cheap advice thread

[tokes99]

"how do you determine the exact degree of the ellipse for the wheels?(you know i've always had problems with those)"

You might be missing the point of the post, the method to determine the "exact" dimensions of the ellipses takes a lot of time (it may even require a graphing calculator--to find foci, major & minor axis) why do that when you can use a rough perpective and be really really REALLY close.

To add it is all about efficiency, you want to be able to the foundation quickly, so you can get to the fun stuff. If you are spending 5-30 minutes on getting the perspective "exactly" right that is too long imo especially when you could rough it out and then tailor it so that is just about undiscernable.

Remember mistakes are ok, that why (most) pencils come with erasers.

[bonzelite]

Originally Posted by tokes99

"how do you determine the exact degree of the ellipse for the wheels?(you know i've always had problems with those)"

You might be missing the point of the post, the method to determine the "exact" dimensions of the ellipses takes a lot of time (it may even require a graphing calculator--to find foci, major & minor axis) why do that when you can use a rough perpective and be really really REALLY close.

To add it is all about efficiency, you want to be able to the foundation quickly, so you can get to the fun stuff. If you are spending 5-30 minutes on getting the perspective "exactly" right that is too long imo especially when you could rough it out and then tailor it so that is just about undiscernable.

Remember mistakes are ok, that why (most) pencils come with erasers.

yes. like he said: use intuition even when constructing perspective. apply the principles whilst remaining loose and free. do not kill it with technical details. do not lock yourself in prison. use the basic principles and just take off. elipses are just things that require time or templates!

i will often find mistakes in a drawing after i have "finished" it. most people will not know they are there. and if they do, then it typically doesn't matter as long as the whole piece is strong and convincing.

[Ran]

Good tips guys, thanks for sharing them with us

[Ra_15]

Cool. I learn't 2 point at school a while ago.

You should try 5 point LOL! (architects use that, which is what I want to be)

[asaenz]

Well the advice is cheap, but the perspective tutorial is worth a million.

your perspectiveis a little off there bonzelite, the rear is too big, I think? Still very good advie nonetheless, the big the I still am struggling with is using my whole arm and still have that "controlled" line quality.

Well that is the artside of it. Everyone has a little style in his or her drawing. Bonz's cars portray action and he does that by exaggerating certain perspectives. IMHO Someone tell me to shut up if I talk too much.

Luv it holmz, I admire your action scenes.

Al

[SeCrEtMoDdEr]

seems like too much work to me.

you gotta draw all these lines and guess stuff and draw dotted lines(which are even HARDER to draw than normal lines)

not for me



i get it though, makes more sense now, good tutorial/advice/whatever its called.

[Ra_15]

Its best to do light solid lines, and it takes about two minutes SeCrEtMoDdEr.

If your drawing concepts its best to do this before you start, maybe even print out a 2 point perspective page that you can use again and again for practice?

For drawing cars from reference, the grid method is probably the best, although I prefer freehand.

[castback]

i agree /\

i don't use the perspective lines like that on cars that i have a reference picture for. even if i did the vanishing points would be way far away on most pictures and i would have to tape my picture on the table and make the points totally of the page.

yea the grid method is awesome for referce pictures.

this is what would do


perspective lines--concept cars/ no reference

grid-- drawings with a reference

[bonzelite]

the illustrations of the perspective constructions are there for the sake of learning the method behind the madness, as it were. as for me, i seldom construct projection lines, as someone said they'd go off the page into the next room.

when i do vanishing points on larger drawings, i will use non-photo blue prismacolor or extremely light pencil lines that will not show up on hi-contrast copying.

i usually bullsh!t the perspective scenario based on intuition. and if i see the car is getting too strange looking, i will project lines to correct myself.

moreover, i tend to get a rise out of the technical underpinnings of things. so i dig this. however, i know it is not for everyone: many people are alienated by technical things and tend to "shut off" at first sight of it, even if it is simple, like perspective. but we are drawing cars -they are made by robots.

[bonzelite]

personally, i never used grids. never saw the point of them. didn't need them. i eyeballed everything, then grasped the nifty gift of tracing. then combined both. but these tools are tools: gridding, tracing, templates, etc. and they are just tools.

the problem i have with only-tracing, or only-gridding, is that the person puts themselves in prison: they are limited by the grid. ie, they cannot take a pee or sh!t without carrying the grid to the toilet with them. it is very confining and rigid. there is no room to explore multiple angles of anything, there is no spontanaeity with a grid or tracing.

unless the artist succumbs to a life of drawing only from photos, and/or gridding a photo and then drawing in the 'quadrants' (which is essentially tracing, by the way), they are forever in jail. they cannot just toss out a sketch off the top of their heads, exploring uncharted waters, concepting scenes, and maybe even entire vehicles.

it seems like to use only grids or trace, which is one in the same to me, the artist is forever using training wheels. to be able to use it all, plus eyeball the subject to where it pretty much looks like it was traced, is a more respectable goal and state of existence.

[asaenz]

Originally Posted by bonzelite

personally, i never used grids. never saw the point of them. didn't need them. i eyeballed everything, then grasped the nifty gift of tracing. then combined both. but these tools are tools: gridding, tracing, templates, etc. and they are just tools.

the problem i have with only-tracing, or only-gridding, is that the person puts themselves in prison: they are limited by the grid. ie, they cannot take a pee or sh!t without carrying the grid to the toilet with them. it is very confining and rigid. there is no room to explore multiple angles of anything, there is no spontanaeity with a grid or tracing.

unless the artist succumbs to a life of drawing only from photos, and/or gridding a photo and then drawing in the 'quadrants' (which is essentially tracing, by the way), they are forever in jail. they cannot just toss out a sketch off the top of their heads, exploring uncharted waters, concepting scenes, and maybe even entire vehicles.

it seems like to use only grids or trace, which is one in the same to me, the artist is forever using training wheels. to be able to use it all, plus eyeball the subject to where it pretty much looks like it was traced, is a more respectable goal and state of existence.

I agree w/ you on most points, to only use grids is limiting.
I like grids because it can encourage people to keep drawing and hopefully learn to see and transfer what they see to paper w/o always using grids.

Bonzelite if you can teach people to draw w/o gridding pls do because another point of grids is, I believe it to be nearly imposable to teach someone how to draw online.

With your style I see no need to grid because you are rendering romantically.

Well, I think griding is tracing after looking it up--I was going to disagree with you--however the mere act of drawing what is seen is tracing too.

Check it out:

v. traced, trac·ing, trac·es

To draw (a line or figure); sketch; delineate
To form (letters) with special concentration or care.
To copy by following lines seen through a sheet of transparent paper.
To follow closely
To imprint (a design) by pressure with an instrument on a superimposed pattern.
To make a design or series of markings on (a surface) by such pressure on a pattern.
To record (a variable), as on a graph

Anyway just my view, a person w/o a formal art education other than high school.

Art is art and there is no superior ideology, that is why it is called art and not science.




Alfred

[bonzelite]

al, i am not against grids or tracing, as i trace all of the time; i'm not trying to shimmy my way out of tracing or place myself "above" it -a grid is a necessary tool. as i ponder what you say, i think the literally-drawn/superimposed grid helps people to generate a good start, like you say.

i cannot speak to literal grid use personally, but i hope those who start using them move on to other things, ie, create the grid in the mind when drawing things. i align objects horizontally and vertically constantly with my mind's eye, else i would not be able to draw anything at all. i am, therefore, imposing a mental image of the grid upon everything anyway.

like i said, i trace stuff to this day. and that is "worse" than a grid because i am literally tracing all of the proportions, cheating, when i use that tool.

i support the 'mere act of drawing is tracing, too..." thinking. this thread talks all about that>>>: http://automotiveforums.com/vbulleti...45#post1846345

al, yes, it is difficult to teach drawing online. i have attempted to lay the groundwork for this in the "cheap advice thread." i suggest that a first place to start is an understanding of basic perspective. going straight to a grid will leave the beginner forever at a loss for future growth, IMHO.

only rendering great is not a comprehensive state of draftsmanship. i suppose this is my whole message. it is like a band that plays only cover-tunes, top-40 hits or classics, but never explores music outside of that "grid."

does any of this make sense? am i being unreasonable? i feel that the more i go on about this, the more i tend to alienate others, but i am talking about simple things.

if someone is happy with what they have, then go with that. i know that no two artists are going to employ the same approaches.

[tokes99]

"Art is art and there is no superior ideology, that is why it is called art and not science."

Well not to disagree, because I agree sort of, but the word "art" does have connotations of superiority in most contexts.

If you mean art as in expression I agree, but in the way most people would see it, I think art is comparative---a this is better than that type thing. I would never refer to myself as an artist though people may classify what I create as art.

That is why I love the name of this forum "sketching & drawing", enuff said.

[bonzelite]

as a storyboard artist, i am often regarded, and have been told outright, that i am *only* a mechanic.

perhaps in that mode, storyboarding, there are instances of that. and sometimes it is artistic. i am a realist, so i often agree with "them," yet i don't fully.

[tokes99]

Well in that case I am conflicted, because I have seen a few storyboards and they have veried from the bare minimum to multiple fully rendered panels.

The only reason I can find to not call it the a word is that the emphasis is not so much on looking spectacular but to illustrate ideas, stage position, camera angles, etc.

Even with that said, the couple of people that I have known to do storyboard on the proffesional level were immensly talented and I would consider them artists.