/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2984140]

Does anyone know how this is done in perspective?

[Anonymous No.2984146]

simple 1 point perspective

[Anonymous No.2984147]

>>2984140
>draw in 1 pt perspective
>make upside down stairs and buildings
>???
>profit

[Anonymous No.2984150]

>>2984146
The stairs though

[Anonymous No.2984154]

>>2984140
3dcg program most likely. If you think it's time-consuming it probably was for the artist. Maybe .1% of the time would any contemporary mangaka actually drawing everything out with a grid, and even then with lots of digital tools and a LOT of time. Or tracing photos, which works too.

[Anonymous No.2984156]

>>2984150
Then you haven't learned perspective.

[Anonymous No.2984162]

>>2984156
That's 1 point in perspective looking up.

That's the one thing I haven't learned.

Some of these stairs are simple to place down, but some of them are difficult to decide with certainty.

[Anonymous No.2984169]

>>2984162
Then the stairs are three-point perspective.

Use your head.

[Anonymous No.2984178]

>>2984162
>that's 1 point in perspective looking up
No you fucking autist, it's just 1 point perspective, it's not any different just because the horizon line isn't a LITERAL horizon.

[Anonymous No.2984179]

Can I get a red-line on this?
I think the vanishing points to the stairs move up in space.

[Anonymous No.2984183]

It's not even best pic by Nihei

[Anonymous No.2984186]

>>2984178
dont bully the autist.

[Anonymous No.2984212]

>>2984179
Nevermind.
You move the vanishing point off to the side.

[Anonymous No.2984216]

>>2984212
actually you just raise the one that's already there.

It's just way off to the side. It feels like you're making a new one.

[Anonymous No.2984272]

>>2984154
Not every manga artist is on retarded Shonen Jump work schedules

[Anonymous No.2984439]

>>2984169
No that's not how it works. 3 point perspective means there are 3 vanishing points.

This drawing is 1 point, but the artist cheated in some depth (the bottom recesses inside the walls) without adding vanishing points, that's why it looks wonky.

[Anonymous No.2984463]

for the stairs the easiest way is to draw where they lead to first and then simply connect. how to get the storeys the right heigh use this:
http://studiochalkboard.evansville.edu/lp-grids.html

[Anonymous No.2984466]

and the angle of stairs is around 30-40 degrees

[Anonymous No.2984471]

>>2984140
Nihei is an industrial designer so he probably uses a 3dcg program to layout his backgrounds since its literally what he did before moving on to manga full time.

[Anonymous No.2984478]

>>2984471
probably not since he had some trouble drawing the stairs too

[Anonymous No.2984481]

>>2984478
i mean, they are way steep

[Anonymous No.2985204]

>>2984140
there's something fucked between Killy and the gangwalk he is standing on. The angles are weird.

[Anonymous No.2985270]

>>2984140
Here's a hint anon: You can change the vanishing point.

[Anonymous No.2985279]

>>2984439
>That's not how it works
There are always 3 vanishing point, sometimes though 1 or 2 of them can be taken so far away it only produces parallel&perpendicular lines wrt the horizon

[Anonymous No.2985283]

going to old industrial areas, taking pictures, copying/tracing pictures until you make something interesting. success

[Anonymous No.2985309]

Oh no. Not another shitty perspective thread. Will it fucking ever stop?

[Anonymous No.2985329]

>>2985279
yeah that's why one point is also known as 3 minus 2 point perspective

[Anonymous No.2985388]

>>2984140

[Anonymous No.2985400]

>>2985388

It's definitely just one point perspective, only one set of lines is converting. The fact that one is looking up means absolutely nothing, as far as your picture plane is concerned, it's the same as looking straight in front of you. The only thing that's changing is the structure you are looking at, but if you focus you can clearly imagine the building just being a pavement you could walk, specially in thumbnail view.

[Anonymous No.2985403]

>>2985283
i'm sure there are lots of industrial areas with 30+ story open stairwells you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.2985406]

>>2985400

>converting

Converging*

[Anonymous No.2985424]

I'm gonna shill https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html in every simple perspective problem thread until they stop existing.

[Anonymous No.2985442]

>>2985424

It's not lack of information, if people really wanted to master perspective they would download Erik Olson's seminar and go through it vehemently, taking notes and doing exercises. People are just put off because they think Perspective is too complex and mathematical to have any use, which is plain bollocks.

