# Which Design Book?



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

To all the turners I would be grateful for a recommendation for a seminal work on design please. I'm now 18 months in to my turning and I reckon I've got the fundamentals. I now keep butting up against pieces that are oddly proportioned or just fail to look "quite right". My knowledge of art technique, drawing, sculpture etc is regrettably close to philistine as I've come up through the sciences. I've bumped into the classic intersection of thirds in photography and have a vague understanding of the golden ratios but what I think I need is a really good book on turning design to educate me on some of these concepts as they relate to turning.

My turning to date has been 100% intuitive and I need a different input.

I don't particularly want to go freefalling through Amazon, buying book after book so if someone already knows what "the classic" is I'd be grateful for that advice.

Many thanks


----------



## Dalboy (11 May 2014)

Don't know if you have read these.

http://www.philip-streeting.co.uk/Looking and seeing 1.pdf

http://www.philip-streeting.co.uk/Looking and seeing 2.pdf

http://www.philip-streeting.co.uk/Looking and seeing 3.pdf


----------



## gregmcateer (11 May 2014)

I really liked Mark Baker's 'Woodturning Projects - a workshop guide to shapes'

Not just design and shapes, but also the practical elements of the turning as well.


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2014)

Main thing is to look at stuff wherever you find it. Seriously "look". Ask yourself why, what, etc. 
Museums are good (ceramics as well as wooden things) particularly because they have a lot of stuff made from necessity which usually entails a very efficient and practical approach. More informative than aspirational art works ("hollow forms" :lol: ).


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

I just don't want to work that hard Jacob. I want someone with a lot more design brain than I have to have done all the looking at nature and figuring out what looks nice, stuck it in a book, written about it and then created a scaled drawing so I can set my calipers at the lathe. That's really where I'm coming from. I really want to turn something and that something is currently not in my head. So I want a design book that will shortcut the what looks nice bit to the scale drawing bit so I can get experience of the practical side of the turning of it. It's partly laziness and partly lack of time.

It's the turning that floats my boat, not the design I guess.


----------



## Spindle (11 May 2014)

Hi

The only 'pure' design book I have related to woodturning is this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shapes-Woodturn ... oodturners

But to be honest I've read it once and never really gone back to it.

I'm with Jacob on design - I take note, (photograph sometimes), of forms that I find pleasing. Form is not necessarily related to scale or function - for instance an aspect of a building or piece of jewellery may find it's way into a turned item.

Regards Mick


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

I get that Mick, its just the time to transcribe the pleasing visual item into the dimensions that one might then turn is taking me away from the lathe. My hope is that one of the links you kind folks have posted will shortcut that for me.

I do appreciate the links and will look at them later today. As for now...10 year old's homework!!!


----------



## Grahamshed (11 May 2014)

Trouble then Rob is that you are copying someone else's opinion of what looks good rather than your own. You could end up making things you don't like and not knowing why they are supposed to be good ( does that make sense ? )
Every time I see a picture of a turning that makes me go 'WOW' I copy it into a word doc for future ref. No divider settings but it is the idea or inspiration that I would look for.


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":3rt36tkv said:


> I just don't want to work that hard Jacob. I want someone with a lot more design brain than I have to have done all the looking at nature and figuring out what looks nice, stuck it in a book, written about it and then created a scaled drawing so I can set my calipers at the lathe. That's really where I'm coming from. I really want to turn something and that something is currently not in my head. So I want a design book that will shortcut the what looks nice bit to the scale drawing bit so I can get experience of the practical side of the turning of it. It's partly laziness and partly lack of time.
> 
> It's the turning that floats my boat, not the design I guess.


Just copy stuff then. It amounts to the same thing - you end up having a feeling for what you do. You could do it by measuring and/or by eye. 
It's the classic way to learn arts n crafts anyway - copy and reproduce indefinitely and you may end up with something of your own.
Or just head-down brain-off and get stuck in. Learn by the mistakes!


