/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4171188
ever moved your hand out of your field of vision?
Thats it.
there is 60° and 90°

is this brown rapunzel?

>>4171188
the coom of vision

>>4171194
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah well thought dude so original you totally trolled bazzenga hahahahahahahaha

Let based mormon show you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvZ_a5_7wrE

It's basically the area of vision where perspective actually works and right angles dont get distorted.
The tl;dr is to make sure to place vanishing points off your page in 2 point perspective.

>shadman

more like load of jism also
>shadman

>>4171197
I thought he was dead, or is this a old one?

>>4171197
Proof that he can draw of he wants to.

>>4171199
Why did you think he died?

>>4171196
What's the name of the instructor? I can't tell because I have poor audition and the sound Quality is poor, great video though.

>>4171201
Well, if you consider how long he's been drawing the anatomy is still shit even if it is cartoon stylized. It's definitely a better than his usual gross pictures but there's something about the way he draws/renders to where bI can SMELL his drawings, it's gross

>>4171210
Brother Tanner, I just found it randomly and assumed he was mormon because brother + idaho.

>>4171211
The ass is massive and the arms are kinda fucked, but the rendering is not bad, so there is just up yo your taste, personally I don't have any "smelling" thing, but that happens to me with japanese ilustrations, their abuse of yellow hues and lack of good light Systems makes me feel like their pics are painted with piss.

>>4171217
This guy?
https://youtu.be/ePv-9mVnTVk

>>4171188
>>4171196
This is partially right, but one conceptual point that artists usually overlook and which creates unnecessary confusion (or it did for me for a long time): perspective--i.e. the apparent convergence of parallel lines to a point at the horizon--inherently distorts not just right angles but all angles.

The only things that won't appear distorted (extremely convergent) are objects that take up a very small fraction of the COV. In effect, this means distant large objects (buildings) and/or not-too-close small objects (your TV set at a comfortable distance). But these objects can still appear foreshortened, which is a kind of distortion based on your point in space in relation to the object.

What placing the VPs far apart does is, it flattens the image. The farther apart the VPs, the narrower the COV, and the flatter or more horizontal everything appears, which is also not very realistic. Done moderately, though, it can get you closer a human-friendly COV. Humans see about 135 degrees horizontally, which would be hugely distorted in a drawing or photo; most of it is peripheral vision for us, only the central 60 or so is clear. This isn't any more "correct" than the way a horse or a fly or a camera sees reality, it's just how evolution primed us to see it.

Why does any of this matter? Because you need to know how things really work to do things properly, and not just the shortcuts and cheats. Maybe you actually want strong distortion for a spooky or surreal effect. Or maybe you want a super flattened telephoto effect. Neither is wrong. It's only wrong when you fail to get the desired effect.

>>4171188
The feet are unfortunate but he is getting better

I assume this is shadman ofc

Her thumb is on the wrong side of her hand

>>4171236
feng zhu has a good video on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agM5gJeilkE

>>4171280
It's fascinating to hear him confirm a lot of this stuff I've been researching on my own. Not that it's anything groundbreaking, it's all well tread material, but you rarely find this information so conveniently gathered into one video, and so lucidly presented. Which is why it's important to do your own research and not just follow one guide. You see the same subject from a new angle, reinforcing the knowledge that's already there. And you practice it of course until it eventually clicks.

>>4171188
I recognize the shad-style when I see it

>>4171196
that would of been nice to know before i made this.

>>4171554
Kek

>>4171554
fucking LOL

>>4171554
I like your funky car anon.

>>4171236
The further VPs are from each other in 2point, the larger will your COV be though. Since you will watch at the distance where you become a corner in a 90 degree triangle between you and the VPs. Thats what i was taught. Can you explain what you mean with the COV becoming narrower?

>>4171715

>>4171726
>The further VPs are from each other in 2point, the larger will your COV be though.

This would seems to make intuitive sense. Vanishing points get farther apart, the cone of vision should widen accordingly, right?

The thing to understand is that VPs have nothing to do with the COV. Vanishing points are a result of geometry and spatial relationships. If I'm standing next to a building, it doesn't matter whether I'm looking at the building or not (whether it's inside my field of view); what matters, as far as its vanishing points are concerned, is where I--or more precisely my eye level--is spatially located in relation to the building. The building doesn't depend on anybody actively looking at it to be situated the where it is space in reference to another point.

A good way to think of this, which Feng Zhu discusses in the video above, is to not think about moving VPs apart, but instead about predetermining the VPs, and then cropping into a narrower center between them. When your cone of vision is narrower (when you see less area), naturally you can't see the more extreme angles at the extreme edges.