[Anonymous No.2985451]

>>2985442
>Erik Olson perspective meme
Enjoy never learning 3-point perspective

[Anonymous No.2985464]

>>2985424
neat site, but the easiest way if youre having problems is to do a simple setup in a 3d program, not as educational, but gets the job done

[Anonymous No.2985471]

>>2985451

He does actually teach it though, there's nothing about it either that cannot be derived from what you learn in 1 and 2PP, while also being one of the least used perspectives too. To call Erik Olson a meme based on such a silly thing, just shows how ignorant you are about it and to be perfectly honest, makes me want to smack a bitch up.


Buy hey, better for the rest of us who actually put in the effort. Not learning perspective is the natural way of this craft has to weed out the weak and unworthy.

[Anonymous No.2985513]

>>2985471
>there's nothing about it either that cannot be derived from what you learn in 1 and 2PP
If you're able to understand how to accurately construct things at whatever distance and angle in 3PP just from studying 2PP then I'd have to say you're pretty fucking smart. But I know you can't do that.
I find that a really strange thing to say in defense of Erik Olson's 90 hour series of him going over the same basic 2PP shit that you should be able to figure out after learning the basics through common sense.
If you're smart enough to figure out 3PP with only 2PP study then you should easily be smart enough to not waste your time with hours of redundant measuring and construction tips and tricks.

>while also being one of the least used perspectives too
It's only the least used because it's the least understood.

[Anonymous No.2985521]

>>2985513

>If you're able to understand how to accurately construct things at whatever distance and angle in 3PP just from studying 2PP then I'd have to say you're pretty fucking smart.

It's literally the same techniques, the only issue is that it's more tedious, due that all the lines converge to a point, you need more extrapolation from perspective, out of it and back into it again via reference points.

>It's only the least used because it's the least understood.

By whom, professionals? In that case, you are wrong. 3PP is used for impressionism, to sell a shot for a project or to show off a really big place. For most production things, it's hardly the best one to use to show case dimensions (2pp) or symbolism (1pp). It's also the most tedious to work at, so obviously artists are going to want to stay on 1 and 2 pp to explore ideas more easily.

>shit that you should be able to figure out after learning the basics through common sense.
If you're smart enough to figure out 3PP with only 2PP study then you should easily be smart enough to not waste your time with hours of redundant measuring and construction tips and tricks.


This is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in a while, Perspective is the BASIC language of art. You don't skip the alphabet because you're too smart, you learned well so you can use your smarts later on while writing novels (a.k.a design and composition choices).
---


Fucking pathetic, dude. If you are too lazy to work, the least you could do is keep quiet instead of trying to bring others down with you.

[Anonymous No.2985532]

>>2985521
It's funny to say that I'm lazy when you're complaining about 3PP being so tedious in the very same post.
And why am I lazy according to you? Because I don't want to go through 90 hours of the same shit about 2PP and want to move on to properly understanding 3PP. Well I guess I'm fucking lazy then. I'm so fucking lazy that I went through all of handprint's 3-point perspective shit and took away the knowledge that I actually needed from it to properly understand perspective instead of droning for hours on end through the exact same concepts a whole level down and never pushing myself further.

[Anonymous No.2985535]

>it's another "people actually think perspective is hard" thread
Go construct 30 boxes right now, as accurately as you can. Use a ruler and try to make your linework as clean as possible. Draw three vanishing points, two on the horizon and one at the top of your canvas. Ensure every single line you draw converges to one of them. Ensure all cubes have equal width/height/depth.
If you still think perspective is hard after that, just give up. You're not gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.2985540]

>>2985532

>It's funny to say that I'm lazy when you're complaining about 3PP being so tedious in the very same post.


You keep misunderstanding my points because you lack the knowledge necessarily to come to sensible conclusions. 3PP is indeed more tedious than 1PP and 2PP due to the extra work needs to do. My point was that if you are an artist and you want to quickly explore ideas, you go are more likely to use 1 and 2 point perspective, not only because they are easier to do, leaving more time for putting your brain power into actual design, but because both of those ideas are already commonly used and proven to be the best at certain specific tasks, like I said before.


Basically, you can be the best carpenter around. Using a analog screwdriver instead of an electric one is never going to stop being more tedious.


>And why am I lazy according to you?

Because if you think investing 90 hours of your life into mastering the one of the most basic and important skills in this craft is too much. Not even 500 hours worth of lectures and note taking would be too much for such a valuable skill. What's worse, not only are you lazy, but you are so far down the Alice's rabbit hole you've already taken the potion and are deluded beyond your capacity to understand it.

