P.S. Where's a good (somewhat comprehensive) guide (something more than just the math which hasn't helped me with the specific Inkscape math settings) to the Spirograph tool?
Update:
Figured out how to get to what I thought was that.
It works out same as what's in the link, but, not the image.
24 Circles repicated at 15 degrees. Rotated from bottom center. Path, I forget, Divided or Intersected - something like that. Gives me a single cresent. Repeat rotation same as before. Half a Yin-Yang, but, not as the pasted example.
Might be worth playing with the Path options on that:
Divide, Intersect, etc.
I can almost make out the where and how.
Illustrator's ShapeBuilder would make short work of it.
Neat trick I've learned on symmetry like this is that I don't have to get both sides done - just half.
---
Nother idea. Take each of the circles. Not the first three - the outside one and the two - top and bottom - touching, but, all the rest in turn. Divide them in half -vertically, then group them - each, back together. Line them up as shown, then, ungroup each in turn and delete the one half that's in the way - left side or right - your choice. Then, somehow, I'm thinking this through, haven't done it yet, Once you've got one half done - do the other half identical. The tricky part then is to merge them so that they match up same as the image. Figure that out and bob's your uncle. You're done. (I think).
One of the most requested feature of all vector app communities is the Shapebuilder-tool only AI has. So guess what? Well - now you can use exactly that or find other ways to realise it. I'm starting to get the feeling that there might be patents involved here so other dev teams are holding back on comparable solutions. I am not sure.
Beginning to seeing the flaws is crucial for learning. Next step will be asking the right questions.
Drawing strokes manually is tedious yet it's not completely impossible to improve the outcome.
To me your second image looks already a step forward because the objects overlap. If all objects are overlapping, the outline stroke is not even necessary to hide parts.
Once realising that you will be wondering how two objects can overlap eachother at the same time. Which one should be on top? It can't be both.
First I used Polygon's example and broke it down to the lines you see in his. Then, the easiest thing to do, after that, was to delete the curved line on the right, leaving just the half, as I mentioned earlier. I took that, saved it as PNG, filled in the sections, took that, converted it to SVG, Copied, flipped it, and then filled in the blanks, as you can see, the two flipped, don't line up exactly, so I brought the two halves as close together as possible and with a little more fudging patch filled the open areas. It's absolutely kludge. It's a lot cleaner than my first effort. Not nearly what Polygon did. And if it was a choice between what he did and what I did, it wouldn't be a contest. His is better.
You are too hard on yourself and limit the outcome if you think you can't reach that level.
Don't get me wrong, Polygon drew what you'd expect if you wanted to cut out each piece from like different shaded vinyl.
However that is not the case, it is not necessary to create objects matching eachother perfectly in that fashion.
Like you could draw any crazy fills for the two halves if you are not restricting yourself to this kind of approach.
For example can even use raster images in the process, anyhing can go.
Besides probably you don't know the part Polygon did before mentioning the shapebuilder tool.
He is using interpolation and not just eyeballing those arcs.
You put in tremendous work for a rather inaccurate result. Instead if you put in the effort of thinking of the structure of your image, you can end up with the exact result within a few minutes.
Have you checked how grouping and clipping works for that matter?
I too often drift down tldr; these days. I mean no offense.
My learning style tends to work best with considerably more hand holding, examples and tutorials.
I'm not the only one who thinks that Logos by Nick is a great place to start. Now, I'm also using Affinity Designer. So is he. That's good news to me.
That last example is still considerably better than my first few though - yes. Even if I took the long way around. Sometimes I'm pretty good at finding a kludge solution that works.
Not so good at necessarily finding the better, consistent with best practices solution. Some people are, excel at it, thrive on it, look for it. I wish I could say as much was true for me.
I'm more of a copycat. I get a lot of credit for what I can do. But, I'm still largely doing it with someone else's original idea. I'm more in that category of creative.
I'm pretty good at extrapolating. That"s no where near the same as being original and innovative.
Unless I'm writing. That's a different medium. Pretty good at that.
So, I'm not trying to be offensive. Creatively speaking, if you'd like to point me in the right direction, it's more of a shove than a push really.
