Handprint's Perspective

>>2791001
too complicated and unnecessary

Taught me everything I know about perspective but I completely agree with >>2791039

>>2791001

One of the best perspective resources that everyone should read. And if youre too dumb to understand it then youll never make it anyways.

>>2791039
Can you recommend any other extensive resources (other than Erik Olson)?

>>2791293

Scott robertsons book. But handprint has the same info.

>not gonna make it

Thanks for sharing this OP, I find it easier to digest and understand than Scott's How to Draw book.

File: facc.jpg (1MB, 1590x2079px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1590x2079px

>>2791293
you don't need such a complex perpective, just simple 3d boxes and horizon lines

>>2791105
post your work

>>2791322
will that'd be enough to set up things proportionally correct (cars) though? how would you work on that if there's no grid?

>>2791322
>cube
Nigga that's not a cube.

I like handprint because it goes far beyond what I need so I can dial it back to what I'm actually going to use. The pigment information is invaluable and even though I don't make full use of it, having it as the basis from where I make decisions has made a massive difference.

Having history along with the information is really fucking nice. Even though it adds up to more than I wan tto read, it makes it more bearable than a wall of shit I don't care about.

>>2791319
Scott's book is more of techniques list rather than general understanding of how perspective works
> Just follow these steps and don't bother understanding why they work

>>2791328
okay it's cuboid you autist

File: marvel way.jpg (497KB, 1200x1564px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1200x1564px

>>2791325
of course

>>2791332

Understanding of why they work is explained through handprint pretty well. Scotts book cover the how and why if you read the text and analyze the diagrams. And Id wager by your description of the book you havent read it. The first 5 chapters explain quite well how it works. But to be honest with you, perspective is essentially applied geometry and if you can't into grade-school math then theres no hope for you pal.

>>2791692
Well that's what I said, you need to be somewhat familiar with how perspective works to keep up with Scott's book and he confirms this by saying "Explore this chapter to familiarize and *refresh* your knowledge of perspective terminology." He then proceeds with techniques and you need to "analyze" by yourself to get how it works.
What I mean is you can start your perspective journey with Handprint as your first and only source although it is somewhat complicated, but you can't do that with Scott

>>2791749

Nah, I think Scotts is good enough for a starting book, particularly because it gets into drawing real objects with that knowledge quickly, rather than stopping at boxes and cylinders. I have both his books infront of me and neither of them have any quote that resembles what you claim. Again I question whether you own the book or not. You dont need to be familiar with perspective to get into How to Draw. The definitions and concepts are well enough introduced in chapters 1, 2 and 3. Handprint has a little more info but its not entirely necessary unless you really need to get into architectural work by hand and complex projection. Handprints main advantage is that its free.

TLDR Stop memeing this "Scott is too advanced/not good for beginners" stuff. I see it all the time and its not true.

>>2791001
is cool, because that's information there's no other place to find.

that said, in this day and age, it would be retarded applying those archaic and overcomplicated methods instead of just using some 3d model software.

>>2791776
The quote is the first sentence of chapter 2 in How to Draw. The book is great as a reference on how to do specific tasks in perspective, not on how to understand perspective. It teaches you how to mirror an existing rotated tilted plane but not how to draw one. I suggest you take a look at Perspective Drawing Handbook by D'Amelio to understand how a book for beginners should be.

>>2791807

I checked and its there, and I had missed it. Although it bears little importance because the following definitions are fairly complete. Also note that it says "familiarize" which would suggest that the information could be new. Its one sentence of dozens in the book, and the overall theme is that its for people new to perspective. I began perspective training with Scott's gnomon videos (his book in video form more or less) and understood it just fine. Its more than sufficient to start with.

>It teaches you how to mirror an existing rotated tilted plane but not how to draw one.

It doesnt need to tell you how to draw one because a tilted plane requires nothing more than 4 connected points in space that are in reference to a horizon. If you look at the diagram and previous chapters its fairly obvious that a titlted plane could be made by shifting one or more corners of a box/plane in any direction. This is why I state that if you cant into grade-level geometry, perspective is a tiresome and pointless endeavor and no book will help that.

scott's method is learning a handful of useless inexact rules of thumb, to finally end up guessing everything.

why would anybody use that shit instead of doing a simple 3d model is beyond me.

>>2791905
This so much.

I listened to /ic/'s sound advice after hearing most of you praising him as the holy grail of perspective once I've finished Ernest Norling's book but God damn it was just grind this to get this result and it felt a pain going over it. Whether you get the concept or not rests upon your shoulders of reading the same instructions over and over again.

It was not completely useless. But godamnit if it wasn't efficient. It took me way too long to work with that book compared to the other art books out there (colors, anatomy). Thank god for handprint or maybe I'm just better with in-depth theoretical stuffs a few explanations because it seemingly want enough for my dumb brain. I'd take a chemistry textbook manual over How to Draw at any time.

The hard cover is still high quality though, and Scott is still good for covering mechanical drawings.