>took away the knowledge that I actually needed from it to properly understand perspective

Post your work, yeah?

[Anonymous No.2985541]

>>2984183
Looks like he fucked up on putting the figure in correctly in the bottom left.

[Anonymous No.2985547]

>>2985451

>Enjoy never learning 3-point perspective


Yeah, why the fuck would you get yourself a driving license if they are not going to teach you how to drift, am I right?

[Anonymous No.2985549]

>>2985540
You're not wrong that 3PP is more tedious. And I agree that 1PP and 2PP are better for quickly exploring ideas and in industries like concept art and design then you absolutely should just go with 1 and 2PP because 3PP will take too much time to do accurately.

BUT

I think it's very important to UNDERSTAND 3PP properly. Just knowing the theory behind properly measuring shit will help any art you do, whether it be just freehand or if you autistically measure every vanishing point to be perfect and you shouldn't just be content with only know 2PP well just because you're too lazy to properly learn 3PP and you think it isn't viable to use.

>Not even 500 hours worth of lectures and note taking would be too much for such a valuable skill.
Once again you're not wrong, but 500 hours of lectures on 2PP won't teach you 3PP. That's my main gripe with Erik Olson and is why I'll call him a meme whenever he's suggested to be the be-all-end-all of learning perspective. And that's why I'll always shill https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html over anything else for learning in-depth perspective.

>Post your work, yeah?
I'm doing >>2985535
You do it too.

[Anonymous No.2985554]

Jesus fuck, you people really need to open some big assembly in some CAD program like Catia or maybe even some building in 3D in Revit and just play for a while.

Like fucking seriously. And I personally love Blame! (for the story/worldbuilding)

[Anonymous No.2985567]

I'm already on part 3 of Erik's lecture and I need to kind of agree with >>2985549 in the point of taking too long on some things. He literally spends 2 hours talking about the same thing anyone got in his first example, but I can't skip fearing I might miss something. In the end I kind of feel my time being wasted.

It's still great, tho. Dunno about this 3PP not being taught.

[Anonymous No.2985572]

>>2985567

Erik Olson is a meme, you don't want teaching from a guy who's art is this:

http://www.erikedwinolson.com/

[Anonymous No.2985584]

>>2985572

What's exactly wrong with his art? He might not be the best realism painter, but the perspective is solid. Not everyone wants to draw anime girls.

[Anonymous No.2985603]

>>2985584

Holy shit man, are you for real? Just look at that composition and everything. You don't need 90h lecture to draw those boxy houses.

[Anonymous No.2985608]

>>2985603

He gives you the knowledge and tools, what you do with them is up to you. To think you'll only be able to draw buildings is pretty silly, and he does not go very deep into composition, it's a Perspective seminar, so I am not sure why this matters at all.

[Anonymous No.2985609]

>>2985608
All his compositions are boring as fuck because he's restricted by only doing 2PP in his work.
Maybe the reason he never goes into 3PP is because he doesn't know it. That's seemingly what his artworks would suggest.

[Anonymous No.2985611]

>>2985609
Then why not learn 1PP and 2PP from him and 3PP somewhere else?

[Anonymous No.2985613]

>>2985611
Where to learn 3PP though?
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect4.html

[Anonymous No.2985614]

>>2985613

Are you doing the boxes exercise?

[Anonymous No.2985616]

>>2985403
Wew lad, you can edit pictures together you know.

[Anonymous No.2985617]

>>2985614
Yeah, I'm on six boxes.
It's kinda boring though. I'll probably just do up to 10.

[Anonymous No.2985620]

Woah, that's so cool. Is that digital?

[Anonymous No.2985621]

>>2985617
Lazy fuck.

[Anonymous No.2985622]

>>2985608

If you are going to learn, just do it from at least semi-capable artists. What he does in his paintings is pretty much amateur tier. I mean, look at those windows and entrance in the house at the left side. Whole painting is like some young kid got a ruler and spend tried to do stuff with it because can't design well.

Problem is that this guy teaches perspective. Literally why would you listen to him. And it's not even complicated perspective in his paintings and he always has some kind of a road in the bottom of a painting and horizon placed in nearly the same place.

He doesn't even try more complicated views where perspective would be actually helpful. If anything, I think listening to that guy would hamper your progress and not boost it.

There's a reason NMA discontinued his course.

[Anonymous No.2985626]

>>2985622
It's for bed shitting autist 4chan beginners, which is the majority here

[Anonymous No.2985628]

>>2985621
It won't prove my knowledge any more if I do it 3 times more.

