HOME | DD

Description
"Perspective" normally follows lines to or from Vanishing Points, be it anywhere from 1 to 6- or beyond. The idea is to give an illusion of depth, of things close and distant.

Vanishing points are great for artificial things, like buildings, roads, and the like...but what about natural scenes? Where straight lines are uncommon at best? Where curves are the norm, where trees and clouds can be big in the distance while small ones are close up?

What you'd have there is sometimes called a "zero" or "non" vanishing point image. This is when you cannot really use vanishing points, because the scene is too disorderly or inconsistent.

Luckily, certain rules usually apply, and can help.

For example, all else the same, things that are close have more detail than distant things. A maple tree up close is one with details you can see, right down to tears in the bark and spots in the leaves- but from a mile away, it becomes much less detailed. In the distance, a slope covered with maple trees is more a misty green mass than actual trees.

When you draw things closer and closer to the horizon- where sky and ground meet, or eye level- they are getting further and further away. Couple that with the fact that it would have less detail, and you can show that even a much larger object is in fact far away, while a smaller one is actually close.

An obvious way of showing something being closer is to draw it in front of something else.

So, the following basic rules can help:

1) The closer things are, the more details can be seen.

2) The closer something is, the bigger it looks.

3) Objects in front of others are closer.

4) If something curves, the curves get tighter in the distance- as a rule.

5) The closer something is drawn to the horizon, the more distant it is...as a rule. There are exceptions, as will be seen here in Fig. 2.

In Fig. 1, we see a meadow. The grass up close has the strongest coloring, the blades are drawn largest, and there is the greatest amount of detail.
The grass further back has less detail, weaker coloring, and the blades are drawn smaller.
The part in the back is much, much less detailed, has the weakest coloring and detail, and the blades- what are drawn- are the smallest. All of this creates the illusion of three levels of distance: close, further away, and far.

Fig. 2 shows a simply-drawn meadow (although note the size of the grass blades up close and distant) with five bushes on it. Once again, detail and coloring are strongest for the closer ones.
This time, however, the sizes are NOT uniform. Bush 4 is bigger than bush 3, although they are the same distance away. To show that, both have the same color strength and amount of detail and- this is so important here!- they are both right on the horizon!
Bush 2 and bush 5 are drawn the same size and distance from the horizon, but are NOT the same distance away. The amount of detail and color strength in bush 5 is much greater, and this time I drew a shadow- under bush 5, showing where it is floating. That's right, floating- (bear with me here...please...)- imagine how much less this would work without it. It looks closer than bush 2.

Fig. 3 shows how objects drawn in front of others look closer. The faded coloring helps here, and the trees behind the front ones were drawn "higher up," as were the bushes in Fig. 2.

Fig. 4 shows a natural scene, along with some "0VP" signs, to illustrate what's been done so far. The signs get smaller and less detailed the further back they are. The river's curves are tighter in the background. Details are less in the background. This time, however, I darkened the river in the distance; there are times you'd do that. Other times, things can get lighter. It depends on the situation.

Fig. 5 is an example of not following those rules. The trees all have the same level of detail, coloring, and size, no matter where they are. The meadow is drawn the same everywhere. There is no scale, no shading, nothing- the result is a very simplified image with very little sense of depth, beyond the fact that you simply "know" which trees are closer and further away (largely due to distance from the horizon).

Fig. 6 Is similar to Fig. 3, except the clouds are of different sizes. Since the small cloud is in front of the big one, has stronger outlines and more detail, and has somewhat stronger color, it is clearly closer.
As with land objects, things in the sky that are closer to the horizon are usually further away, unless you show- with detail, shadow, or such- that it is in fact hovering not too far above the ground but is still drawn above the horizon.

Fig. 7 is a picture with EVERYTHING wrong. The river's curves are the same everywhere, the coloring and details of everything is the same, objects that are pretty much the same size are not drawn larger or smaller regardless of distance. The two trees in the lower right also show a problem...

There is an old photographer's trick and joke: You take a picture of someone up close at the foot of a gently sloping hill, but behind that person, some distance away, is someone else standing up a ways on the hill. If you position them just right and take the picture, it will look like a tiny person standing on the head of the first person. While the picture is not faked and is technically correct, you would still try to avoid such a situation.

So it is with art. If two trees, the one behind the first is larger and up a hill a ways, you'd end up with something similar to what you see in Fig. 7, although one tree would be more detailed and colored more strongly. It's usually best to avoid this sort of thing if possible.

Zero/Non Vanishing Point pictures are a good deal more subjective than 1+ VP pictures. While there are certain rules you can follow, they are not absolute and at times simple judgement and experience must apply. And that is up to you, not me or this tutorial.

Now- on to a more objective world...the world of the Single (One) vanishing Point!

