HOME | DD
LilleKraakeLunde — Foreshortening Exercises
Published: 2005-11-28 12:35:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 9881; Favourites: 46; Downloads: 542
Redirect to original
Description
I was told my previous example was good, but demonstrated three point perspective, rather than foreshortening, which was the assignment. This is the proper example of foreshortening. I used household objects for the three solid examples of each shape, to give a better view of how the sides were shortened.Placing the vanishing point in the center of the three versions, you simply draw your objects in one point perspective, and foreshortening happens almost like magic. The best example is probably my traffic cone, the shaded version. You can see how much "larger" the middle version looks, and that is due to the foreshortening caused by drawing it in the one point perspective. Whether from the bird's eye view or worm's eye view, they look smaller in comparison to the dead on perspective.
Related content
Comments: 8
If you're going along with the same way you drew the box, you shouldn't be able to see the inside of the bottom of the top cone or the inside of the mug in the top or bottom picture. You should be seeing the bottom of both the top and bottom mugs and the top cone should look almost identical to the bottom one.
All of this, assuming you meant to be consistent with the box.
Given the way you drew the base of the top cone, it would certainly appear you made a mistake; turn the image over and the perspective of the cone doesn't match the way it's foreshortened.
Really think about how the objects would have to be placed in order for you to see them like that, and you can tell it's inconsistent.
I'm sorry if I come across as harping on this, but I'm just trying to make sure the point is clear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your point is clear, but I didn't make a mistake (my professor would have told me if I had.) None of the objects are meant to be consistent with each other. They are individual foreshortening exercises displaying eye level, bird's eye and worm's eye views of each object. They just had to be drawn on the same sheet. Also, the professor wanted us to draw them as if they were being "flipped" (imagine them on a pole attached to a wheel in front of you, which you can rotate up or down.) You're right that if you turn the image over, the perspective doesn't match the way it's foreshortened, but it does look as it would if you flip the objects rather than the drawings, as I describe above.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if you hit ctrl+alt+down arrow, you'll see that you would never see a cone like the one that's on top in the original image.
If you had drawn the base of the upper cone as a trapezoid with the larger side on bottom, then seeing the inside of the base would be fine.
You clearly intended for the lower edge of the base to be closer to the viewer, so it should be the one that appears lager, but it isn't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
(Uh, hit ctrl+alt+down arrow in which application?) I finally see what's tricking your eye though; I didn't tilt the cone as high as I did the other two objects, but side by side, they're sitting what looks like a lower level. Remember that I didn't draw these objects side by side, or in relation to one another. I didn't swing the cone as high up as I did when I swung it low. But it's still in proper perspective, for the position it's in. Does that make sense? It should have looked like an upside down mirror image of the cone below had I swung it as high as I did the box and mug.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ctrl+alt+down is the windows command to invert the screen.
It's not that the angle of the cone doesn't match the other objects.
The edge of the top cone that is above the oval formed by inside of the cone should be the edge that's farthest away from the point of view, so it should appear smaller than the edge that's closest to the point of view. The problem is that the more-distant edge appears larger than the closer one, thus ruining the illusion of perspective.
Just look at the cone up-side-down. If you successfully draw something up-side-down, it should still look right when it's turned over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm, that doesn't work on my screen.
I flipped it upside down, and it looks right. It isn't that the more distant edge appears larger than the closer one, it's that you expect the bottom cone to be showing the same degree of perspective as the top, and they don't. Look at the cone by itself. The perspective is spot on. It just doesn't match the distance of the bottom one. I'm sorry if you disagree, but ask any perspective professor and he/she will agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My pleasure, glad to be of assistance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0