Beyond 1-point perspective: How do I use this?

[CHARLE PRSN]

Hey all,

I've recently been struggling with using perspective in scenes from my imagination. I've studied 1 and 2 point perspective, like everyone who takes middle school art classes, but I'm (only now) realizing that life doesn't work in simple perspective. I took some images that on the surface seemed like easy sinlge point perspective and started tracing perspective lines and came across:


No single vanishing point. 
This is probably elementary knowledge to most experienced artists, and it doesn't surprise me, but my question is how do I use this to set up my own scenes?

How do you all think about perspective to make a scene with realistic perspective?

[Piotr Jasielski]

Hey, I am by no means a master at perspective, but I know where your confusion comes from. I probaly fail to explain it with words but I'll try.

The thing is both photos don't have 3 simple planes (top, bottom, side) at a 90 degree to each other. Walls in the first one aren't parallel and they would met if they were allowed to continue. Same with buildings, they are not perfectly alligned so they have different vanishing points.

Does that help? I'll try to clarify further if otherwise.

[cesartalves]

Only parallel lines converge to the same vanish point in the horizon. In both images you traced several lines that are not parallel; therefore they would never meet in the same vanish point in real life.
As you have guessed, since in life not all objects have parallel lines to each other, there will be multiple vanishing points even if most of the lines fall into the "1 point perspective" category. So when you are drawing from imagination, the 2 top things to keep in mind are to make sure all your vanish points sit in the same horizon line and that they are properly spaced in relation to each other. Ofc, the more complex your perspective and scene become, the harder it gets to predict all variables, and there are many others.

You should check a book called "Perspective Made Easy". It covers pretty much all the basics of perspective in a very simple fashion that is  beginner friendly.

[BenFlores]

Adding to what everyone else has said, watch out for camera lens distortion.

[Amit Dutta]

Yep what Ben said. Those images were taken with a wide angle lens, so there is stretching especially at the frame edge. It's not only about the number of vps or angled surfaces anymore, it's also distortion. The grid is distorted so the converging parallel lines actually curve in the picture plane. The straight guidelines you drew don't take into account that distortion, which is making things that should converge to the same horizon line, seem to go wildly off.

You cannot draw a scene with realistic perspective really, it is all just an approximation. For me personally I find I use 2 and 3 point perspective (3 most frequently) for environment work. 2 for flatter scenes, and 3 for scenes that require a sense of a pov looking up or down. It totally depends on the needs of the scene.
I almost never use curvilinear perspective (4 pt). If you need a bit of distortion you can simulate it with lens effects after the fact, a little bit to fake it. It isn't something I have used a lot myself or would recommend doing until you know what you are doing, because it can make large edits afterwards a nightmare.

In terms of setup, I do tend to pick vps and work off one grid based on what I imagine is going to work best for the majority of the objects in the scene or what is best for the focal interest in the scene, be it a building or something else. That way I know at least the main thing will be sorted during quick thumbnailing.Then if you want to draw other surfaces or objects that are rotated at some angle to the grid, and therefore converging to different vps, those have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[CHARLE PRSN]

Woa, thanks guys. Really helpful stuff...thought i understood perspective but, as always, so much more to learn!

[RottenPocket]

Also not an expert at perspective but even once you've develiped a sense of perspective i suggest work8ng on Focus as well. Many photographs or painted illustration will seem a bit 'larger than life' because everything is in focus. A human being has 90 degrees of vision but only really sees 60 degrees because anything outside that becomes a blurred mess. Working on depth of field as well as the above mentioned dostortion will help you create more realistic perspective.

[ReneAigner]

Also not an expert at perspective but even once you've develiped a sense of perspective i suggest work8ng on Focus as well. Many photographs or painted illustration will seem a bit 'larger than life' because everything is in focus. A human being has 90 degrees of vision but only really sees 60 degrees because anything outside that becomes a blurred mess. Working on depth of field as well as the above mentioned dostortion will help you create more realistic perspective.

Not really. The only time you will really experience an "out of focus" effect with your bare eyes is if you intentionally throw them out of focus or focus on something very close to you. Looking at something from a normal distance, there is no "Bokeh" effect going on and paintings that simulate that effect often look really awkward and phony unless they specificly mimick a photograph in style and detail. We focus on things not by throwing everything else out of focus through depth of field as a lense does, but by directing our attention to it. Best way to produce focus in painting is to lower the detail in areas that are "out of focus".

[RottenPocket]

@rene

Yes and no. I would find that the detail and sharpness of an artificially designed image is what makes it clearly look phoney and while my analogy of a blurred mess might not have been adequate your final note on a "way to produce focus in painting is to lower the detail in areas that are "out of focus"" was more my point. If it's design we're looking for, sharpen away. For illustration, there needs to be that depth of field.

[ReneAigner]

edit/re-reading your post, are you actually agreeing with my point? I'm confused by your terminology then since 'depth of field' to me means camera-like out of focus areas. If you mean lower contrast/ less detail in out of focus areas, we're in agreement.

 For illustration, there needs to be that depth of field.

Look at old masters, look at people like Sargent or Zorn. I challenge you to find a single painting that shows a camera-like depth of field effect in any of their paintings. If depth of field as a camera produces it were as important as you claim it to be, and so natural to human vision, why does it only show up in painting after photography has taken over and people start copying photographs/mimicking photographic look?


Look at how Sargent controls focus here. Is the background blurry and out of focus? No. There are clear cut shapes there that contribute to the overall design of the painting. How is focus achieved? By the overall shape/value design and lowering detail & contrast in areas that are not of importance, see the grass in the foreground (which with a camera-like depth of field effect would be about as detailed as the figures) and the green areas in the background (which are reduced to flat shapes rather than out of focus blobs as a camera would produce).

I'm not saying that depth of field/ bokeh is a complete no-no, it can work just fine depending on the image, but it's not how we see reality (at normal distances), as evidenced by just opening your eyes and appraising what you see in fromnt of you. It's how a camera sees the world.

[RottenPocket]

You said No and then explained my point in divergent terms, but now it's getting confusing when you refer to depth-of-field as a method or tool that either works or does not work. DOF just -is-, it's what takes a flat 2D image and turns it into a window. Whether or not you prefer painterly out of focus over 'blobs as a camera would produce', is your preference, unless you're arguing that because our eye travels and our focus on what we see changes, where the focus of an image does not - it depends on what you're trying to achieve. I still learn and understand and perceive a more realistic image of an object in a 3-dimensional space as having an appropriate sense of depth, which many beginners neglect in tasks like perspective drawing which is relevant here.

[Amit Dutta]

I get both of your perspectives. I agree totally with what Rene said, but I think I know what you are also getting at Rotten. I guess it is just the terminology being used thatis getting a bit muddled.  I think we can break this down. I see it like this.

A photo is a photo
A painting is a painting
Our eyes are our eyes.

They are all essentially representations of a 3D space and perspective.
The factors that give that feeling of depth in each may be slightly different depending on which "medium" is being used

For photos (and any monocular camera lens) DOF is a thing, and we recognise it as one way of enhancing depth and focus. It's not the only way. Lots of photos show depth without using DOF.

For paintings/illustrations, detail focus and contrast are more important as Rene suggested and one can simulate DOF, but it is just an emulation of how a monocular camera lens might see things. So painting something to appear the way a photo might capture it.

For our own eyes, binocular discrepancies account for the diverging superposition of two images from both eyes to create that "blurry" out of focus effect on anything we aren't looking at directly. In some instance this can definitely "appear" to be DOF, but it's not "technically" the same. If you shut one eye, then it would be pretty much the same as DOF in a camera as vision becomes monocular.

I personally wouldn't use the terminology of DOF as being essential to perspective theory for paintings. Though I do agree with your general idea Rotten, that skillful use of focus and amounts of contrast will go a long way towards suggesting a 3D space, which is pretty much exactly what Rene is saying :)
I would also say that there are certain elements to suggesting depth that will change depending on which medium we are talking about.

[RottenPocket]

:) I know, we're both going two ways about the same subject which is why I had to look back and go 'where did I -not- say it' and i think my comment on the eye seeing 60-90 degrees and our focus in that range is a blurr was taken to literally 'make everything on the outskirts blurry'. No. Scott Robertson explained it much better.

[Amit Dutta]

I think it was just the depth of field terminology used out of context that caused issue. :) Haha, whatever.

[ReneAigner]

DOF just -is-, it's what takes a flat 2D image and turns it into a window. 

As Amit said, no, you're using the term incorrectly. DOF is a very specific, technical term relevant to photography/optics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

What you mean is simply "depth".

[RottenPocket]

Well, i was a photography student but cinsidering that the camera is modelled after how the eye functions i stand by its usage in creating a more realistic sense of -depth-. Artistically or aesthetically, that's another argument.

Not that i don't appreciate the in depth responses i know I'm being short it's hard to directly reference material.when all i have is my smartphone i. Did agree with your Rene but felt it missed my point while labeling it Wrong.

Put it this way, right now I'm standing at my bus stop beside a park. I look around i can see overlap, atmosphere, size and position all indicators of depth and where i am situated before it all. But, everything has the illusion of being in focus because my eye leaps around and hanges focus to study it. If i focus on one branch i am conscious of the lack of in areas in front and behind it. Depth of field and depth of focus are indeed technical terms in photography but are based off a very organic function. I hope you can understand that and welcome it is my perspective instead of shooting it down again. It's a method i know is anything but wrong.

[ReneAigner]

Not shooting anything down, it's not like you're wrong and you can of course use whatever terminology you like, but people are going to misunderstand you as I did if you use a very specific term like DOF to refer to something much more general. That's all =)

[RottenPocket]

I would be more than happy to elaborate on anything i write that a person finds confusing, they need only ask. I used the terminology i meant to. I wasn't refering to depth and DOF as the same thing. Distance between objects as seen from the viewer (DOF) should be considered in perspective drawing to create a more realistic sense of depth, more than simply forshortening and using vanishing points. I hope that's cleaer i can't exactly see everythingi type but it's apparently my shortfall and it's good that you point it out.

[devinn]

I would just find an artist that is good at environments and perspective and just ape him for a while. Copy a composition and deviate. Copy deviate.

The rules will eventually become innate, then you'll be pulling dope shit out your ass. You just won't be able to explain the underlying structure of your wickedness.

I've learned that a lot of artists, especially the ones that have ALWAYS been drawing out of passion, have the ability to compose good images because of that very reason: copying and deviating from a young age (Loish/ Lois Van Baarle for example)

But if you're really analytical, it's gonna feel akin to dragging your balls across a desert of gas: tedious. painful. unbearable. frustrating...idk lol.

Copying isn't bad if you're trying to learn.