Thank you very much for creating the great tutorials..but here is little correction needed ..that cube , cylinder, sphere and pyramids are not shapes they are forms (3D) actually.
Both pigments mix with French Ultramarine to make a black. Burnt Umber is more opaque, dries faster (in oil color) and has a slightly stronger tinting strength. I went with Burnt Sienna because that's the first black I was taught to use. Maybe I should have mentioned Burnt Umber as well. Great comment, thanks.
Really doesn't explain any way to arrive at the proper dimensions/shapes of the ellipses that define this shape. Perspective is much more involved than just eyeballing something. In that regard, this is not helpful.
Thank you for getting right to the point. Easy to understand, clarity and concision in your presentation, no stupid music blaring away in the background. 👌🏼Subbed.
0:46 erm, the top shape is not an oval (which is essentially another word for an ellipse, but is often specifically meant to convey an ellipse tapered on one end). The top shape is a sometimes called a pill shape but is, which we can see by the fact that it contains straight lines, most definitely NOT an oval. I don’t mean to be unduly critical but this is a pretty egregious error for an art demo.
Isn't an ellipse supposed to be in perspective? Isn't the leading or closest edge larger in a ellipse? Or is that a perspective ellipse? And these are isometric ellipses? If the top and bottom and all sides are exactly the same isn't that an oval? Or does rotating the glass instead of keeping it level and raising a lowering it to the horizon line make it more oval? Rotating it still leaves one edge closer than the other so in perspective on flat paper they are still not equal. The front edge is rounder and longer. Ovals are still pretty close though.. I looked on Google and I guess an ellipse is the same on all sides so no they are not in any kind of point perspective. They are just elliptical ovals if you ask me. Elliptical is just another style of oval. Fat in the middle same on both ends..
If I understand what you say, then your implication is that the viewer-facing edge on the curvature on one side of the minor axis is a different shape from (rounder than) the distant edge on the 2D plane (the other side of the minor axis) - the implication is that it’s like a very fat egg shape. However, this is almost always incorrect. The viewer-facing and distant edges almost always have the same roundness in the 2D plane (unless the camera or your eye has distorted optics). Explanation: if you take a cone (the pinhole viewing which models the perspective) and imagine slicing it diagonally with a flat plane (the viewing plane of the 2D image) then the conic-section is an ellipse, with equal curvature on both sides of the minor axis, even though one side of the plane is closer to the tip of the cone and the other side is closer to the wider part of the cone. It will not have an egg shape. Although this is not intuitive, it is a well-known fact from geometry, which can be proven.
@@gideonk123 If a circle like a square is equal on all sides and the circle in the square on the same plane the circle should have a larger relative front edge. I also think you could never see the sides of a cylinder unless your eyes were as wide as the cylinder. You can never see a full 180° of a siloh or cylinder because you can't see through the rounded front.
@@seetheforest I agree that when you view a cylinder from up-close then you cannot see both of its sides. I also “feel” the intuitive logic you describe comparing the wide front of a rectangle vs. its back side. Nonetheless, if you view a round object, such as the opening of a cylindrical jar or drinking glass (wether transparent or opaque), more and more from the front, you will definitely notice that the shape at its opening is an ellipse with symmetry around its minor axis. In the 2D projection, the front shape will be symmetrical to the back shape. I understand this is counter-intuitive, but encourage you to try it, especially if you look with a single eye open, to prevent the mind playing perception tricks. You can also photograph with a camera and study the resulting pics. I admit the only time where you would be correct is when viewing with a camera “extremely” up-close, together with some distortion in the camera optics, which always happens (nothing is ideal). As I said, this can also be proven mathematically as the oblique cross-section of a plane (representing the 2D projection on a camera or eye) with a cone (representing the perspective of a part of a round 3D object, such as the jar’s opening).
That tree, lumped right in the middle of the picture, is a barrier to the viewer entering your scene. That's a composition no-no. If you had lost the lower branches it would have allowed the viewer to enter your picture space, with the tree creating a frame.
I can't help feeling that training yourself to draw properly, directly onto the canvas is a much better process than endlessly tracing and redrawing from a grid. You're just delaying the acquisition of an important artistic skill, observation. A painter that can't draw is cheating himself. He will always be dependent on tricks to get an accurate rendering. Sorry if that sounds harsh.