----------



## Spindle (11 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":2si2ghpl said:


> the time to transcribe the pleasing visual item into the dimensions that one might then turn is taking me away from the lathe



Hi

Unless dimensions are critical I'd suggest not bothering trying to design to them. Try putting a photo of a form you like behind the lathe, (orientated to how the work will be supported whilst turned), and turn a profile to match by eye - I think you'll be surprised at how easy it is to get acceptably close to the original.

Regards Mick


----------



## Grahamshed (11 May 2014)

A good idea that.


----------



## Neil Farrer (11 May 2014)

Classic Forms, Stuart Dyas. Worth every penny of £20. Line drawings and pictures. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Classic-Forms-S ... 0854421904


----------



## Philip Streeting (11 May 2014)

There probably is not one book that will answer all the questions you might want to ask. I can, however, suggest a couple of books that may be helpful if you can describe what type of turning you are currently trying to improve e.g. bowls, spindles boxes etc.

Thanks Dalboy for noting my free publications.

I had the intention to produce a whole series of free publications for turners but received little feedback on what might be helpful so stopped a couple of years back. Maybe that's the problem of 'free' there is no way of judging what other people conceive as helpful unless they say. By that I mean there are no sales records to be able to judge popularity. For instance I started producing a publication on profiles and a publication on practical design methods for beginners but stopped. I don't think people who use free resources understand the amount of work involved.

Design for woodturning seems to come low on many turners' lists of priorities and for this reason publishers will always concentrate on the 'how to' with tools an equipment where sales can be more or less guaranteed. They pay the writer and production costs and have to make a profit so are mostly targeting beginning turners or those interested in following a particular technique, method or style of work produced by established or popular turners.

I am aware I am probably expressing a jaundiced view from an isolated standpoint.

Philip

Bob, I always seem to create problems when I contribute on Forums so if you either email or PM I will gladly help you further.


----------



## KimG (11 May 2014)

For me Richard Raffan's books "The art of turned bowls" and "Turned bowl design" are really excellent for getting a good idea of what constitutes good design, and what does not, well worth the purchase price for the first one.

The art of turned bowls

Turned bowl design


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2014)

I'd say look at as many books and references as you can but treat them all with a high degree of scepticism and make your own decisions. There are too many self claimed experts out there!


----------



## Bodrighy (11 May 2014)

Design is one of those topics that you can go on about for ever. My advice would be to have a look at Philips PDF files which are well worth a browse and also simply look at the different designs of things by googling for examples bowls. In some ways good design is better felt than telt as they say. There are a number of basic rules such as the rule of thirds etc but they are all broken at times. There simply is no easy answer and by reading books you are in danger of just accepting what one person considers good design. 

Sorry not to be more positive  :? 

Pete


----------



## woodfarmer (11 May 2014)

Usually when I start turning I have a picture in my mind what the result would be. This often turns to just a whim as I tend to follow the wood and can't really predict the shape at which it will finish. I have one natural edged bowl that is "wrong" not entirely sure why but think it is too tall. Wife likes it but I don't care for it at all.
That offset bay "bowl" I wasn't sure about, but it has grown on me , now I really like it enough to one day try to replicate the idea.

I have an idea for a project at the moment, but only for two small elements of it. The curve in the middle and a constructional method.

I think Bob you should go with your instincts, copying exactly is very constrictive. Leastwise it is to me. But then I am logical and mechanical, turning is my one means t make something that might just look good as well as being functional.


----------



## procell (11 May 2014)

I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?


----------



## Woodmonkey (11 May 2014)

> I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?



Same here, I let the wood dictate the shape, as often you don't know what's inside until you start cutting. I find it very intuitive.


----------



## Dalboy (11 May 2014)

procell":1dx488yw said:


> I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?







Woodmonkey":1dx488yw said:


> > I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, I let the wood dictate the shape, as often you don't know what's inside until you start cutting. I find it very intuitive.



What you both mean that you do not draw it out 6 times to scale until you get it right then turn it to within a cats whiskey of the drawing before putting a finish on it :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Grahamshed (11 May 2014)

Woodmonkey":1dvttun8 said:


> > I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, I let the wood dictate the shape, as often you don't know what's inside until you start cutting. I find it very intuitive.


----------



## Grahamshed (11 May 2014)

Grahamshed":31804xse said:


> Woodmonkey":31804xse said:
> 
> 
> > > I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?
> ...


But what if you don't find out whats inside until after you have chopped its head off ?? :evil:


----------



## finneyb (11 May 2014)

A couple of articles that I found useful
http://www.woodcentral.com/russ/russ2.shtml
http://stwt.org/tompkins_design.pdf

The secret answer for the shape is the Golden Triangle and Golden ratio 

I've never tried this software http://www.phimatrix.com/quick-start-guide/ it may be useful to you - my view was its too complex.

HTH

Brian


----------



## Bodrighy (11 May 2014)

Seeing 'what is in the wood' is fine but when you have to do commissioned work you have to do what people require and you need to have some idea of good design or you would never get anything done. I use a lot of wood that many would reject as useless but I rarely start without some idea of what I will make. Design may change as I work the wood but even so the end product will hopefully still have some aesthetic appeal. I, like most of us, have plenty of pieces that just didn't work but each one is a learning process that hopefully increases my awareness of what is or isn't good design. 

Pete


----------



## Spindle (11 May 2014)

Hi

For me 'Working with the wood' has two aspects:

Selecting a piece of material and allowing it to guide the design

Selecting a piece of material who's characteristics compliment the intended design.

Each has it's place.

Regards Mick


----------



## dickm (11 May 2014)

if you can stomach his arrogant style, Mike Darlow's book on Woodturning design has some useful rules in it. Does do something to explain why some designs look "right" and others don't. But have to confess to still being unable to come up with a design except while wielding the tool on the actual wood.


----------



## Bodrighy (11 May 2014)

As an example. This is a bad design. Something i did some time ago that just isn't right. See if anyone else agrees with me. LOL 

Pete


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

Many thanks for the numerous responses. I've literally just come back in after turning since lunchtime to this veritable cornucopia of possibilities. 

I also have been of the chuck it up and see what the wood sprites deliver school of design to date, with a few exceptions. I think the reason I'm scratching my head a bit is that I want to go beyond that. I want to be able to control the design so I can start with an idea and then make it rather than start with a piece of wood and then have it "make itself". When I look in my back catalogue, there are maybe one in ten pieces I like and the rest are immature and amateurish. I'm reasonably competent with basic technique and finish now, whats letting my work down is the actual finished shape. That was what drove me to enquire about design books, would they perhaps teach me to better understand and apply the golden ratio for example. I'll give an example:

This is an oak vase I turned yesterday. It's OK but somehow its also wrong. But I don't really know why?? Hence I'm looking in the design domain to try and improve.


----------



## Spindle (11 May 2014)

Bodrighy":3mfs5uxb said:


> This is a bad design



Hi

Is that statement based on your opinion or generally accepted design principals?

To me, it's not at all 'bad' - not ideal but could be rescued with minimal effort - but hey, I'm no expert.

Regards Mick


----------



## Spindle (11 May 2014)

Hi Bob

To me it's another good piece - where it falls down for me is trying to combine the flowing base with the more rigid neck, if the transition were smoother I think it would work well. Alternately make more of a feature of the transition by cutting a trench and maybe colouring it to represent a tube within a vase.

Regards Mick


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

Bodrighy":ouvud45r said:


> As an example. This is a bad design. Something i did some time ago that just isn't right. See if anyone else agrees with me. LOL
> 
> Pete



I know exactly what you mean Pete. That's precisely my problem, it just look wrong. I would venture (don't take offence as you know you're awesome  )

The finial is not delicate enough and the body needs to follow the golden ratio a little better. It reminds of the cartoon people off the album cover of Another brick in the wall! Sort of fat.

I also have the same criticism of my oak vase, it's fat. Should have slimmed it, again probably in line with the golden proportion. So its that kind of rules of design I'm trying to bring to the work. No idea whether I'm barking up the wrong tree or not.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

There you are Mick...that's spot on. The transition is wrong. The neck doesn't belong on that body does it. You see if I could visualise that before turning it I could probably avoid cocking it up.


