Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The vertical station point in 3 point perspective: How do I use it?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Hello,
I'm currently learning 3 points perspective and I would need some advice about the vertical station point.
I'm using David Chelsea perspective for comic book artists and Graig Atterbery complete book on perspective as reference. I understood how to place the left station point and the one on the right. I can place them with the compas or with a triangle.
I don't quite get the vertical one. As David Chelsea explains, you draw a line with is perpendicular to the center of vision and then use a triangle (like you did with the other two) to place it. So far so good.
What I don't get is the following: How do I pick on which side of the gravity line the vertical station point is going to be...
It seems that I can choose the left side, of the gravity line or the right side. In the quick example I made above, I checked with a ruler and then with a compas both places are correct. I know that I can't pick up both. In three points perspective a lot of things go by pack of three. You have three vanishing points, three horizon lines etc.. There is supposed to be 3 stations points one for each dimension.
This may be a opportunity left to the artist. So could someone say if I'm right or wrong and may be share some feebback about how he/she is doing it?
Thanks for reading me and for your advices!
Edited
by Charlotte Cremaschi
Posted
I studied 3 point and 4 point perspective at college many years ago, but I can’t ever recall it being as complicated as you are describing. In fact, to be honest, you’ve lost me (almost) completely with your diagram.
We never used compasses or triangles, just a ruler. We started by constructing a simple cube either above or below the horizontal eye level , then developed from there.
I can say with a degree of confidence that there won’t be anyone on here that can offer advice here, although we have a few newer faces that may be able to help.
Of course I may be wrong, but good luck anyway… my suggestion would be to source a more basic instruction book on the subject!
Posted
Tim Fisher's book is pretty comprehensive and clear https://www.painters-online.co.uk/store/products/drawing/drawing-perspective-first-edition-issue-1/
Posted
Glad Alan said that, because he's 100% right so far as I'm concerned - I really can't help with this...
If it's comic books you're interested in, would it be the case that you're looking to introduce multiple figures and viewpoints within the box frame of a cartoon? There are certainly difficulties with that, and I don't know how a professional comic book artist deals with them - I imagine they all have different approaches. Perspective is important, not that ancient painters understood the theory, and not all more modern painters, eg van Gogh, observed it; but you can over-analyse a drawing or painting, in ways that would never have occurred to the artist - I had a very posh book many years ago in which an Italian writer, I think (book long gone) imposed all kinds of designs on paintings to show us how the artist had conceived and designed them. Well perhaps he was right - but I have a feeling that very often, painters put things where they do just because that's where they seem to fit. Fine if a geometric process can be discerned, but I suspect this is usually someone else's afterthought (also see camera obscura!).
However, I'll take a look at Tim's book - which I know I haven't got (yet) - and will see what I can find out about David Chelsea and Greg Atterbery, with whom I'm not familiar. I do have a book entitled Anatomy and Perspective for the Artist, by Steve Smith: which, to be honest, takes me as far into this subject as I'm really comfortable with going.
Posted
I had a look at David Chelsea's website, and saw the book entitled Extreme Perspective - "extreme" is, I suspect, accurate.
I think you might have more success if you were to contact the author himself - I've yet to look at Atterbery; but I wonder if you're confusing yourself by trying to incorporate the approach of two different writers, who may not use quite the same terms.
(Might have helped if I'd looked for the right Atterbery - whose first name is Craig, rather than Greg, which was my interpretation of your "Graig". I've found his book now, among many others on Amazon on the same subject, and my recommendation is that you work through one, THEN - if you need to - start on the other. In terms of logical progression, probably start with the Atterbery then go on to the Chelsea - these things are easier to manage in bite-size chunks.)
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA
