Welcome new members. If you have been recently invited to join our forum, welcome.
Please take a few minutes to introduce yourself at The Meeting / Room General Discussions / Introduce yourself
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” ― Pablo Picasso

General Discussionsperspective - battle scene

User avatar
uuglypher
Mentoris Grandis
Mentoris Grandis
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:57 pm
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Re: perspective - battle scene

Post by uuglypher » Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:39 am

Hi, Piet,
I’m sorry to be so late joining this discussion. Back in early June when 5his started I was busy putting finishing touches on my presentation and workshop to be be given in mid June, and I guess I never quite caught up after I got back up from the conference on what I had missed.

I.M.O. a n7mber of important points have not been considered with the presented image.
a. it is not an image of linear perspective.
b. Regardless of whether it is of linear or non-linear perspective, I know of no requirement that the viewer’s perspective must be figured into the composition to be from the level of the horizon. Come to think of it, the alternate perspective I mention in the n3xt paragraph may actually confirm your statement rather than deny it! I’ll be damned! Live and learn! Well, that’s what I get for skipping formal art training!

Think of a view from a mountaintop down toward a wee village in the depths of a valley waaaay below the camera’s position (“it’s downward perspective”). When viewing from a point elevated into the sky and looking downward the actual horizon may wind up well above the top edge of the image.

On the other hand, an upward view of a B.I.F. or of a near-by tree top the horizon may fall well below the bottom of the image.

If you want the ease of using two point perspective, then mak3 it an image of linear perspective; arrange the battle to be taking place where there are visual referents for linear perspective...say in the middle of a street with buildings on either side...or, better yet , have the battle occur with the corner of a large building behind the mass of energetic sturm und drang, with depth receding down the two streets to the right and left away from the corner in the center of the image.

Although there are exceptions, most landscapes are non-linear perspective images. if there is a substantial close foreground element at one side or the other, it is easy to perceive depth recession occurring toward the most distant point on the horizon opposite to that solid foreground referent of “closeness”. And remember, the vanishing point of such depth recession may actually be placed far beyond the edge of the actual image.

For cases in which the major v@nishing point occurs within the image, as it did in an image you made looking down a rugged valley at Zion, all depth recedes to that point within the image.

So, in summary, when obvious referents of linear perspective are present, the photographer or other artist is generally advised to build on it as a major contributor to composition. When the image is non linear, the photographer can,by selection of view perspective ( Low, aiming high. High aiming low,
Left aiming right. Right aiming left.... (and don’t forget the diagonals)...impose a desired direction of depth recession

Here is a free image from unsplash the depth rec3ssion of which is from low foreground to high infinity.
Depth recedes as a “front of recession” from the bottom to the top of the image.
But in the stereo conversion I prepared from the original 2D image, I thought depth might better recede up toward the upper right...so that’s how I arranged it.

I hope this provides some useful...perspectives.

Dave
Attachments
448A2A29-E703-418D-B5DF-96A9E749D25A.png

User avatar
PietFrancke
Mentoris Magnus
Mentoris Magnus
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: WV
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by PietFrancke » Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:48 pm

uuglypher wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:39 am
Hi, Piet,
I’m sorry to be so late joining this discussion. Back in early June when 5his started I was busy putting finishing touches on my presentation and workshop to be be given in mid June, and I guess I never quite caught up after I got back up from the conference on what I had missed.

I.M.O. a n7mber of important points have not been considered with the presented image.
a. it is not an image of linear perspective.
b. Regardless of whether it is of linear or non-linear perspective, I know of no requirement that the viewer’s perspective must be figured into the composition to be from the level of the horizon. Come to think of it, the alternate perspective I mention in the n3xt paragraph may actually confirm your statement rather than deny it! I’ll be damned! Live and learn! Well, that’s what I get for skipping formal art training!

Think of a view from a mountaintop down toward a wee village in the depths of a valley waaaay below the camera’s position (“it’s downward perspective”). When viewing from a point elevated into the sky and looking downward the actual horizon may wind up well above the top edge of the image.

On the other hand, an upward view of a B.I.F. or of a near-by tree top the horizon may fall well below the bottom of the image.

