'2 options:
1-Obey the rules of perspective. If you draw from an angle where it'll look straight, draw it straight, or make the angle more/less pronounced if you really want to keep the taper.
2-Fuck the rules in this particular case, exaggerate the narrowness so it still shows, sacrifice realism for artistry.';

'>>7149993
>2-Fuck the rules in this particular case, exaggerate the narrowness so it still shows, sacrifice realism for artistry.
ive found that you can't cheat 3d space, itll look bad
Maybe it will look ok for some people, but it will look bad for me, which comes before anything else';

'>>7149988
use 6 point perspective';

'>>7149998
that doesnt change anything';

'>>7149988
The answer would be to avoid drawing it from this angle, or include other straighter lines in the scene so you can tell the object is tapered. If you have to draw the object completely alone and at this angle, for some reason, then you would cheat the perspective. You can make it more extreme, exaggerate the tapering on the object, whatever you need to do to show it off. Outside of these things you'd just have to deal with it looking odd, these issues can happen in normal photos too.';

'>>7149994
look into "keystone effect", I know CAD programs have a fix built into them, maybe if you use Blender or maya you can download a plugin and that fixes it';

'>>7150013
is this an ai generated post? This is such a useless response when you actually understand the question, only a bot could respond like this';

'>>7150004
>or include other straighter lines in the scene so you can tell the object is tapered
Thats an interesting idea so I tried to test it, if anything it just breaks the illusion of perspective for the boxes on the side, instead of making it seem like the middle box is tapered
Forced perspective works for a reason';

'2min in blender and that's counting the screenshotting and photoshop pasting, you just suck at drawing I can only get you "straight look" if I forced to a perpective so ridiculously low that anything next to it it's going to be completely warped
Your "straight" look is just badly drawn
Next time use a fucking reference
Now fuck off';

'>>7150369
Dunning Kruger
You couldn't get yours too look like the drawing because you don't know how';

'>>7149988
>This can happen with a lot of things, like limbs, how do you deal with this?
I can offer 2 solutions, a.) Slightly exaggerate the perspective to avoid complete cancel out so it doesn't look completely straight.
b.) The details within the mass. Even if it's straight, logically you will have to alter the size of the details that implies it's a tapered object.
I can draw an example later in the day to show what I mean, I'm working rn.';

'>>7150746
>Slightly exaggerate
Sorry, I meant the opposite, don't put your vanishing point too high where it cancels out the perceived size difference between the top and bottom plane, so it still shows the top is bigger.';

'>>7149988
https://youtu.be/aCQERA9XRu0?t=491';

'>>7149988
Just draw it properly or your drawing will end up looking uncanny and surreal. What’s even the point of attempting perspective then?';

'>>7150369
you're a fucking moron dude
this is literally my first time using blender
learn the basics of perspective';

'>>7150753
>What’s even the point of attempting perspective then?
So using the op image as an example, let's say you want to draw a building which has this tapered shape, but you want to draw it from a frog eye's view with an extreme perspective to make it more imposing. As you can see, this will actually kill the building's tapered shape and also make it look like it's not even viewed from a low point';

'>>7150751
>I enlarge the silhouette of the human anatomy, but this naturally increases scale of the hand
Wait why, i dont get it';

'>>7150777
he needs to do that in order not to lose the overall effect of the containing cylinder';

'>>7149988
What you are describing is something like an optical illusion. In my opinion, this falls under the umbrella of aesthetics.
A photograph of a hand might not resemble a hand at all; similarly, a photograph taken at close range can give the impression that a person is ill-proportioned, has an oversized head and very short legs. You will never find these issues in classical art. The forms are lifelike and "real" but are composed in such a way that both optical distortion and uncharacteristic views are avoided.
Even during the Renaissance and Baroque periods when artists wanted to showcase their skills by throwing figures into deep foreshortening, they minimized the size distortion of perspective (i.e. conceived it as if the subject is viewed at sufficient distance for the distortion to be trivial) and they posed the figures intelligently so that, for example, the true form of a foreshortened limb can be intuited by having its counterpart shown at full length.
Design has always been an important element in drawing, more so than imitation of whatever might be seen. You cannot expect to make good pictures simply by following rules of perspective, because sometimes what we see conceals the truth, and the purpose of art (usually) is to make the truth evident.';

'>>7150004
>The answer would be to avoid drawing it from this angle
just don't draw it';

'>>7150788
>during the Renaissance and Baroque periods when artists wanted to showcase their skills by throwing figures into deep foreshortening, they minimized the size distortion of perspective
Yes I've noticed that too, I guess you could be charitable and say that a little goes a long way... but to me it's sad that one of the "drawing fundamentals" is actually best to be avoided entirely in most cases
Even in reverse perspective they really kept it super subtle';

'>>7150755
>>7150369
another one, the exact same situation in the op image';

'Why am I even wasting time helping this faggot, I'll keep the knowledge to myself and let my competition fail.';

'>>7150901
you have zero knowledge
Whatever you have you just gained from getting btfo in this thread';

'>>7150736
>>7150755
>>7150895
Already addressed on the post, you peanut brained crabs
>forced to a perpective so ridiculously low that anything next to it it's going to be completely warped

>>7150903
>>7150763
I'm not that guy, buit it looks like you two are as retard as OP (if already not OP)
>I want to draw a perspective indredibly fucking warped... but the object I have looks warped innit, help!!
This is crab behaviour.
You can clearly have a perspective that doesn not warp your object, and keep the object's unique design readable.
It's just not the perspective YOU want to flex.
Instead of drawing what works best, you want to flex.
Well, flex your stupid fucking fisheye, but don't pikachuface when your OC donut steel doesn't look good, of fucking course warped perspectives makes everything fucking warped, but I'm the dunning kruger huh';

'itt: op finds out that drawing isn't actually about making an accurate simulacrum of reality 100% of the time';

'>>7151280
>forced to a perpective so ridiculously low
The camera is above the ground, you fucking moron
Perspective Made Easy by Ernest Ralph Norling, start there
>pikachuface
go back faggot';

'many such cases';

'>>7150751
This is great.';

'>>7149988
You may want to draw stuff around it so the tapering reads well in that context.';

'>>7153480
Unfortunately this doesnt work
>>7150037';

'>>7154394
and in blender
The object doesnt look any more tapered when it's near other, non-tapered cubes';

'https://www.desmos.com/calculator/byk0h8fsbg
if the points get far away enough you can treat them as parallel almost with a slight taper if youre drawing a bigger box, you can even do 1 point perspective with a slight taper on the vertical and horizontal lines to simulate three point perspective, slight tapering on the vertical lines in two point perspective to simulate three point perspective and if youre doing actual three point perspective just have the points form an equilateral triangle and draw inside that triangle the box.';

'>>7151302
man, I wonder how filmmakers make their low angle shots (not fake low shots of course, that'd make them fucking morons). maybe they just gotta have a, big ol, shovel crew with them. such remarkable workers they are.';

'>>7154757
nigga are you retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-angle_shot';

'gee should i draw physically correct 3d space onto a 2d plane and make the composition look shit, our entire job is to make a 2d plane believable in 3d, just exaggerate so it looks proper, so many autists these days';

'>>7149988
>bleep bloop zippity bop
>ERGO FUNDAMENTALS ARE WRONG CHECKMATE ATHEISTS
jesus christ just use your brain, if you have it
what even is your question though? how to show that a thing is wider at the top? just put the thing into context: if it's a tower dangle a rope off the top, put a tree next to it or whatever makes sense in that scene. and, to draw those things correctly (surprise surprise) you need to know perspective';

'>>7149988
>how do you deal with this?
Context. The tapered object in perspective and in isolation is probably going to be meaningless (and, in isolation, I'd contend that the addition of perspective adds no value, especially considering the confusion it causes). But if you put that object in a space that also follows the rules of perspective, the space around it will help the brain adjust for the taper (brain sees other things are getting bigger at the bottom, but this isn't)';

'>>7158104
OK, so I read on that this isn't necessarily the answer. But what if it is a combination of suggestions in this thread--specifically context and changing the camera angle? I mean, here we all are, trying to help/arguing amongst ourselves (inb4 I remember my first day) when OP hasn't given us shit to work with. Just an oddball shape that doesn't work when viewed from a specific angle. If the composition doesn't work (and if it doesn't read it doesn't work), then you need to change the composition.';

'>>7158104
it doesnt work >>7154404
>>7155432
>use your brain, if you have it
>what even is your question though
lmao peak irony
>youre such a retard what was 2+2 btw i forgot
also your 50iq solution doesnt work >>7154404';

'>>7158179
So, it's been a week now. How did you solve this?';