----------



## Bodrighy (11 May 2014)

Too many variations i the shape. You have a straight neck then a convex curve which becomes a sharp concave curve. It feels uncomfortable at the bottom with it ending abruptly. If the curve flowed more gently and you tucked the base in so that it didn't just stop it would look a lot better. When you make something, before taking it off the lathe close your eyes and run your fingers along the shape (with the lathe stopped LOL) and see how it feels. A trick I learned from a blind turner. What you are aiming for is to make something that makes people want to pick it up and feel it. 

You did ask LOL

Pete


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

That's a cracking tip. In fairness, I abandoned any thought of the base after I'd lost the will to live looking at the "fatty" sides so that is actually unfinished. But I completely buy the criticism. So what you're saying is keep the style the same throughout the piece or at least, as Mick says, if there is a transition, manage it carefully somehow so it doesn't jar from one idea to the next.

Design rules you see, that's what I need to learn more of


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2014)

Golden ratio is a red herring. I wouldn't pay it any attention.

Maybe you just need to keep things strictly pure and simple - think "sphere, hemisphere, cylinder, ovoid" etc and avoid deviations. If it's _nearly_ a sphere _make_ it a perfect sphere, if it's _nearly_ a cylinder _make_ it a perfect cylinder, etc etc


----------



## Dalboy (11 May 2014)

Bodrighy":1l1ixyoy said:


> As an example. This is a bad design. Something i did some time ago that just isn't right. See if anyone else agrees with me. LOL
> 
> Pete



Turning is up to your normal standards as for the shape I can't put my finger on it but me eye keeps getting drawn to the top of the form as well as the finial which does not look right in my eyes. I will have to keep coming back to it until it will probably hit me


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

Philip Streeting":3k92y74p said:


> There probably is not one book that will answer all the questions you might want to ask. I can, however, suggest a couple of books that may be helpful if you can describe what type of turning you are currently trying to improve e.g. bowls, spindles boxes etc.
> 
> Thanks Dalboy for noting my free publications.
> 
> ...



That's kind of you Philip. I read various facets of your free publications. Interesting, thanks for that. I can imagine the effort that went into those documents.


----------



## Dalboy (11 May 2014)

Bob I think most things have been covered with the neck and also loosing the foot when adding a neck to a form try to take it from the same piece of wood and where it joins us a small bead which will help to hide it. Another distracting thing is the shoulder it is too bold or even better get rid of it


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

Jacob":27uqj3v9 said:


> Golden ratio is a red herring. I wouldn't pay it any attention.
> 
> Maybe you just need to keep things strictly pure and simple - think "sphere, hemisphere, cylinder, ovoid" etc and avoid deviations. If it's _nearly_ a sphere _make_ it a perfect sphere, if it's _nearly_ a cylinder _make_ it a perfect cylinder, etc etc



I think that's good advice too Jacob. I often find with turning that less is more and the classic shapes need careful attention to make them stand out.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

Dalboy":3p991u79 said:


> Bob I think most things have been covered with the neck and also loosing the foot when adding a neck to a form try to take it from the same piece of wood and where it joins us a small bead which will help to hide it. Another distracting thing is the shoulder it is too bold or even better get rid of it



Like the bead idea Dal. But the neck is from the same piece? Does it look like it was stuck on after then? It's just a continuous turning from one solid block of 4" square oak.


----------



## finneyb (11 May 2014)

Jacob":4k80u1ae said:


> Golden ratio is a red herring. I wouldn't pay it any attention.
> 
> Maybe you just need to keep things strictly pure and simple - think "sphere, hemisphere, cylinder, ovoid" etc and avoid deviations. If it's _nearly_ a sphere _make_ it a perfect sphere, if it's _nearly_ a cylinder _make_ it a perfect cylinder, etc etc



Golden ratio certainly isn't a red herring.
Look around at things that please the eye and look for the 1.68 to 1 ratio - it will be there or thereabouts . 
Nothing wrong in keeping things simple but limiting to sphere etc is far too mechanistic and devoid of original thought.

