wow dude your stuff is amazing. I am too studying scott robertson for last past 2 weeks started on my 3rd and I am slow at learning this. I wasnt sure if I Was allow to post stuff of these works since there based by scott himself teaching. I too was going to start a new sketchbook like this. Fundamentals makes the brain work real hard and non creative but allows me to understand real form perspective. Im stuck on the Ellipses part trying to get through it so I can start volume. Good to see someone else studying it.
Eru Go ahead man, post your studies here or in your sketchbook it's all good (tbh I only just noticed this thread). About the ellipse stuff... I would say just do your best now, and push ahead with the book - meanwhile work some daily ellipse practice into your schedule and they will steadily catch up.
(04-21-2015, 10:44 AM)JyonnyNovice Wrote: Reddog I hope I understood your question right - you're asking why not draw arbitrary guidelines to a VP, then drop in a vertical and multiple that to get the ortho grid in perspective?
I think in reality you can do that no problem. If you do it the ellipse way though, you can be certain it is definitely, absolutely, 100% a square and not a rectangle. Depends how accurate you want / need to be and how good you are at estimating squares. (I hope I got the right question).
As to buying ellipse guides - you can train yourself to do them freehand. It takes a lot of consistent effort (I've been training nearly daily since xmas and still struggle), but mastering that will help you in sooo many ways as an artist - so many objects you might want to draw are cylindrical and you don't want to have to bust out an ellipse guide every time you want to draw one.
I think mostly Scott Robertson does them freehand, then uses the ellipse guide to clean them up (which you could also do in photoshop with the ellipse tool). Some of those videos he uses an ellipse guide so it's precise for educational reasons (like he also uses a ruler in some vids which I'm sure he doesn't do much in real life). The exercises in the front of the book are great and youtube has some more fun / interesting exercises for when those get boring.
(04-17-2014, 02:11 AM)Hobitt Wrote: Yeah also had a problem with that one keep doing it until it becomes natural + i guess it is meant to be cleaned up with an ellipse guide.
(03-11-2015, 03:43 PM)Jorch Wrote:
(04-11-2014, 07:07 PM)SamPeterson Wrote: I'm a bit stuck with one of the concepts if anyone can help me. On page 74 how are you supposed to know where to correctly place the minor axis without knowing where the perfect center of the ellipse or square is ahead of time? It doesn't seem like there is enough information to correctly plant the minor axis. It's possible to find the center vertically by making any size rectangle and finding the center of that, but that doesn't show you the horizontal placement. If the minor axis is placed incorrectly it'd make a warped circle that isn't proportioned correctly, and wouldn't result in a proper cube. And without knowing where to plant the minor axis I can't do the exercise or the following ones that require you to know how to create a cube using ellipses. I hope that makes sense.
Thanks.
Hi Sam,
I'm also learning from this and the way I think about placing the minor axis is that it would be pointing to the opposite vanishing point. With this in mind you place guides/lines to the correct VP and use those as a guide to place the ellipse constraining to it's minor axis direction.
I made this images kind of a tut of how I go about it. Hope it's helpful :")
Many thanks for these images, I was struggling with this part for the longest time, still not fully understood it but you explained much better than they did in the book, really appreciate it.
Has everyone abandoned the book? I am starting to study from it so would be nice to revive this study group if you are still on perspective!
Does anyone have any idea what is going on page 97? specifically step no. 7? After sketching the line freehand, he says to drop lines to find the curve on the bottom side, whenever I try this I get no where near his line. Please see example below, I have constructed sections following the perspective grid but they do not touch the new line. If you have any idea I would really appreciate the input!
(10-10-2015, 10:25 PM)tbnkaron Wrote: Does anyone have any idea what is going on page 97? specifically step no. 7? After sketching the line freehand, he says to drop lines to find the curve on the bottom side, whenever I try this I get no where near his line. Please see example below, I have constructed sections following the perspective grid but they do not touch the new line. If you have any idea I would really appreciate the input!
Hey I think I know what is the deal. It will be easier to explain in video but not sure how to make that happen.
The best way I can explain it here will be that when it says to project down the line drawn on the surface, you can pick any point in the curve like you have done. But the most advantageous way to do it, is to pick the points that cross at each X section plane. Because you know exactly were the vertical projection meets the ground plane. Watch closely the red projection in the book, you can see that it intersects the X sections.
In your pic the green, magenta and purple planes you drew do not meet the ground plane were you place them. Why? because there is no reference plane, the point is not intersecting any plane previously drawn. At this point the only reference is a point in space (the curve on the surface), which makes it almost impossible to determine the position relative to the rest of the form.
This is why you set the first X sections (planes) at the beginning. Notice how when projecting any new line he always uses the X sections as reference, perfect example is figure 4. in page 96 notice the red verticals.
Many thanks for your reply, I understand what is going better BUT (there is always a but :) )
I understand the need for the x sections, which is fine when you have them and can follow them, I am having difficulty understanding what he has done at point J (step 7). He has added x sections to get more points, but the surface is curved at the top which in theory should throw off his x sections because the sides are not straight.
I have attempted one to try and illustrate my question, adding an extra x section is fine when the object has no curves, but following the curved surface with a straight line (like he did in step 7) and figuring out where the point lies on the ground is what is making me pull my hair out.
I was thinking that it does look like it took quite a bit of time to complete which I think is good to do now as we are getting to grips with perspective, to cement the theory. But looking at Scott's work, it usually is not as meticulous which leaves room for stylisation. Your drawing has a 3d feel, like it was done in sketchup and exported, so now that you know you can do that maybe its a good time to do more sketchy ones that are still grounded in good perspective theory like mr Robertson, I dont know if that make any sense.
The other thing is I am noticing your drawing having more of a wide angle effect, I wonder if that was intentional or the results of the grid you used?
Hey! I'll try to help with your problem... it's so hard to try and explain this in text, I already wrote a post and deleted it since it seemed to not make sense!
You are fine with the freehand line G and how he projected it down to the ground to form line H (by dropping lines wherever G crossed any x-sections) ?
It's how he added the new x-sections to finish the curve at the very end to J that is causing problems right?
He has just added new x-sections, the very same way he did at the beginning by going down from the centre line to the ground plan, pulling it out to the side then joining the two points with a curved line - the confusing thing is that he didn't draw the full curve from the centre to the edge. He just drew up from the edge towards the centre line until it hits the freehand curved G, then he dropped straight down from there to plot the point on the ground plane. (look closely at the curving black lines going up from just before where J is marked on the step 7 image). He basically just mimicked the curve of the section line that was already there.
His process is very accurate and precise BUT it is still for artists and design sketches, not super pin point accurate stuff - so sometimes he will estimate a curve if the margin of error is really really small.
Thank you both Jyonnynocive and Jorch for taking the time to explain. I guess what threw me off was the incomplete sections at J, I assumed there was something else I am missing. I have tried it and it actually works so thanks a lot guys, really appreciate it!
Glad to hear it! Let us know if you have any other questions. I'm planning to give the book another go through soon, trying to figure out the stuff above showed me how my perspective skills have atrophied.
(10-13-2015, 09:45 PM)tbnkaron Wrote: I think I understand!
Thank you both Jyonnynocive and Jorch for taking the time to explain. I guess what threw me off was the incomplete sections at J, I assumed there was something else I am missing. I have tried it and it actually works so thanks a lot guys, really appreciate it!
Hey sure you're welcome! tbnkaron.
Totally agree with your comments on the tractor does look like sketchup, will get to more loose stuff. Not sure about the wide angle effect must be the grid. Will post more as I go along.
