.

[TheShard1994]

Hm but then, how do I solve this in the previous drawing I posted?
Moving the vanishing point further away?

Because I think that if you make the drawing larger, it'll also make it deeper (since it's equivalent)?

[gimymblert]

Well the relative depth to width is too big for natural, cut the depth keep the same width, it's like you don't see proportion at all XD

[TheShard1994]

Ah I see what you meant, I drew the vanishing point further away (cut the length of the character) and that made it look correct.

I continued with Loomis' book and copied some of the drawings about weight distribution.

I went on and drew one myself, without a reference (to see if I got the "feel" right):


And after that I continued the book again, and I came to the part with constructing the mannequins. After studying a bit about how they're constructed, I drew some in different poses, yet again to see if I got the "feel" right:



Though there still seem to be some problems in picturing the mannequin in different angles. I'd like other people's opinions please, and meanwhile I'll make even more until it's "perfect".

[gimymblert]

"this" does not bend, the whole spine have a slight curve but it does not "bend" (as in dramatically bend), yep i use to make the same mistake ...

Tips, legs bone tend to be the same length to each other and to the chest, the sitting mannequin has her chest too long. Think about someone curl up the chin can rest on the knee.

[TheShard1994]

Hm, so the only thing that changes for the sitting pose is that the legs rotate forward? (Of course, when there's muscles, skin and clothing, more would change, but for the mannequin just the legs)

Drew some more, did them free-handed this time, so without really measuring the amount of heads and stuff (trying to "feel" the proportions now).

[TheShard1994]

Drew some more free-handed, noticed that I made the space between the hips and ribs in drawings 1 and 2 too big. Made another sitting figure, I think this one is better than the previous, but it still has this "awkward" feel to it.


Also did some observation again, copied a drawing from a book again.

[gimymblert]

Focus on getting proportion right all the time and not doing "cartoon correction" of what you see, you already have the minimal skill threshold aside from that.

[Lee]

I don't like Loomis' mannequins at all, they just don't convey a good sense of proportion and body weight IMO, it just seems odd mixing lines with filled out chests,hips, and heads. Personally I'd recommend using cylinders or something like that wooden mannequin you can buy from practically every art store (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wooden+mannequin&tbm=isch), but hey whatever works for you.

Just a very quick doodle and an awkward pose but it shows off a different style of drawing a mannequin. Also I never usually do any form of head counting and rely on my own sense of perspective (I feel like it's more natural and less algorithmic) but that figure turned out to be around 7 heads. And I personally think that's more reasonable than 8, although I just don't like drawing legs too long... And I tend to start off with the chest... That's enough rambling.

I think that you should focus on life drawing for a period http://artists.pixelovely.com/practice-tools/figure-drawing/ I'd suggest the standard session at 5 minutes for a beginner, although maybe try 2 minutes first. The point of the short time period is to try to loosen you up and focus less on the detail. Here's some that I did (this first one nsfw female nudes also those times may not be accurate)
http://filesmelt.com/dl/figuredrawing1.png (female nudes)
http://filesmelt.com/dl/figuredrawing2.png (covered male)
http://filesmelt.com/dl/figuredrawing3.png (animals - yeah when you get comfy with drawing humans moving to animals will challenge you, went over time on every single one).
It will likely be very challenging at first but if you keep practicing and be critical of your work you should over time improve your proportions and that's half the battle of perspective (the other half is lasers I'm told). Hopefully my words are helpful, maybe not; you can always ignore them.

[TheShard1994]

@Robolee:
I'd never ignore advice!
I've actually done that practice some time ago (I posted it in this thread as well, I believe), but it didn't really work since I had absolutely no idea how the human body is formed.
Personally, I like Loomis' mannequins, I'm starting to grasp how everything relates to each other (I'll work my way through the whole book, there's enough reference there to improve a lot, I guess).

The mannequins are coming along better (also with added 'basic muscle groups', though the legs are still weird to me but I'll get to that part), and I got to draw the figures in perspective.
I also tried foreshortening and I would like to ask you all if I did it correctly:

[cirpons]

Have you ever tried to sketch people from nature?
its great practice, and it should make it easier for you to find proportions in the body.
Just ask a family member or friend to stand still for a few minutes (no longer than 5 tho), or just wait until they are in some static position for a longer time(at the computer etc.) and start drawing them. you shouldn't draw any details, just look at the basic proportions and angles in the pose. this method needs no anatomy knowledge whatsoever, just the ability to find angles and proportions with your pencil.

[TheShard1994]

@Cirpons:
Well I tried doing that while I was on vacation this August, but I didn't really like the outcomes, the drawings still have a very unnatural feel to it :/ I'm not giving up though, I'll do some of that again when I feel like it

I did buy Loomis' book though (Figure drawing for all it's worth) and used that to study drawing. I'm only at page 60 or something now though, but here's the result:




In the first picture I tried various poses, tried to make them look more dynamic and such.
The second and third pictures are done to study anatomy.

I would mostly like some critics on the first picture. In my eyes, the proportions and poses feel really natural and better than the previous time I've done that (except for the pose with the crossed legs, I don't like that one), but I would like someone else's opinion on that too