5:33 AM, Wednesday April 1st 2020
Looks good! The main thing I’m noticing is a problem with the center lines. One thing I like to do to aid that, is to ghost all 3 lines separately, and see how’d they look if they all headed to their respective VPs, and then pick a point that’s equally off of all of them. That way, I don’t run into that issue where 2 of my convergences are extra correct, and one of them is extra incorrect. The box is still just as bad as it would’ve been, of course, but it doesn’t look as bad.
In regards to the thing that you asked me on Discord, boxes that have shallow foreshortening have VPs that are waaay off the page. Nonetheless, even if all we do is extend our lines to twice their length, we can still learn a lot about their rate of foreshortening.
Next Steps:
Okay, so, for step #2, I’d like you to do 1 more page of boxes (shallow foreshortening- think #5), and this time, aim for all of the VPs to be equidistant from the center of the Y. To ease you into it, I’ll recommend the first 4 boxes being cubes (i.e. having lines of equal length), and the last one having lines of separate lengths. For those of equal length, simply ghost the lines as if they’re parallel, and then offset them a little bit, towards the Y. For the one that has lines of separate lengths, spend a little more time on the ghosting phase, because the lines need to converge at different rates. I explained this to someone else some time ago- here it is: https://imgur.com/a/rSoeK2g
GL!