Nick's pretty good at that. Which is probably why he's so popular.
He's also very good at what he does which is why he's so busy.
My busy is for different reasons and from different directions.
My screen generally isn't blank when I start. And, when I finish, since it's generally derivative, it's less to speak of.
Unless I'm writing.
To draw a dog, my mind's eye needs an example to go by.
Those who can draw one just at the mention of one are those I admire.
And, I've noted, in all fairness, that you get out of it what you put into it.
And I don't put much into it.
So, not sure if I'm being unnecessarily harsh on myself or just too well aware of what I'm contributing to my own limitations.
Or haven't yet found my. niche.
I did figure out how to get to, as I mentioned halfway there, half a yin / yang.
That's something. Even if it was, by comparison, entirely too much effort.
That whole "entirely too much effort" part, explains a lot about my style and ability.
Still I think Inkscape's a great tool. Even if I haven't figured out how to make most / best of it.
Everyone points to it and those who follow gain a false confidence in learning skills. I can't really complain because I never put in the same marketing in my tutorials before.
But I can bet this image can be drawn "properly" in less than 5 minutes.
Although always having mixed feelings which way to go.
There is a saying around here that goes something like this:
"Those who can do it, do it,
those who can't, are teaching it;
those who can't even teach it, they are organising it."
I always feel similar to you in that I get too much inspiration from tutorials that I need to escape them .already knowing how the subject can be done better most of the time.
Focusing more on my own ideas.
Frankly this image gave me many of them that I want to explore sometime. Have to update my inventory in that regard.
If you did or didn't do it, I'm really feeling "not worthy".
It's stuff like that that I point to anytime anybody feels overly impressed by anything I've ever done.
What I do, just isn't in the same league.
Fun for me. Just - "Wow" by comparison.
I think of myself comparatively speaking, like an application for graphics designer. Most likely somewhere along the line it wouldn't be, just show me what you've done, it would be, show me what you can do. Likely even under a time limit, with some very specific desired outcomes.
Someone who's qualified for the job welcomes the challenge and demonstrates skill.
I'd likely be an embarassment.
I like what I do and am able to do.
But, as I've told others, just because my mother thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced cheese, doesn't mean the rest of the world sees me the same way.
I try to keep compliments and self assessments in that light. Fortunately (or not) the rest of the world isn't as enamored of my abilities as Ma was. I don't have to work at being humble.
And talent like the image above, maybe it didn't come overnight or not without a lot of practice, it shows the difference between where I am (or could be, if I was willing to put in the effort).
Fred Astaire wasn't great overnight, certainly not without a lot of effort to make it look - so easy.
That, by the way, isn't just color. It's light and shading as well as a sense of color.
The difference between different colors and different colors for a reason, a sense of what colors go together or don't.
I know what colors I like and have no sense or feel for what colors do or don't go together or why.
For that reason, I also have no future as an interior decorator.
;-)
Relative to what you're saying, there are those who can do it, but can't explain why or how (that whole "do it" thing). That's genius. Those who stumble upon it but, couldn't repeat it if their life depended on it since it was stumble that got them there in the first place. Those who have training, who didn't, don't bring greatness to the table, their reach matches but not exceeds their grasp. And at then there's me and others like me, who maybe know what we're good at, but, every so often, step outside the lines, not genius kind of outside the lines, but, someone who doesn't know what they're doing, knows a little bit of how things work and what to do, or where to look, but, is inhibited by a lack of imagination or know how.
That last part can't be taught. And those who have it, in addition to all the other stuff, have an edge over those who don't. And those who don't do them a favor by realizing the extent of their limitations or of the talents they do have and making the most of them.
For some, it means taking a good look at the fundamental skills, tools, etc, and doing the hard work. They may never be great, but, they'll be better.
In that regard, those who come to me based on what I do, are barking up the wrong tree.
And you would know that too - now. I'm 66. At this point in my life, another 10 years isn't likely to change that.
"For example can even use raster images in the process, anything can go." (Using Affinity Designer - Could've been Inkscape, Pulled the patterns from Unsplash and tweaked them to be a bit more seamless)
In looking at it like this, I'm seeing an eye in the center, perhaps an Eye of Isis type eye:
Community Café Yin Yang - Rainbow
Inkscape.org
This is what got me started down this path:
These are some ideas on how to get there that a search turned up:
https://imgur.com/a/U4Z3cDg
They involve a hypotrochoid, which involves Extensions / Spirograph.
Now that's one way to get there.
Is there another / better way?
P.S. Where's a good (somewhat comprehensive) guide (something more than just the math which hasn't helped me with the specific Inkscape math settings) to the Spirograph tool?
Update:
Figured out how to get to what I thought was that.
It works out same as what's in the link, but, not the image.
24 Circles repicated at 15 degrees. Rotated from bottom center. Path, I forget, Divided or Intersected - something like that. Gives me a single cresent. Repeat rotation same as before. Half a Yin-Yang, but, not as the pasted example.
So, still stuck.
Actually this is made from 20 Circles. Knowing what to delete is key:
Might be worth playing with the Path options on that:
Divide, Intersect, etc.
I can almost make out the where and how.
Illustrator's ShapeBuilder would make short work of it.
Neat trick I've learned on symmetry like this is that I don't have to get both sides done - just half.
---
Nother idea. Take each of the circles. Not the first three - the outside one and the two - top and bottom - touching, but, all the rest in turn. Divide them in half -vertically, then group them - each, back together.
Line them up as shown, then, ungroup each in turn and delete the one half that's in the way - left side or right - your choice. Then, somehow, I'm thinking this through, haven't done it yet, Once you've got one half done - do the other half identical. The tricky part then is to merge them so that they match up same as the image. Figure that out and bob's your uncle. You're done. (I think).
Maybe not, now that I look at it.
But, seemed like a good idea.
The tricky part is where they intersect.
Shapebuilder's still the way to look at it.
As I'm looking at it, you'd have to get rid of the lines as shown below for it to work:
It'd work (I think) but, it's really the kind of thing that Shapebuilder's intended for.
Something Inkscape comparable, whatever that is, would work.
---
Maybe not the center lines.
Definitely the ones on the side though.
One of the most requested feature of all vector app communities is the Shapebuilder-tool only AI has. So guess what? Well - now you can use exactly that or find other ways to realise it. I'm starting to get the feeling that there might be patents involved here so other dev teams are holding back on comparable solutions. I am not sure.
At least this isn´t rocket sience:
NIce work!
There are many ways to skin the cat.
Another option can be by using clipping.
This case specifically, only using gradients is possible for a similar look.
I've done it the hard way, one whirl at a time. Time consuming, laborious, and not nearly as clean as Polygon's or as ingenious as yours.
Maybe experiment with less blending of the colors (fewer colors - 32, 24, 16) for more of a striated than smooth look.
Here's the rosette I was shooting for. Got there. Yes. And no.
You seem to be at a good starting point!
Beginning to seeing the flaws is crucial for learning. Next step will be asking the right questions.
Drawing strokes manually is tedious yet it's not completely impossible to improve the outcome.
To me your second image looks already a step forward because the objects overlap. If all objects are overlapping, the outline stroke is not even necessary to hide parts.
Once realising that you will be wondering how two objects can overlap eachother at the same time. Which one should be on top? It can't be both.
Ok, here's what I did. I cheated.
First I used Polygon's example and broke it down to the lines you see in his. Then, the easiest thing to do, after that, was to delete the curved line on the right, leaving just the half, as I mentioned earlier. I took that, saved it as PNG, filled in the sections, took that, converted it to SVG, Copied, flipped it, and then filled in the blanks, as you can see, the two flipped, don't line up exactly, so I brought the two halves as close together as possible and with a little more fudging patch filled the open areas. It's absolutely kludge. It's a lot cleaner than my first effort. Not nearly what Polygon did. And if it was a choice between what he did and what I did, it wouldn't be a contest. His is better.
With a little extra effort, I came close(r).
The WIP:
The kludge:
Played around with it some more. This one's much cleaner and closer:
The two halves:
(Color Selected - Example)
The finished product:
(Less fidddling)
You are too hard on yourself and limit the outcome if you think you can't reach that level.
Don't get me wrong, Polygon drew what you'd expect if you wanted to cut out each piece from like different shaded vinyl.
However that is not the case, it is not necessary to create objects matching eachother perfectly in that fashion.
Like you could draw any crazy fills for the two halves if you are not restricting yourself to this kind of approach.
For example can even use raster images in the process, anyhing can go.
Besides probably you don't know the part Polygon did before mentioning the shapebuilder tool.
He is using interpolation and not just eyeballing those arcs.
You put in tremendous work for a rather inaccurate result. Instead if you put in the effort of thinking of the structure of your image, you can end up with the exact result within a few minutes.
Have you checked how grouping and clipping works for that matter?
(In the manual, i.e. clipping: http://tavmjong.free.fr/INKSCAPE/MANUAL/html/Clip.html)
And maybe cloning too?
One half can be drawn as a clipped group of object, the other can be some sort of a clone of it.
Inside that group drawing full circles can work perfectly.
I too often drift down tldr; these days. I mean no offense.
My learning style tends to work best with considerably more hand holding, examples and tutorials.
I'm not the only one who thinks that Logos by Nick is a great place to start. Now, I'm also using Affinity Designer. So is he. That's good news to me.
That last example is still considerably better than my first few though - yes. Even if I took the long way around. Sometimes I'm pretty good at finding a kludge solution that works.
Not so good at necessarily finding the better, consistent with best practices solution. Some people are, excel at it, thrive on it, look for it. I wish I could say as much was true for me.
I'm more of a copycat. I get a lot of credit for what I can do. But, I'm still largely doing it with someone else's original idea. I'm more in that category of creative.
I'm pretty good at extrapolating. That"s no where near the same as being original and innovative.
Unless I'm writing. That's a different medium. Pretty good at that.
So, I'm not trying to be offensive. Creatively speaking, if you'd like to point me in the right direction, it's more of a shove than a push really.
Nick's pretty good at that. Which is probably why he's so popular.
He's also very good at what he does which is why he's so busy.
My busy is for different reasons and from different directions.
My screen generally isn't blank when I start. And, when I finish, since it's generally derivative, it's less to speak of.
Unless I'm writing.
To draw a dog, my mind's eye needs an example to go by.
Those who can draw one just at the mention of one are those I admire.
And, I've noted, in all fairness, that you get out of it what you put into it.
And I don't put much into it.
So, not sure if I'm being unnecessarily harsh on myself or just too well aware of what I'm contributing to my own limitations.
Or haven't yet found my. niche.
I did figure out how to get to, as I mentioned halfway there, half a yin / yang.
That's something. Even if it was, by comparison, entirely too much effort.
That whole "entirely too much effort" part, explains a lot about my style and ability.
Still I think Inkscape's a great tool. Even if I haven't figured out how to make most / best of it.
Well that's the problem I see with Nick.
Everyone points to it and those who follow gain a false confidence in learning skills. I can't really complain because I never put in the same marketing in my tutorials before.
But I can bet this image can be drawn "properly" in less than 5 minutes.
Although always having mixed feelings which way to go.
There is a saying around here that goes something like this:
"Those who can do it, do it,
those who can't, are teaching it;
those who can't even teach it, they are organising it."
I always feel similar to you in that I get too much inspiration from tutorials that I need to escape them .already knowing how the subject can be done better most of the time.
Focusing more on my own ideas.
Frankly this image gave me many of them that I want to explore sometime. Have to update my inventory in that regard.
Speaking of side tracks, variations, here is one with some Vasarely op-art vibe.
That's just too cool for words.
If you did or didn't do it, I'm really feeling "not worthy".
It's stuff like that that I point to anytime anybody feels overly impressed by anything I've ever done.
What I do, just isn't in the same league.
Fun for me. Just - "Wow" by comparison.
I think of myself comparatively speaking, like an application for graphics designer. Most likely somewhere along the line it wouldn't be, just show me what you've done, it would be, show me what you can do. Likely even under a time limit, with some very specific desired outcomes.
Someone who's qualified for the job welcomes the challenge and demonstrates skill.
I'd likely be an embarassment.
I like what I do and am able to do.
