/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4992566
disclaimer: am total beg. To me this looks like it's trying to emulate a fisheye lens with curvilinear perspective and 6 vanishing points. Your study uses 3 vanishing points. Something that looks weird to me about your use of the third vanishing point (green) is that you drew lines above the horizon line converging to it. In real life, since objects are getting further from you as you move away from the horizon line they should appear smaller. In Scott Robertson's How to Draw book, he mentions that when using 3-point, it's "best to keep the horizon line off the page or close to the top or bottom edge of the drawing." As others mentioned, your vanishing points are far too close together, specifically that the cone of vision is much much bigger than the distance between the vanishing points, leading to distortion. When placing 90 degree angle vanishing points, ask yourself if perpendicular lines extended forever from your eye, where would they hit the horizon line. In this case, assuming you are using linear, 3-point perspective from the point of view of someone looking at the scene, the vps should be more spaced out or objects shouldn't be drawn outside of the range of distortion.

ops pic looks cool though.

>>2716375
The diagonals of the sidewalk do not converge at a vanishing point. You have to pay attention to diagonals to keep things lengths and widths in proper proportion.

And the height of things seems random too, middle house on the left is huge compared to the one on the right maybe plan the heights out a flat plane before you offset things.