If you want the ease of using two point perspective, then mak3 it an image of linear perspective; arrange the battle to be taking place where there are visual referents for linear perspective...say in the middle of a street with buildings on either side...or, better yet , have the battle occur with the corner of a large building behind the mass of energetic sturm und drang, with depth receding down the two streets to the right and left away from the corner in the center of the image.

Although there are exceptions, most landscapes are non-linear perspective images. if there is a substantial close foreground element at one side or the other, it is easy to perceive depth recession occurring toward the most distant point on the horizon opposite to that solid foreground referent of “closeness”. And remember, the vanishing point of such depth recession may actually be placed far beyond the edge of the actual image.

For cases in which the major v@nishing point occurs within the image, as it did in an image you made looking down a rugged valley at Zion, all depth recedes to that point within the image.

So, in summary, when obvious referents of linear perspective are present, the photographer or other artist is generally advised to build on it as a major contributor to composition. When the image is non linear, the photographer can,by selection of view perspective ( Low, aiming high. High aiming low,
Left aiming right. Right aiming left.... (and don’t forget the diagonals)...impose a desired direction of depth recession

Here is a free image from unsplash the depth rec3ssion of which is from low foreground to high infinity.
Depth recedes as a “front of recession” from the bottom to the top of the image.
But in the stereo conversion I prepared from the original 2D image, I thought depth might better recede up toward the upper right...so that’s how I arranged it.

I hope this provides some useful...perspectives.

Dave
Ha! Useful perspectives!

It is very good to see you Dave. I thank you very much for your thoughts on this complex subject - I figure with your 3D approach, you have a better grip on perspective than most. I like your "use a building" in the background approach, I think that is a great idea. I get mostly befuddled about how perspective works, but tell you what, for me, a lesson learned is that from now on when I have a new object that I drop into the scene, I am going to use the transform tool on it and just mess with it's perspective to see the different feelings it gives you.

I may not know what is going on, but sometimes you can "feel" what is going on.

User avatar
uuglypher
Mentoris Grandis
Mentoris Grandis
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:57 pm
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by uuglypher » Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:21 pm

30281B5E-7F14-44AA-A534-5388B1833230.png
Hi, Piet,

I should have added that a gathering of people (a battle?) with a non-linear land#cape background can be given a strong lateral perspective by the simple expedient of inserting a close foreground mass at one end (perhaps the armored shoulder, arm, and spear of a soldier running toward the fray, and letting the horizon at the the opposite end of the image be as simple as possible. BINGO! Depth recedes strongly from that close foreground detail toward the simple, uncomplicated distant horizon at the opposite end of the image.

Here is a non-linear landscape with strong right-to-left depth recession built on the same plan described above - the big foreground shrub defining the stuff at the right end as closest to the viewer and the distant horizon is obvious at the far left end. Voila! Perspective from close right to far left!

Dave

User avatar
PietFrancke
Mentoris Magnus
Mentoris Magnus
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: WV
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by PietFrancke » Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:06 pm

uuglypher wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:21 pm
30281B5E-7F14-44AA-A534-5388B1833230.pngHi, Piet,

I should have added that a gathering of people (a battle?) with a non-linear land#cape background can be given a strong lateral perspective by the simple expedient of inserting a close foreground mass at one end (perhaps the armored shoulder, arm, and spear of a soldier running toward the fray, and letting the horizon at the the opposite end of the image be as simple as possible. BINGO! Depth recedes strongly from that close foreground detail toward the simple, uncomplicated distant horizon at the opposite end of the image.

Here is a non-linear landscape with strong right-to-left depth recession built on the same plan described above - the big foreground shrub defining the stuff at the right end as closest to the viewer and the distant horizon is obvious at the far left end. Voila! Perspective from close right to far left!

Dave
By the way, On your first image, I like how your girl is looking at the vanishing point..
Your second image strikes at the heart of my perspective issue, that is "where does one begin?". And you have given me a big piece of the answer I think. That being, that perspective is all around us - so... choose a perspective that is useful (like your depth receding to the left). And then as images are added, ensure that their perspective (and size and positioning) in some way fits into the scene.

In other words, choose the scene first and it should go far to getting one started - since the scene will determine the general perspective, and then as you add figures, you know where the ground is, and you can ensure that the figure's perspective makes sense.

Or, at least find an image that you like and attempt to figure out That image's perspective rules - and then attempt to add figures in a similar way as they are in the target image - you get free "good" composition that way too!

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest