Any fellow aviation artists out there?

[Wade Meyers]

After MUCH prodding, I'm actually going to go ahead and finish my
manual on "Perspective Projection by Descriptive Geometry: A Manual
for the Artist" (working title).

I have studied, and applied, this method of obtaining aircraft *and*
landscape details (runways/buildings, etc) in proper perspective
"views" for a long time now (See my site link below for many
examples). Proper knowledge of and *application* of "DG" results in
correct perspective and size context for each object as it relates to
the canvas dimensions and to other objects in the scene as the work is
seen from a preferred viewer's distance - much the same as if the
canvas were simply a clear piece of glass, and one were 'seeing' real
objects through the glass . . . in other words, if the typical viewer
of your painting is standing "here" (the *preferred* distance), and
the object depicted is "this big" in relation to the "canvas/pane of
glass", then the object, by definition, is "that far" away. Using this
information, one can "project", from accurate 3-views of the object,
the object in its correct perspective view for that distance.

A perfect and well-known example of this method in action is Keith
Ferris' "Fortresses Under Fire", his 25' x 75' mural in the World War
II gallery in the NASM. Standing at the preferred viewer's distance
(determined by the confines of the WWII gallery) of 60' from the
wall/canvas/clear window, you see a B-17G at the exact perspective and
size as if it were an actual 1:1 scale B-17 about to crash through the
wall/canvas/pane of glass - with it's nose perspex just touching the
wall/canvas.

Now, 1:1 scale paintings such as this can only be done with canvases
*that* big, but I will outline how you can create, in effect, 1/12th
scale "murals", where all elements relate to each other properly,
perspective-wise, at 1/12th scale. As an example of the latter, Ferris
first laid out a 25" x 75" working model of his mural - an exact
1/12th scale replica of the full-size mural as sort of a "proof of
concept". Using the same principles, I will show that it is entirely
possible for every artist to do the same thing. By the way, yes,
Ferris' 1/12th scale model has a preferred viewer's distance of 60"!
We cannot predict exactly where our viewers will stand when observing
our work, but we can work everything out so that it looks correct from
a comfortable, average and typical art gallery (or any other
perdetermined/preferred) viewing distance.

There, I'm already boring you with details. I'm posting this in case
any of you have struggled with the DG system, or would like to know
more about it. I know from my emails that quite a few have - and more
folks than I would have imagined are also painters like me. In the
end, I'm actually saving time by writing the manual rather than spend
all that time explaining WHY I (or somebody else?) haven't yet
completed it!

I will try to make the manual //extremely// concise and to the point,
with numerous examples illustrated with simple stick figure airplanes
and ground elements used to get the main points across. I will assume
that the reader has a good working knowledge of 2 and 3-point
perspective already, and, hopefully, has pulled out a few hairs
actually struggling with the DG system. To keep costs down, I'll run
off copies at the local copy center and put the pages into a thin
3-ring binder so that you can take out each page and arrange them on
your drafting table as necessary.

I have no idea how the final format will look, as so far the manual
only exists as random ideas in my head, and in a folder full of notes
I've made over the years. So, no "pre-orders" for this one.

If you may be interested in a copy of this manual when it's finished,
email me and I'll let you know when it's available.

By the way, you can get college texts on DG - it's actually an old
system for drafing, but be prepared - most I've seen are over 400
pages, and intended for the college classroom, with a seasoned
instructor leading you through the muck!

Wade

Email:

[Don Stauffer]

After having trouble for years with perspective on both ships and
aircraft, I have found a solution, and it even involves scale modeling
:-)

I have a digital camera and a good paint/photo-editing program. I hang
model aircraft, or pose model ship in position I want to paint, and
shoot it. I then load to computer, and create a new layer on top (like
a cartoonist's transparent 'cell' sheet). I now use the paint tools to
paint over the model. I can superimpose model as second layer over a
first 'background' layer, and then the transparent layer, on which I
will actually paint, is layer three.