[Anonymous No.2985629]

>>2985622
>>2985626

What's the most complete resource on perspective then? Like, something that makes you a GOD.

>>2985628
If you spent 5 months drawing cubes just to prove God is real I would go to church every Sunday.

[Anonymous No.2985633]

Anyone else mark krilley has pretty decent perspective in his work? More dramatic and interesting than this olsen guy at least.

[Anonymous No.2985634]

>>2985629
>What's the most complete resource on perspective then? Like, something that makes you a GOD.
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html

[Anonymous No.2985635]

>>2984140

[Anonymous No.2985637]

>>2985617

Just six? You better work faster, lazy ass.

[Anonymous No.2985639]

>>2985634
I swear to Satan if I read all this shit and not come out shitting hot smut perspective-perfect anime girls I will DDoS this shitty site until 2024

[Anonymous No.2985640]

>>2985629
Going to classes for architecture and draftsmanship

[Anonymous No.2985646]

>>2985639

Eric Olson + Scott Robertson is the best material you can go through to really grasp perspective from the ground up to the most advanced techniques. Ignore the Anon you are talking to, someone who takes half an hour to draw six fucking boxes in 3PP shouldn't have a fucking say anyway.

[Anonymous No.2985647]

>>2985637
90% of that was setting up the vanishing and measuring points perfectly.
Now that I've done that it doesn't take very long per cube. But drawing 30 seems a bit much just to prove something on the internet to anonymous people on a mongolian throat-singing board.

[Anonymous No.2985652]

>>2985646
You know what? You are all niggers and I am going to learn from both. Check mate, negros.

[Anonymous No.2985653]

>>2985647

Aha, can't wait to see it.

[Anonymous No.2985656]

>>2985652

That's exactly what you should do actually, I never opposed Handprint source, it's honestly a very goo source too. Erik and Olson go into a lot more detail and in a more manageable way too, plus it gives you clear and concise exercises to practice to really ingrain it in your brain.

[Anonymous No.2985659]

>>2985656

>Erik and Scott*

[Anonymous No.2985661]

>>2984154
Wouldn't take long at all to do with a simple ruler.

[Anonymous No.2985665]

>>2985400
Beginners seem to have this idea that vanishing points are somehow tied to the horizon line.

[Anonymous No.2985666]

>>2984154
>>2985661

Plus, you lose the ability to quickly explore ideas by drawing little thumbnails to find your way around perspective. 3D is too slow for generating ideas, that's why Feng Zhu insists 3D will never take over 2D unless some super machine comes out.


Obviously, people with zero knowledge about perspective can't even begin to imagine such scenario, so they'll say 3D is taking over and there's no point in learning Perspective.

[Anonymous No.2985669]

>>2985629

>What's the most complete resource on perspective then? Like, something that makes you a GOD.

What the guy said >>2985640 - actually thousands of high-schoolers aged 17-19 go each year to art classes to learn perspective, shading and other fundamentals for their portfolio.

You can go with Handprint, it's one of the best resources at least on paint pigments and other similar stuff, but really, grab anything. Those concepts aren't really hard, it's more how to apply them. Book with perspective exercises could be nice.

Also construction like Robertson in "How to Draw" and krenz does is good to learn, would recommend those resources, BUT at the same time just apply perspective in making your own stuff.

Comic book artists also teach in a nice and complete way. Personally would recommend "Vanishing Point: Perspective for Comics from the Ground Up".

Other approach - you can just grab 3D renders for sf games, because they are very boxy and usually not that complicated and then draw a horizon line there, where lines converge, how the boxes look like (draw even invisible edges) etc.

[Anonymous No.2985674]

>>2985665

Yeah, that's exactly it. If they could understand the picture plane is a constant, always in front of their eyes and moves with them, they'd have a much easier time understand what's going on.

[Anonymous No.2985675]

>>2985669

Also about those high-schoolers - go to the site of local art school that prepares people for architecture and look at what they do there. Pic related is perspective study of some probably 18 year old from city in south eastern Poland nobody ever heard about.

[Anonymous No.2985688]

>>2985535
Here it is.
10 perfectly proportioned cubes in 3 point perspective with all my working out shown.
The viewer is looking 30 degrees upwards and each cube is rotated 30 degrees horizontally because 45 degrees would've been boring.
I could've rotated them any direction but that would've required making more vanishing points which would make me want to commit suicide because it was tedious enough with them all with the same vanishing points.
The circle represents a 90 degree field of view.