Everything flattens at the center of a sphere at eye level, because that is the plane that is nearest to facing you. On a sphere, only 1 ideal point is perfectly facing you, because spheres curve. But spheres are just are a collection of infinitely many planes, a sort of very smooth cube or dodecahedron, let's say. Doesn't matter the shape, the principles of perspective are the same.

When you place the VPs far out from image area, what you're saying is, "I'm only paying attention to what's in the green area, give or take." I think of this as "stretching out and lying flat on the horizon." Whereas when you expand the image boundaries (what's included in the COV), things get cramped and squished very fast.

>>4171726
>The further VPs are from each other in 2point, the larger will your COV be though.

This would seem to make intuitive sense. Vanishing points get farther apart, the cone of vision should widen accordingly, right?

The thing to understand is that VPs have nothing to do with the COV. Vanishing points are a result of geometry and spatial relationships. If I'm standing next to a building, it doesn't matter whether I'm looking at the building or not (whether it's inside my field of view); what matters, as far as its vanishing points are concerned, is where I--or more precisely my eye level--is spatially located in relation to the building. The building doesn't depend on anybody actively looking at it to be situated where it is space in reference to another point.

A good way to think of this, which Feng Zhu discusses in the video above, is to not think about moving VPs apart, but instead about predetermining the VPs, and then cropping into a narrower center between them. When your cone of vision is narrower (when you see less area), naturally you can't see the more extreme angles at the extreme edges.

Everything flattens at the center of a sphere at eye level, because that is the plane that is nearest to facing you. On a sphere, only 1 ideal point is perfectly facing you, because spheres curve. But spheres are just are a collection of infinitely many planes, a sort of very smooth cube or dodecahedron, let's say. Doesn't matter the shape, the principles of perspective are the same.

When you place the VPs far out from image area, what you're saying is, "I'm only paying attention to what's in the green area, give or take." I think of this as "stretching out and lying flat on the horizon." Whereas when you expand the image boundaries (what's included in the COV), things get cramped and squished very fast.

>>4171195
hilarious how mad coomers get over this meme

>>4171907
or maybe people just find it unfunny and retarded

>>4171191
is elizabeth warren

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought of the 60 degree cone as what you see when looking at your subject, and the 90 degree is your peripheral vision. I noticed this when I first started studying perspective, everything would become super warped if I tried to incorporate what I was seeing in my peripheral.

>>4171554
Laughed, but hey, at least you completed a painting. Next time you're better equipped to fail less, and that's how you evolve.

>>4171280
>Feng Zhu was responsible for TMNT and Transformers concept art.
It all makes so much sense now... those movies are the epitome of soulless.

Very cool video, tho.

>>4171188
the hand needs more loomis

>>4172335
Feng also made general grievous so fuck you

>>4172518
Fuck me indeed, I love General Grievous.

>>4171188
That lip biting shit is the worst goddamn meme and for some reason western artists all seem to think it's hot. It's fucking retarded.

>>4172912
It IS hot if you enjoy whores being degenerate, which is a very Western thing.

>>4172912
it's not an unusual reaction on women. why is it a meme?

>>4171236
good tip, thank you anon

>>4172918
I do enjoy that, but lip biting is not hot in itself. It just looks fucking stupid. Like, it always gives off this super fake feeling that she is just putting on a face because she saw somewhere that it's supposed to be hot, the "I'M ACTING" of sexy faces.
>>4172920
It's pretty much the go to of mediocre western porn artists when they try to make a sexy face. It's the only one they know and it never looks natural.

>>4172912
that's up your ass and the exorcist head turn isn't.

>>4172949
Don't kinkshame me during spooktober please.

It is possible to turn the kneck that far?.

>>4172958
obviously. there's nothing wrong with the neck position. the problem is her back, that looks flat.

>>4172990
It doesnt look flat to me.

>>4171188
Holy Shit, the Thumb!

>>4171188
Was that thumb done on purpose? How do you get anywhere near this level and not notice the thumb?

>>4173085
Maybe he just didnt care to fix it, anyways his public are retarded kids addicted to porn, who cares.

>>4173085
My guess is that the arms were crossed in the original sketch, but then he simplified that and forgot to switch the hands. You'd remember having worked out the hand issue previously, so you wouldn't feel the need to doubt yourself.

when will shadman learn how to draw? Everything he does looks like shit, its incredible.

Holy shit you guys are fucking retarded, d/ic/ks cant tell badly drawn pinky finger from badly drawn thumb
Ngmi

>>4171554
pilotredsun?

The thumb thing is intentional.
It's obviously a Jojo reference, which should be expected from a meme artist like Shad.

>>4171188
tried to fix it

>>4173700
Habeas Corpus, ya feel me?

>>4173971
Way better.

>>4172954
bones?

>>4173971
damn. Good improvement.