Tilting and rotate object inside box?

>>2529400

just. fucking. draw.

>>2529412
the.fucking.owl.

>>2529400
S C O T T R O B E R T S O N

>>2529400
http://www.architecturerevived.com/perspective-drawing-tutorial-art-technique/

More concise than any of the shit scott robertson has put out.

>>2529400
Just keep trying.

>>2529400
>steals his gum content
>still can't make use of the information

In a nutshell, the face of the average /ic/ poster.

File: 1434588229175.png (143KB, 672x434px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 672x434px

>>2529400

Can you post Krenz tutorials and images etc? I'd love to see those even if I can't read moonrunes

>>2529400
im not sure i understand whats your problem anon
may wanna rephrase it?

>>2529400

Are you that fucker from /beg/inner thread that I called from fucks because you apparently have tablet but can't even fucking draw a semi-straight line or end it in proper point?

Jesus fuck man, really, stop with the fucking boxes because you are apparently too stupid for it now. Just fucking draw from "Keys to Drawing" by Dodson, or do drawabox.com . Fuck man, you should gtfo of /ic/ and just draw, draw, draw by sticking to exercises.

File: 1463754876899.png (537KB, 2480x3508px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 2480x3508px

>>2530574
I think he wants to place the black box inside the blue box, and then rotating the blue box with the black box inside. The blue box is essentially only a tool to rotate the black box in perspective.

>>2529451
that has nothing of the depth of robertson's work, this is very basic perspective stuff

>>2530552

He didn't give actual advice on the jpegs how to rotate and tilt.

>>2530693

OP here, thanks man I now understand how you did it:)

>>2530693

I think I got a headache just by looking at this picture, explain the procedure please? Looks complicated as fuck to me to do that, and even more to do it from memory

>>2530817
Not the one who posted but I'll give it my best shot to explain.

Notice how there are 3 boxes? From large to small? Those are steps 1,2,3.

First you draw the box in a simple 2 point perspective.

Second, you draw another box inside the first box(in this case a tall, narrow box receding into 1point perspective)

Finally the third which is the same, draw another box inside the second box (in this case, one in 3 point perspective)

The whole point is to simplify the process of drawing a box in an angle that would be otherwise hard to do via eyeballing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I think of when I saw this image.

>>2530770
oh really? show us an actual object now

>>2530749
The depth of Scotts book only serves to obfuscate the information.

Its generally removed from context and not good for the beginner. That being said, ALL the information is there, the be all end all almost.

By comparison I think books like those that Will Eisner has put out on Narrative and comics are far better at imparting their message in a manner that is clear and concise.

File: 1458556313689.gif (497KB, 250x140px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 250x140px

>>2530857
>The depth of Scotts book only serves to obfuscate the information.
classic /ic/
never change

>>2530860
Have you read Will Eisners books? Scotts books are a mess and hes and artist. Conveying the information clearly should have been his priority, instead it looks like a math textbook.

The information is sound and exceptionally indepth, my argument is that its presented poorly.

>>2530918
I completely agree with you, anon. I was always good at perspective and 3d visualisation, so I thought this book wouldn't be too hard, but it's really unnecessarily confusing. Things aren't nearly as hard as he makes them look. People here are not going to admit that though, because every artist respects Scott, so they have to as well. I bet most people who've bought the books haven't read/studied them through.

>>2530560
this