[Anonymous No.2985694]

>>2985688

[Anonymous No.2985695]

>>2985688
What's the point of all the extra lines?

t. helpless beginner

[Anonymous No.2985697]

>>2985688

I feel like you fucked up somewhere, but I don't know where and if at all.

[Anonymous No.2985699]

>>2985688

I see a shiton of unnecessary lines. You could have used Reference points to your first cube into any direction and go from there, one of the first lessons Erik teaches.

[Anonymous No.2985706]

>>2985695
Absolutely no point. They are all superfluous, if you have access to a ruler. The only lines you should be drawing are the edges of the cubes.

[Anonymous No.2985709]

have a hearty chuckle at me

[Anonymous No.2985712]

>>2985695
Thin black - FOV circle, finding the actual horizon, finding the station point and then finding the vanishing points.
Blue - Vanishing lines (Horizon lines)
Dark Green - Auxiliary horizon lines
Red - Finding the measuring points (45 degree vanishing points that I use to make sure that the cubes are perfectly proportioned)

Everything else is drawing from the vanishing points or to the measuring points to construct the actual cubes. None of the lines I could have done away with because I was aiming for 100% perfection with no guessing.

>>2985699
Is that really by Olson? He's worse than I thought. I guess he really doesn't know 3-point perspective.
>Horizon line level with the center of the picture plane
>Vanishing points on horizon are at the same distance as if they were done in 2 point perspective

That's not 3-point perspective. That's 2-point with another point added on top with nothing changed. I'm actually surprised that someone so regarded as a master of perspective would make such rudimentary errors.

>>2985706
Yeah you're absolutely right. But the point was to do them completely perfectly. If I don't show all my working out then there's no way to prove that they're accurate.

[Anonymous No.2985716]

>>2985688
>>2985695
>>2985706

This, no wonder he takes almost an hour to draw 10 cubes. Instead of drawing one cube and then referencing, he draws 10 cubes, each one separately.


It's crazy inefficient, he should read this page on Scott's book or do Week 1 of Erik Olson.

[Anonymous No.2985717]

>>2985709

Start with feet. Seriously. Always start with feet when you draw like that and then orient your perspective with them.

[Anonymous No.2985719]

>>2985716
I didn't think it would've counted if I just projected one cube out.
If I did that I could've drawn 30 in the time it took me to do 5.

[Anonymous No.2985720]

>>2985719

>I didn't think it would've counted

That Anon wasn't even asking for cubes, he asked for BOXES.

[Anonymous No.2985723]

>>2985720

>>2985535
>Ensure all cubes have equal width/height/depth.
He said cubes. With equal proportions and everything

[Anonymous No.2985725]

>>2985723

Alright. He didn't say you couldn't project, honestly I believe you just didn't think about it.

[Anonymous No.2985726]

>>2985719

Man, the point of this exercise is to have 1 object if constant size, just with changed location in perspective.

What you did is basically pointless and teaches you nothing.

[Anonymous No.2985731]

>>2985725
Me? Not thinking about projection?
Me, who knows how to measure out perfect vanishing points at any arbitrary angle in 3 point perspective and perfectly measure out cubes at any arbitrary location, not knowing about one of the most basic perspective drawing techniques?
Yeah sounds about right.

>>2985726
It didn't teach me anything because there's nothing for me to learn from that. I already fucking know.
And yes there wasn't a point to it. I just did it to prove to mr olson shill that I know how 3-point perspective works from just handprint, and that's something Olson will never teach.

[Anonymous No.2985734]

>>2985665
Explain

[Anonymous No.2985739]

>>2985731

> not knowing

Not knowing and not coming up with the thought to use it are different things. There's little excuse for being so inefficient to draw a bunch of cubes in 3PP.

[Anonymous No.2985740]

>>2985734
Vanishing points are only tied to the horizon if the line is parallel to the ground plane.

[Anonymous No.2985742]

>>2985734

Go watch Week 1 of Erik Olson's seminar, he'll repeat it over and over again till you get it. I think right about episode two he gets right into it.

[Anonymous No.2985744]

>>2985739
I literally had the thought in my head: "This would be so much quicker if I just projected one cube. But then if I do that, my fellow mongolian throatsinging enthusiasts will complain and say I took the easy road and won't believe that I can construct a cube in any location from scratch"

[Anonymous No.2985748]

>>2985744

Why wouldn't we believe it if you literally had to draw a perfect cube once so you could do the projections?