Brian


----------



## Dalboy (11 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":1v4j44dj said:


> Dalboy":1v4j44dj said:
> 
> 
> > Bob I think most things have been covered with the neck and also loosing the foot when adding a neck to a form try to take it from the same piece of wood and where it joins us a small bead which will help to hide it. Another distracting thing is the shoulder it is too bold or even better get rid of it
> ...



Yes the neck looks like a separate piece because of the sharp transition that Pete pointed out, how did you hollow it


----------



## KimG (11 May 2014)

finneyb":3b8yidjw said:


> Golden ratio certainly isn't a red herring.
> _Look around at_ *things that please the eye* _and look for the 1.68 to 1 ratio - it will be there or thereabouts .
> Nothing wrong in keeping things simple but limiting to sphere etc is far too mechanistic and devoid of original tho_ught.
> 
> Brian



That pretty much is the essence of what determines a good design, *things that please the eye*, they have a balance, and an energy, a flow even. Poor designs seem somehow graceless, lumpy and lifeless. A well designed piece should make you want to pick it up, it looks tactile, you know it will feel nice in the hand.

You can get away with poorer designs of course as not everyone sees things the same way, but a good design will look good to everyone and will have a lasting quality no poor design will ever have.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 May 2014)

Drilled it with a 1/2" inch forstener to create a well (before I started shaping) and then used a swan neck Robert sorby handle with a hamlet hollowing tip. The inside of the form isn't entirely hollowed.


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

finneyb":11bmg826 said:


> Jacob":11bmg826 said:
> 
> 
> > Golden ratio is a red herring. I wouldn't pay it any attention.
> ...


And every other ratio you choose to look for.1/2, 1/3, 2/3, etc etc.
"Thereabouts" is not good enough - it is either 1:1.68 or it isn't. It's like saying "roughly exactly 1:1.68"


> Nothing wrong in keeping things simple but limiting to sphere etc is far too mechanistic and devoid of original thought.
> 
> Brian


It's sloppy "original thought" which seems to cause the problems. I'd say copy copy, be mechanistic, keep it simple, until you have learned the language. Aim to be competent, not "creative".

Google "basic design" and all sorts of interesting stuff turns up - not least the design education movement of the same name (book by Sausmarez). 
This is good (golden ratio here too!) -
http://www.rsscse-edu.org.uk/tsj/wp-con ... kimber.pdf

PS this perhaps answer to OPs question?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 May 2014)

Yup I think that's about right actually Jacob. Sloppy original thought and the confusion between competent and creative. Rather sobering for anyone with an ego to defend but I think, perfectly reasonable in my case.

I'm sure that's why I'm seeking out design as the answer because it is the basic shapes I'm after, not so much the how to turn, rather the what to turn.

All the discussion about transitions, flow, matching one bit of a piece to another is really good input and I'm grateful for people taking the effort for the constructive criticism. It's all helping. You have a really good attitude to build the foundations right before you move on. That's whats needed here I think.


----------



## Grahamshed (12 May 2014)

If you do boot sales and the like keep an eye open for books on antique ceramics. Most of the shapes are classic and easily copyable.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 May 2014)

Of course, there is no law that makes a turner use golden proportion any more than there is a law that makes a photographer use the rule of thirds - it's just that things that do follow those rules tend to look right. Being pedantic, it's 1 : 1.618, though I'm sure that the odd .0062 doesn't really matter.


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

I've ordered the book, having talked myself into it. Forgotten all about it - I had it years ago when everybody had to have it but haven't seen it for a long time. Borrowed I expect.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 May 2014)

Can I borrow it from you when it arrives


----------



## ericdockum (12 May 2014)

Thanks for the interesting discussion folks, I just tried to borrow a copy of the design book from my local library, no luck. Tried a well known auction site and found a lot of them, ordered a second edition (revised) for £2.74 posted. Not bad when you consider the library charge £1.75 to reserve a book. (Last time I reserved a book they couldn't actually find it on the shelves, but insisted on still charging me the fee).

Only downside I can see is that the book may well increase the gap between the expectation in in my head and the abilities in my hands...  Situation normal.

(I am not actually mean, just trying to retain what little I have accumulated over the years. That's my story anyway.)


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

The thing about books like that is to not treat them as instruction manuals but more just to browse for whatever you find interesting, if anything. And you need to browse other books (and objects) around the subject. 
There are no magic formulas - the golden ratio is a bit mythical - get yer tape out and have a look for yourself.


----------



## Vic Perrin (12 May 2014)

Golden Ratio ? Had a look on the tinternet Oh Dear ! Think I will stick with my Golden Eye and Silver Touch Method ! Final inspection by the Missus and if it doesn't pass muster bin it.

 Vic.


----------



## Roger C (12 May 2014)

Bob do you make any sketches of what you want to turn. If not ok next if you have wine glasses, brandy balloons, vases for flowers in fact any vessel make copies of them in wood. Doing this will give you a good idea about design. All these items are in your house because you liked them when you or your partner purchased them. When out shopping take pics of shapes you find interesting even through the shop window this is called stealing with the eyes and phone not a crime and you wont be locked up. The 1/3 rule is only a guide line and not gospel. Cheers Roger


----------



## bugbear (12 May 2014)

phil.p":amb1ngv1 said:


> Being pedantic, it's 1 : 1.618, though I'm sure that the odd .0062 doesn't really matter.



If we're being pedantic, it's one of the more famous irrational numbers, so you need a few more decimals 

BugBear


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 May 2014)

Roger C":3dlzftnz said:


> Bob do you make any sketches of what you want to turn. If not ok next if you have wine glasses, brandy balloons, vases for flowers in fact any vessel make copies of them in wood. Doing this will give you a good idea about design. All these items are in your house because you liked them when you or your partner purchased them. When out shopping take pics of shapes you find interesting even through the shop window this is called stealing with the eyes and phone not a crime and you wont be locked up. The 1/3 rule is only a guide line and not gospel. Cheers Roger



I can't draw to save my life Roger. I get the point though which is to open my eyes and use the useful objects nearby. Just since I started this thread I've really begun observing natural forms and it does have an impact. I'll post a bud vase I've nearly finished when I've finished waxing and parted it soon enough. I noticed towards the final shaping that the curves just weren't flowing so went back and really carefully eyed them and I'm much happier with the outcome. Jacob was spot on when he diagnosed a failure to observe the basics. It's ironic because when I started turning I was fanatical about just that and over time, and in a hurry to experiment with different ideas, I've gone and forgotten the prime directive...that of "flow".

On the drawing front, I would like to experiment with software that allows smooth curves because that can overcome my lack of drawing skill. I can design outlines and then print. Anyone got any ideas if a simple, preferably freeware package exists?


----------



## Bodrighy (12 May 2014)

I am fortunate that my partner is a top end furniture designer and have also had input of ideas and what to look for from some other wood turners. Bottom line though it is all about getting an eye for what works and what doesn't and that comes with practice and experience. Yo will never get it right every time. I was talking to a turner who is known for his designer work and he told me that for every piece he puts out for sale there are at least a couple stuck on a shelf as a reminder how not to do it. Personally I love oriental work so that has been a major source of shapes and design for me but even there I don't like everything I see. Whatever you do don't get so tied up in trying to get the perfect shape and design that you stop enjoying turning. It can happen. 

Pete


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":3axhi5r2 said:


> Roger C":3axhi5r2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob do you make any sketches of what you want to turn. If not ok next if you have wine glasses, brandy balloons, vases for flowers in fact any vessel make copies of them in wood. Doing this will give you a good idea about design. All these items are in your house because you liked them when you or your partner purchased them. When out shopping take pics of shapes you find interesting even through the shop window this is called stealing with the eyes and phone not a crime and you wont be locked up. The 1/3 rule is only a guide line and not gospel. Cheers Roger
> ...


Get a pencil and some paper. You can do it. Maybe crepe at first but it will get better. You aren't doing it for show, just for your own information. Good quality HB and a rubber.
It's really useful not least because it makes you look at things really closely and remember them well.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 May 2014)

You're bloody determined to make me do some actual work aren't you Jacob 

But (gnashing teeth). You're probably right....again.


----------



## Grahamshed (12 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":2bkmqe6e said:


> Just since I started this thread I've really begun observing natural forms


Careful Bob. You can get arrested for that nowadays.


----------



## Bodrighy (12 May 2014)

Grahamshed":zpnun4f7 said:


> Random Orbital Bob":zpnun4f7 said:
> 
> 
> > Just since I started this thread I've really begun observing natural forms
> ...



Like I said it's all about getting those curves right. LOL

Pete


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 May 2014)

that really went home Pete


----------



## YewTube (13 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":2uxqnndg said:


> I just don't want to work that hard Jacob. I want someone with a lot more design brain than I have to have done all the looking at nature and figuring out what looks nice, stuck it in a book, written about it and then created a scaled drawing so I can set my callipers at the lathe.



Bob

I know I am 5 pages too late but here is an idea. I regret that it will take you 5-10 mins to set up but nothing in life comes easy.

Use Google images to find the 'classic shapes' and import them into Powerpoint (or Open Office - free) on to a previously drawn background grid. Manipulate image, fatter, taller as required. Break out callipers and turn on the lathe.

Bill


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (13 May 2014)

YewTube":gm4zi7rs said:


> Random Orbital Bob":gm4zi7rs said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't want to work that hard Jacob. I want someone with a lot more design brain than I have to have done all the looking at nature and figuring out what looks nice, stuck it in a book, written about it and then created a scaled drawing so I can set my callipers at the lathe.
> ...



Nice one Bill
I hadn't thought of that. A nice little cheat to avoid buying expensive drawing software. Cheers fellah.


----------



## J-G (13 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":1u5vgd8s said:


> A nice little cheat to avoid buying expensive drawing software.


IMHO the best FREE drawing package is Google SketchUp.

It's 3D rather than 2D so needs some degree of expertise but once mastered it can give you a very good idea of the shape of your finished work - from all directions! You can also print a 2D image of course and if you set the view on screen to a 'front view' the result can easily be used as an aide-mémoire or 'technical' drawing in the workshop.

Images can also be imported and scaled in the same way that you might try in PowerPoint.

Much better than using the awful software sold by Micky$oft (PP is OK for it's original purpose - ie. not great but OK)

JG


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":1o2ec91l said:


> Nice one Bill
> I hadn't thought of that. A nice little cheat to avoid buying expensive drawing software. Cheers fellah.



Inkscape does smooth (bezier, same as Illustrator and Freehand, Corel etc) curves, and is free!

BugBear (Inkscape user)


----------



## Woodmonkey (13 May 2014)

Making 3d curved shapes with multiple curves such as a bowl or vase is very difficult on sketch up


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2014)

Woodmonkey":19moc9lv said:


> Making 3d curved shapes with multiple curves such as a bowl or vase is very difficult on sketch up



http://sketchupfordesign.com/tutorials/ ... -printing/

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2014)

There are dozens of how to draw books out there. Paper and pencils are cheap.
It seems a great pity to me that so many would-be crafts people are so anxious to avoid doing anything with their hands. And it's a fundamental mistake IMHO.

And thousands of web pages. Here's just one: http://www.thewoodwhisperer.com/article ... odworkers/


----------



## J-G (13 May 2014)

Woodmonkey":2695fazq said:


> Making 3d curved shapes with multiple curves such as a bowl or vase is very difficult on sketch up


The only issue I've ever had was because I tend to work at actual size and on very small components. This sometimes means that the 'Follow Me' tool cannot render the top of a curve resulting in a hole or missing band. This is ultimately corrected when I re-work the curve at 10:1 scale. Once the render is OK it is still OK when scaled down to actual size.

The Bezier plugin can certainly help with fluid curves but I worked for years before I knew that was available.

JG


----------

