Is it bad to use an existing drawing, work of picture and "copy"

>>2783817
why would it be bad?

you can't construct in perspective because you do not do enough studies.

No, it's not "bad." Whatever works, works.

Also, copying a solution to a problem is a great way to acquire a repertoire of possible solutions you can use later. No need to know why they work, just that they work.

You can even use those "copied" techniques to devise your own original solutions, without really understanding why they work.

But if you really want to be able to do it from scratch in any given situation, then you're going to need to know the theory of what works when and why. Not everyone wants or needs to know this.

Just in case you do, here are a few things to get you started:

1) The horizon line is at the eye level of the viewer. The "camera" your picture is being seen through.

2) So if your viewpoint is 2 meters off the ground, and the ground is perfectly flat, then the horizon line is going to intersect everything in the picture exactly 2 meters up. The 2-meter mark on a tree would be at the horizon line. Something 3 meters tall will go above it, and something only 1 meter tall will stay below it.

3) There is always a vanishing point directly in front of the viewer. That's the one-point perspective, and you'll use that to figure out how tall and how far apart things will appear, the farther away they get. Basically, draw a straight line from that vanishing point to where this particular point would have been, if the object was right in front of you. However far away it is, that point is going to fall on that line. That's all.

4) An object's lines only converge on that central vanishing point if they are parallel to the viewer's gaze. If something is on an angle, then its lines will be pointed somewhere else, to another point of perspective.

5) Imagine the horizon is a giant circle all around the viewer. The spot on that circle where something's lines are aimed will be their vanishing point. This can easily be far outside the window of your page, so you might have to guess what looks "right." But knowing this can help you guess well.

>>2783817
Youtube videos just search it =="

File: test.jpg (125KB, 500x707px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x707px

>>2783831
I don't do studies on this because I don't understand the method

I'm trying to do something with a low angle, I'm using pic rel as reference.
I'm trying to understand of the perspective of the character is done.

Loomis mentions a box, when you divide this box with its diagonals, the center of the diagonals is the crotch area. But when I do that, the angle is wrong.

I quickly tried to imagine this grid on pic rel, but I'm clearly not understanding something and I feel like a dumbass because it can't be that complicated

>>2783842
One point perspective is fine, in fact I get those notions, I just can't "interpret" them on paper. If I want to make a perspective that I have in mind, I don't know where to place the elements, and sometimes, the VPs are out of the paper

>>2783917
>I'm trying to understand of the perspective of the character is done.
It's not. The artist eyeballed it to "looks good enough".

You're overthinking this, anon.

>>2783924
>>2783924

What do you mean ? Its done "instinctively" ?

I know the proportions are off because of the animu style, but I thought there would still be some degree of right. Now I'm even more lost in how to proceed if I don't want to emulate a realistic style

>>2783817
>I don't know if it's still helping to learn
Eh. Not really. If you understand basic perspective you're gonna be able to use it and produce work, but you're going to depend on it in the long run.

>>2783917
>I quickly tried to imagine this grid on pic rel, but I'm clearly not understanding something and I feel like a dumbass because it can't be that complicated
The perspective in that image looks warped judging from the character and buildings so you box should the have vertical lines as curves.

>>2783928
>What do you mean ? Its done "instinctively" ?
Eyeballing doesn't mean instinctively it more means doing the calculations in your head.

>>2783935
Yeah I know that I will have to learn by myself at some point. But I'm starting to really see that I skipped steps.
For example, I can't find a decent stance for the character, it goes beyond the perspective. I progressed in anatomy, but that's far from enough. I don't even think I can still produce "fun" work now.

>>2783942
Yeah, I just warped the box, I tried to do it with calculations in my head, it looks okay proportions-wise, but the stance is dogshit, I think that I will doodle some stances and figure instead because I'm getting nowhere right now. Shit looks stiff

>>2783917
>I don't do studies on this because I don't understand the method

Guess how you learn the method? By studying it.

>>2783950
I get what you mean and it's quite complicated to explain if you don't have a good grounding in perspective. You're having trouble placing figures in perspective and understanding their size relationship with the rest of the drawing, right? Especially when they're close.

Have you studied the concepts in pp. 21-27 of Scott Robertson's How to Draw? I recommend that because once you've learned the concept of Station Point and the relationships implicit in perpsective drawing, you can place figures much much better in it.

>>2783817
No rules, just tools.