Inefficient magical austictic fuckery. Someone shout out another exercise to do.

[Anonymous No.2985754]

>>2985744

Actually the way you did it seems "easier", in a sensei that's more n00bish. IF for example you labeled cubes and there would be one with ratios 1:1:1 and others like doubled in one or two dimensions - then yes, people would say that you showed even better skill. But random boxes with undisclosed dimensions to anyone? Hell, we can't even really checking you.

What you did is /beg/ tier mistake.

[Anonymous No.2985767]

>>2985754
>IF for example you labeled cubes and there would be one with ratios 1:1:1 and others like doubled in one or two dimensions - then yes, people would say that you showed even better skill
Yeah, but that would have taken even longer. It wouldn't be hard at all, it's just basic multiplication and division of boxes which you'll learn in any perspective course at the beginning.
>But random boxes with undisclosed dimensions
They're all 1:1:1
>Hell, we can't even really checking you
You could if you knew perspective well enough
I explained what all the lines mean here >>2985712 so if you're game, go ahead and check.

[Anonymous No.2985769]

>>2985622
>There's a reason NMA discontinued his course.


What do you mean? He's course is still available at New Masters Academy?

>http://www.newmastersacademy.org/an-introduction-to-perspective-01/

[Anonymous No.2985774]

>>2985769

Avaliable, but they aren't interested in finishing the course with 3 point.

[Anonymous No.2985778]

>>2985769
Discontinued as in no new video lectures come out anymore.
The last one was in mid-2014 if I'm not mistaken.
I imagine NMA realized he doesn't know 3PP at all (evidenced by this piece of shit>>2985699) and they figured people were getting fed up with going through the same shit ad infinitum and never getting to 3PP (evidenced by all the comments in his later lectures being like "yo where the fuck is that 3PP at?")

[Anonymous No.2985783]

>>2985774
>>2985778

But there is still utility in earlier lessons for 1PP and 2PP, right?

[Anonymous No.2985785]

>>2985783
I guess, but after 90 hours of 2PP he's bound to repeat himself a couple hundred times.

[Anonymous No.2985786]

>>2985785

90 hours not too bad, if he does go in depth about 1 and 2 point to the point where one would not have any issues with it anymore. I could always learn 3PP later on, no?

[Anonymous No.2985789]

>>2985783

Listen, instead of watching 90h of some dude talking, just grab some fucking book or good 3D renders of a scene and draw exercises/invent your own, mindfully studying how proportions change and how to build scene by transforming simplest of shapes by restricted operations like scaling or rotation.

If you even do 50h of drawing and 40h reading through really not that complicated concepts, you will be better off.

[Anonymous No.2985797]

>>2985786
Yeah, sure. But I don't think perspective is complicated enough that you need to watch literal days worth of lectures just to understand the theory behind it.
I'm of the opinion that you should get right to the point when learning without fluffing it with a bunch of stuff that you should be able to figure out on your own once you know the basics.
Which is why I'll forever shill https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html.. Because while Olsen will teach you protip #1263 of drawing things in 2-point perspective, handprint will have already taught you the important theory behind 3-point perspective and it respects your intelligence enough to believe that you can figure out how to apply that stuff on your own.
And I'm a firm believer that learning through your own problem solving skills as opposed to being spoonfed every little tip and trick is a much better way to learn if you want to retain your knowledge.

[Anonymous No.2985804]

>>2985789

I don't disagree with that advise, but I'd rather do both to be honest. I've put 1000 hours into drawing during the last 5 months since I started, 150h worth of lectures, exercises, note taking and doing my own exploration sounds even better. Specially considering I don't know half the things in the syllabus.

[Anonymous No.2985820]

>>2985797

>Yeah, sure. But I don't think perspective is complicated enough that you need to watch literal days worth of lectures just to understand the theory behind it.


Well, maybe I am a brainlet and Perspective is complicated enough for me to spend literal days worth of watching to understand it. I am not going to re-invent the wheel. I've spent thousands of hours watching worthless shit, some lectures are not going to kill me. Not that I do not plan on applying the ''basics'' to explore ideas, that's the whole point of it.

[Anonymous No.2985826]

>>2985820
Whatever works for you man. Not everyone learns best in the same way so it's good to try out as many sources as you can and see what resonates best with you. I'm not saying Olson is worthless, in fact my only real objective gripe with him and his perspective series is the complete lack of 3PP which you can learn from other sources.