Description
"Perspective" normally follows lines to or from Vanishing Points, be it anywhere from 1 to 6- or beyond. The idea is to give an illusion of depth, of things close and distant.

Vanishing points are great for artificial things, like buildings, roads, and the like...but what about natural scenes? Where straight lines are uncommon at best? Where curves are the norm, where trees and clouds can be big in the distance while small ones are close up?

What you'd have there is sometimes called a "zero" or "non" vanishing point image. This is when you cannot really use vanishing points, because the scene is too disorderly or inconsistent.

Luckily, certain rules usually apply, and can help.

For example, all else the same, things that are close have more detail than distant things. A maple tree up close is one with details you can see, right down to tears in the bark and spots in the leaves- but from a mile away, it becomes much less detailed. In the distance, a slope covered with maple trees is more a misty green mass than actual trees.

When you draw things closer and closer to the horizon- where sky and ground meet, or eye level- they are getting further and further away. Couple that with the fact that it would have less detail, and you can show that even a much larger object is in fact far away, while a smaller one is actually close.

An obvious way of showing something being closer is to draw it in front of something else.

So, the following basic rules can help:

1) The closer things are, the more details can be seen.

2) The closer something is, the bigger it looks.

3) Objects in front of others are closer.

4) If something curves, the curves get tighter in the distance- as a rule.

5) The closer something is drawn to the horizon, the more distant it is...as a rule. There are exceptions, as will be seen here in Fig. 2.

In Fig. 1, we see a meadow. The grass up close has the strongest coloring, the blades are drawn largest, and there is the greatest amount of detail.
The grass further back has less detail, weaker coloring, and the blades are drawn smaller.
The part in the back is much, much less detailed, has the weakest coloring and detail, and the blades- what are drawn- are the smallest. All of this creates the illusion of three levels of distance: close, further away, and far.

Fig. 2 shows a simply-drawn meadow (although note the size of the grass blades up close and distant) with five bushes on it. Once again, detail and coloring are strongest for the closer ones.
This time, however, the sizes are NOT uniform. Bush 4 is bigger than bush 3, although they are the same distance away. To show that, both have the same color strength and amount of detail and- this is so important here!- they are both right on the horizon!
Bush 2 and bush 5 are drawn the same size and distance from the horizon, but are NOT the same distance away. The amount of detail and color strength in bush 5 is much greater, and this time I drew a shadow- under bush 5, showing where it is floating. That's right, floating- (bear with me here...please...)- imagine how much less this would work without it. It looks closer than bush 2.

Fig. 3 shows how objects drawn in front of others look closer. The faded coloring helps here, and the trees behind the front ones were drawn "higher up," as were the bushes in Fig. 2.

Fig. 4 shows a natural scene, along with some "0VP" signs, to illustrate what's been done so far. The signs get smaller and less detailed the further back they are. The river's curves are tighter in the background. Details are less in the background. This time, however, I darkened the river in the distance; there are times you'd do that. Other times, things can get lighter. It depends on the situation.

Fig. 5 is an example of not following those rules. The trees all have the same level of detail, coloring, and size, no matter where they are. The meadow is drawn the same everywhere. There is no scale, no shading, nothing- the result is a very simplified image with very little sense of depth, beyond the fact that you simply "know" which trees are closer and further away (largely due to distance from the horizon).

Fig. 6 Is similar to Fig. 3, except the clouds are of different sizes. Since the small cloud is in front of the big one, has stronger outlines and more detail, and has somewhat stronger color, it is clearly closer.
As with land objects, things in the sky that are closer to the horizon are usually further away, unless you show- with detail, shadow, or such- that it is in fact hovering not too far above the ground but is still drawn above the horizon.

Fig. 7 is a picture with EVERYTHING wrong. The river's curves are the same everywhere, the coloring and details of everything is the same, objects that are pretty much the same size are not drawn larger or smaller regardless of distance. The two trees in the lower right also show a problem...

There is an old photographer's trick and joke: You take a picture of someone up close at the foot of a gently sloping hill, but behind that person, some distance away, is someone else standing up a ways on the hill. If you position them just right and take the picture, it will look like a tiny person standing on the head of the first person. While the picture is not faked and is technically correct, you would still try to avoid such a situation.

So it is with art. If two trees, the one behind the first is larger and up a hill a ways, you'd end up with something similar to what you see in Fig. 7, although one tree would be more detailed and colored more strongly. It's usually best to avoid this sort of thing if possible.

Zero/Non Vanishing Point pictures are a good deal more subjective than 1+ VP pictures. While there are certain rules you can follow, they are not absolute and at times simple judgement and experience must apply. And that is up to you, not me or this tutorial.

Now- on to a more objective world...the world of the Single (One) vanishing Point!