1. hmmm nice. you're trying out stuff...

for the 2pt perspective, i don't suggest using regular sized paper. Maybe one that is almost too wide that its height (try folding A3 in thirds, then fold 1 of the thirds to the back. If you get it right, then that's the ratio i'm talking about hehehe).

Originally Posted by BunnyVoid
i think i can help with explaining perspective.
This is how we can manually compute and draw almost accurate perspective... you don't have to do this but it can help you understand rubiskos' point.
SPOILER! :

rightclick, then open image in new window to see full view.

If you see the image in full screen you will see additional "guides" besides the usual horizon line and perspective points. There is what we call a station point which we can likened to a camera. Additionally, there are what we call the picture plane. This can be likened to the window you view in when using the camera. In architecture practice, this camera is "set-up" on a scaled plan view of a drawing (in this case a building). In the picture the building is angled, but if we rotate the plan, the projected values will also differ. (If you're familiar with 3d, this is the manual version of orbiting around objects from different views hehee.. its kind of cool actually.) From there we project the points to the picture plane via the station point. To capture the actual heights of the drawing we project from a similarly scaled elevation using the opposite view point (see drawing, try to analyze hehe, can't explain sorry...).

So unto my main point...
We try to project those scaled measurements on a angled ground plane to achieve a perspective. notice that the points are far off because it wants to stretch the horizon as far as possible to copy the way the horizon in real life. the horizon in real life stretches across our line of sight.

Like in this post
SPOILER! :

In one point perspective this is more evident because points are too far off that lines become parallel. My prof once told me that there is no true one point perspective. There will always be some warping somewhere especially with cameras. But don't listen to him because it just complicates stuff. lol...
sorry can't explain it any better but hope you get the point
I really apologize for being lazy...

2. Yes, I were thinking the same thing as BunnyVoid, you have the exactly the same problem that we discussed in Adams thread one or two days ago =)

Here is more visual reference,

I put square bits of paper in line like shown in the top picture. Then I sat down by the end of this line and took a photo from an angle very close to the floor. I used a 14 mm lens, and you can see some distortion on the square closest to the camera (because it's close enough to fall outside the cameras cone of "vision") but since the only way to avoid that distortion would have been to take a few steps back this would only mean that the same thing would apply to the first square as it does to the second in the photo.
Anyway, now that I've explained the experiment, let's make an observation. None of the angles in a direct line from the camera to the horizon are less than a 90 degree angle, not even the distorted one closest to the lens. If located on the horizon such angles would be 180 degrees. If an angle is less than 90 degrees that would then imply that 1. It represents an angle that is less than 90 degrees if viewed from above, or 2. It's drawn incorrect.

And that's why you need to space the vanishing points wider than you've done up until now =)

3. Thank you, these help me understand how objects can be drawn and why perspective behaves like that, but it still takes awhile to figure out what I did wrong and correct it. It makes sense though, thank you.

Oh, this one was a fun sketch to do with some free time.

Did a rough sketch first on pencil with only proportions done, and then did rough ink sketch to create the design. I didn't use too many references this time, but what I did do is draw some armour of suits to understand how they are worn. I understand proportions are out of whack (Leg issue's) dinosaur design is not complete; but this was a fast, free minded sketch I did so that I could visualize what the final product COULD look like. For some reason, I was initially turning the soilder into a guy but then I got so caught up, well... I didn't want to interupt my flow of idea's and I forgot about gender. It took about maybe 30-45 mins to finish. I also added a light source and shadows. Just making sure that I know where they are all placed correctly. I need some critiques if I messed up the proportions for sure, or any other shadows I may have missed. Thank you.

4. *Double post

I apologize for not being very active, schoolwork has been priority first.
I was thinking of using the peice above as concept work, since it seems to present itself like that.

Another peice from LoL- but this peice was done for my cousin's birthday present. All descriptions and notes are inside the link below:
http://fav.me/d5n09ez

5. Originally Posted by RedCaliburn
do not just try and copy the lines of the figure! understand how it works, try and think beyond the 2d picture. try to compare yourself to the figure as well. think about the underlying structure, including muscles and bones. this guy has virtually no pelvis, his head/shoulders seem dislocated and unaligned, his biceps are awkwardly shaped. even if you're shooting for stylization, you still need to think realistically.

6. @Toast: the only way I can think in three dimentional spaces is if I use photographs. 3D objects in a program also help as well. If no books can help me since they're considered 'stylized', that will be one of my options. I agree that the figure I drew was incorrect in proportion, I will study harder. Not to be blunt, but I'm honestly getting a bit lost because some of you say: "wait a minute, you know how to draw this object and exactly the way it is. That's not right." And then some say: "Where's your style? I don't see it anywhere..."

I understand that I don't have a style now, maybe I don't at all? I've went on a burnout for studying proportions and I'm not giving up, it's just that it came to the point where I want to actually draw somthing else so that I can strech out my art abilities. I don't know the best way to approach realistic things when it comes to the function of the human body. All I know is what parts of the body that can stretch out to, how far, how short, the spine of the body is curved, when we lean or stretch certain parts of our muscle the lines will also change and how our bodies are formed based on the skeleton structure. Very text book like and it's not based on the way I understand it so I can apply it to my drawing's.

Oh I almost forgot, here's a colored version of my Warwick I did before:

SPOILER! :

http://fav.me/d5o9kha

7. Hmm, I have your same problem. I want style, not necessarily anatomical correctiness... however, I also don't want to be an amateur, and for that, correct proportions are a requirement.

here's my suggestion: Draw from life. Grab your sketchbook, go out and sketch. Sketch whatever, buildings, trees cars... Most importantly, sketch people. In natural, (clothed) positions. This might not help as far as muscle/anatomy practice, but it does help w/ achieving the life and motion on the page. People don't live in a 2D world... they don't exist on paper. The object is to convey that sense of "place" with a flat piece of paper and a pencil.
Balance this though, don't go overboard. Sketch quickly, try to capture the general line of motion--- the action and not the position.

Hopefully, this will give you some "umph" and help prevent that burnout you're hinting at. (Helps me, anyways.... I'm always inspired when I draw whatever I see... not what I "have" to draw)

8. There is more to figures than the proportions Caliburn, and i agree with Toast that I think you need to concentrate more on the underlying structures of the bodies of what you are drawing, understanding why certain features are expressed, know why these things happen, for example with that body you drew using the figure proportions the upper arms are off, if you look at the picture I attached below you can see that the deltoid muscles should come out further on your drawing and the biceps/brachialis shouldn't be so bulgy and should generally be protruding so far out, and the arm shouldnt just curve into the arm joint.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XdIwOji2ne...00/Anatomy.jpg

Proportion is important, but if you have done as much study as you say you have then it shouldn't be so much of a problem anymore and instead by using real life models draw why you see not what you think you see, I would suggest nude so you can see the structures underneath and then later once you understand how it works you can apply it to a clothed figure as well.

Here are some resources that I think you should read and use to apply to the reference (sorry if they have allready been linked);

Fun with a pencil <--- This will help with form and '3Dness'
Loomis <--- The important stuff about figures
Figure Drawing Manual <--- Gestures and other useful stuff on figure drawing
References <--- References

Lastly I think you need to work on the lighting for the coloured Warwick, the shading confuses me, in some areas it appears the light source is coming from the left and in others straight forward in front of the figure.

9. If you are still thinking about becoming a designer for video games, this is what I've heard regarding style: The more styles you can draw the more useful you are to clients and employers. If you can draw good in general you won't have too much of a problem learning new styles. The only way you can learn to draw good is by learning the fundamentals, to think in 3d and so on.

About getting confused about people's advice; it's only natural in a place like this that different people will give you different advice. I think it's important to set a goal, or find something really inspirational to navigate after. Then you will have an easier time to filter through and weigh the feedback you get along the way. For example I personally find Feng Zhu to be very inspirational, and I've watched all his videos on youtube. I know that he knows what he's talking about and it helps a lot to filter and compare everything I pick up from other sources with the things Feng Zhu says.

Lastly, demon's recommendation of reading "Fun with a Pencil" deserves to be repeated. The book is insanely good even though it may seem a bit odd and childish at a first glance. Give it the attention it deserves, and you won't regret it =)

10. It's been awhile, sorry for the lack of posts, been mostly busy with homework. I read all of your posts and I think I finally realized that my issue was too focused on a specific subject that lead me nowhere. When I was doing artwork before in 2012, I had issue's with simplifying things by using objects and from what I read from andrew loomis: "There are no rules, just tools!" Made me understand that I had to change the way I do art and see it. So I'm understanding slowly what my issue's were and fix those core fundementals to furthur develop my skills. I'm slowly starting to sketch faster and draw things from real life. I really want to thank you guys for giving these advices to me because it really did help me realize my mistakes alot sooner then it would take, maybe a year.

Old drawings, turned into digital:

Orianna
http://fav.me/d5sqzue
SPOILER! :

Nocturne
http://fav.me/d5r5kgq
SPOILER! :

@Rubisko I started watching feng zhu and he is very inspirational and critical. For that, I started on thinking about digital painting. I'm going to practice on value's, tones, composition and silluote drawings. Digital painting is still new to me, so I don't know too many technique's, but I learn a couple here and there.
Oh and here's a small painting I did to check how far I am with value and tone.

http://fav.me/d5tmksk
SPOILER! :

Posting Permissions

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