Olimp Perspective

5 Responses

  1. Mike Puglielli Mike Puglielli

    Now, I am not a coward. I have no problem explaining a little about my comment, after all this is a beautiful piece of work. I mentioned there was a need of perspective, rather, correct perspective. So here's a brief explanation:

    The red lines demonstrate the current perspective in this image, albeit horizon lines to simplify the matter. You always only need 1 horizon line, most of you know this. What is a horizon line? It is the eye-level of the art , from which was seen/observed/imagined/etc, and the dot is the vanishing point (where lines will appear to converge). Anyways, there are 3 horizon lines in the current image. I determined 3 (could be more, can't be less) because each area is perfectly without perspective. Unfortunately this is impossible, even if the object was DIRECTLY infront of our eye, right on the center of the horizon line and vanishing point—still impossible. So we get that which seems flat—there is some great depth through color, modeling, and shape, but that's it.

    Having said that, we move on to the next point: the blue lines. The blue lines is where I would imagine the perspective should be, looking at it now, the blue horizon line could come down some, but I digress. Well, how is the blue line estimated seeing as there are a minimum of 3 horizon lines, you may ask. Simply, because of the lighting and floor/ground. The ground gives way to how you are looking at the image. If perspective was indeed correct, the ground the recorder is resting on would be invisible to our eye because the ground would be the horizon line and thus causing severe foreshortening on the top parts of the recorder because now our eyes are beneath the top of the recorder.

    Why didn't I go into more depth originally? Well, this is a damn beautiful image and I wanted to point out to Stanislav the issue of perspective without detracting the experience from the rest of the viewers. I can say with 95% certainty the moment Stanislav saw my comment he went "Oh, damn I knew something was off." Such a talented artist more than likely got carried away.

    The issue here is that of painting. Often times we find artists become so detail oriented and focus so much on a particular part that it isn't harmonious with the rest of the image. I can imagine that Stanislav worked on each part of this recorder individually and then added it together. You can tell: Pull each individual object/doodad, etc, and you'll see each have perfectly centered their own horizon line and focal point.

    Anyways, hope this helps those few who wanted the explanation. I love this image and I hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings here.

    EDIT: I mentioned "off perspective" not to derail the whole image, but so next time it could be that much better. :)

    likes

    almost 3 years ago

  2. Chad Mueller Chad Mueller

    This is what Dribbble is for - good solid critiques like this - great feedback..

    likes

    almost 3 years ago

  3. Mike Puglielli Mike Puglielli

    Cheers, Chad. Thanks.

    almost 3 years ago

  4. Alden Haley Alden Haley

    "Unfortunately this is impossible, even if the object was DIRECTLY infront of our eye, right on the center of the horizon line and vanishing point—still impossible."

    Theoretically, if this were a photo shot from a good distance with a telephoto lens, you would get a very flat perspective. While the floor shadow would still be possible if this were on a slope, you make a good point about that... unless the player is 1/4in thick and is basically flat to begin with :)

    almost 3 years ago

  5. Mike Puglielli Mike Puglielli

    You make a really good point with the telephoto lens...just so much theory about everything else. Not to say that these perspective woes ruins the piece, no, but it would certainly enhance...and poor perspective is a pet peeve of mine.

    Good points.

    likes

    almost 3 years ago

keyboard shortcuts: previous shot next shot L or F like