But, as I've told others, just because my mother thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced cheese, doesn't mean the rest of the world sees me the same way.
I try to keep compliments and self assessments in that light. Fortunately (or not) the rest of the world isn't as enamored of my abilities as Ma was. I don't have to work at being humble.
And talent like the image above, maybe it didn't come overnight or not without a lot of practice, it shows the difference between where I am (or could be, if I was willing to put in the effort).
Fred Astaire wasn't great overnight, certainly not without a lot of effort to make it look - so easy.
There's that.
Used this one as a reference and tried implementing a fitting variant.
https://www.deviantart.com/lazururh/art/Vasarely-s-circles-357982758
Tried involving some spirals but that didn't work -yet.
It's far from impossible but takes a different approach. Guess that's where experience comes in.
Not just how to use the toolset effectively but how to look at things, observe the details, and finding ways for recreating them.
Don't feel bad about it. Get motivated. This kind of geometric drawings can be achieved.
That, by the way, isn't just color. It's light and shading as well as a sense of color.
The difference between different colors and different colors for a reason, a sense of what colors go together or don't.
I know what colors I like and have no sense or feel for what colors do or don't go together or why.
For that reason, I also have no future as an interior decorator.
;-)
Relative to what you're saying, there are those who can do it, but can't explain why or how (that whole "do it" thing). That's genius. Those who stumble upon it but, couldn't repeat it if their life depended on it since it was stumble that got them there in the first place. Those who have training, who didn't, don't bring greatness to the table, their reach matches but not exceeds their grasp. And at then there's me and others like me, who maybe know what we're good at, but, every so often, step outside the lines, not genius kind of outside the lines, but, someone who doesn't know what they're doing, knows a little bit of how things work and what to do, or where to look, but, is inhibited by a lack of imagination or know how.
That last part can't be taught. And those who have it, in addition to all the other stuff, have an edge over those who don't. And those who don't do them a favor by realizing the extent of their limitations or of the talents they do have and making the most of them.
For some, it means taking a good look at the fundamental skills, tools, etc, and doing the hard work. They may never be great, but, they'll be better.
In that regard, those who come to me based on what I do, are barking up the wrong tree.
And you would know that too - now. I'm 66. At this point in my life, another 10 years isn't likely to change that.
"Used this one as a reference and tried implementing a fitting variant.
https://www.deviantart.com/lazururh/art/Vasarely-s-circles-357982758
Tried involving some spirals but that didn't work -yet.
It's far from impossible but takes a different approach. Guess that's where experience comes in.
Not just how to use the toolset effectively but how to look at things, observe the details, and finding ways for recreating them.
Don't feel bad about it. Get motivated. This kind of geometric drawings can be achieved."
I'm on DeviantArt as well, and Pinterest.
Both are mostly opportunities for me to explore the work of others, consistent or not with what interests me (or amazes me - more frequently).
Part of my mindset is not to dwell solely among those who agree with me or who are impressed by what I do - as already mentioned.
No one really gets any better without being challenged, whether it be in competition with others or with ourselves.
I'm interested in being challenged.
So, I have no intention of giving up.
I don't know if I can reach the heavens, but, maybe I can reach the ceiling.
And poke a hole or two in it.
"For example can even use raster images in the process, anything can go." (Using Affinity Designer - Could've been Inkscape, Pulled the patterns from Unsplash and tweaked them to be a bit more seamless)
In looking at it like this, I'm seeing an eye in the center, perhaps an Eye of Isis type eye:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Eye+of+Isis&qft=+filterui:photo-linedrawing&form=IRFLTR&first=1&tsc=ImageBasicHover
Just a spur of the moment thought.
The kind of thing that might make it even more interesting.
Nice!
Personally I was thinking of abandoning the stripes for one and worry about those later.
This one was made by using the previous svg above as clipping objects and clipped two raster images wich were both grouped with a gradient overlay.
(https://inkscape.org/forums/cafe/yin-yang-rainbow/#c30419)
-images came from publicdomainpictures.net-
As you've said, there's more than one way to skin this cat.
There are so many examples of yin and yang.
And so many ways to conceptualize it.
I'm currently playing with spirals. Simple idea.
And so many possibilities.