Wade Meyers wrote:
>
> After MUCH prodding, I'm actually going to go ahead and finish my
> manual on "Perspective Projection by Descriptive Geometry: A Manual
> for the Artist" (working title).
>
> I have studied, and applied, this method of obtaining aircraft *and*
> landscape details (runways/buildings, etc) in proper perspective
> "views" for a long time now (See my site link below for many
> examples). Proper knowledge of and *application* of "DG" results in
> correct perspective and size context for each object as it relates to
> the canvas dimensions and to other objects in the scene as the work is
> seen from a preferred viewer's distance - much the same as if the
> canvas were simply a clear piece of glass, and one were 'seeing' real
> objects through the glass . . . in other words, if the typical viewer
> of your painting is standing "here" (the *preferred* distance), and
> the object depicted is "this big" in relation to the "canvas/pane of
> glass", then the object, by definition, is "that far" away. Using this
> information, one can "project", from accurate 3-views of the object,
> the object in its correct perspective view for that distance.
>
> A perfect and well-known example of this method in action is Keith
> Ferris' "Fortresses Under Fire", his 25' x 75' mural in the World War
> II gallery in the NASM. Standing at the preferred viewer's distance
> (determined by the confines of the WWII gallery) of 60' from the
> wall/canvas/clear window, you see a B-17G at the exact perspective and
> size as if it were an actual 1:1 scale B-17 about to crash through the
> wall/canvas/pane of glass - with it's nose perspex just touching the
> wall/canvas.
>
> Now, 1:1 scale paintings such as this can only be done with canvases
> *that* big, but I will outline how you can create, in effect, 1/12th
> scale "murals", where all elements relate to each other properly,
> perspective-wise, at 1/12th scale. As an example of the latter, Ferris
> first laid out a 25" x 75" working model of his mural - an exact
> 1/12th scale replica of the full-size mural as sort of a "proof of
> concept". Using the same principles, I will show that it is entirely
> possible for every artist to do the same thing. By the way, yes,
> Ferris' 1/12th scale model has a preferred viewer's distance of 60"!
> We cannot predict exactly where our viewers will stand when observing
> our work, but we can work everything out so that it looks correct from
> a comfortable, average and typical art gallery (or any other
> perdetermined/preferred) viewing distance.
>
> There, I'm already boring you with details. I'm posting this in case
> any of you have struggled with the DG system, or would like to know
> more about it. I know from my emails that quite a few have - and more
> folks than I would have imagined are also painters like me. In the
> end, I'm actually saving time by writing the manual rather than spend
> all that time explaining WHY I (or somebody else?) haven't yet
> completed it!
>
> I will try to make the manual //extremely// concise and to the point,
> with numerous examples illustrated with simple stick figure airplanes
> and ground elements used to get the main points across. I will assume
> that the reader has a good working knowledge of 2 and 3-point
> perspective already, and, hopefully, has pulled out a few hairs
> actually struggling with the DG system. To keep costs down, I'll run
> off copies at the local copy center and put the pages into a thin
> 3-ring binder so that you can take out each page and arrange them on
> your drafting table as necessary.
>
> I have no idea how the final format will look, as so far the manual
> only exists as random ideas in my head, and in a folder full of notes
> I've made over the years. So, no "pre-orders" for this one.
>
> If you may be interested in a copy of this manual when it's finished,
> email me and I'll let you know when it's available.
>
> By the way, you can get college texts on DG - it's actually an old
> system for drafing, but be prepared - most I've seen are over 400
> pages, and intended for the college classroom, with a seasoned
> instructor leading you through the muck!
>
> Wade
>
> Email:

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

[Simon Robbins]

"Don Stauffer" > wrote in message
...
> After having trouble for years with perspective on both ships and
> aircraft, I have found a solution, and it even involves scale modeling
> :-)

Some would call that cheating, but not me. I was told by a professional
illusrator that there's no such thing as cheating when it comes to paying
the rent. So I do a similar thing. I take photos, print them out at the
right size, flipped X axis, and then transfer the basics of the image using
a trace. The way I see it, you use whatever tools necessary to produce the
best quality image you can.

Only thing is, perspective often looks better if it's exagerrated,
especially in action shots. And remember, when drawing pictures of land
features (such as airfields) from high altitude, the curvature of the Earth
distorts the perspective.

Si

[Don Stauffer]

I once read a fascinating book about the use of photography in
painting. Apparently many famous painters of mid to late 19, and 20th
century were also into photography, and used photography in their
painting work. One can claim that drawing perspective control lines on
canvas before painting is also cheating.

Simon Robbins wrote:
>
> "Don Stauffer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > After having trouble for years with perspective on both ships and
> > aircraft, I have found a solution, and it even involves scale modeling
> > :-)
>
> Some would call that cheating, but not me. I was told by a professional
> illusrator that there's no such thing as cheating when it comes to paying
> the rent. So I do a similar thing. I take photos, print them out at the
> right size, flipped X axis, and then transfer the basics of the image using
> a trace. The way I see it, you use whatever tools necessary to produce the
> best quality image you can.
>
> Only thing is, perspective often looks better if it's exagerrated,
> especially in action shots. And remember, when drawing pictures of land
> features (such as airfields) from high altitude, the curvature of the Earth
> distorts the perspective.
>
> Si

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

[Milton Bell]

in article , Don Stauffer at
wrote on 12/29/03 9:31 AM:

> I once read a fascinating book about the use of photography in
> painting. Apparently many famous painters of mid to late 19, and 20th
> century were also into photography, and used photography in their
> painting work. One can claim that drawing perspective control lines on
> canvas before painting is also cheatin


Ver Meer is said to have used a Camera Obscura to project an image onto a
canvas. The image was inverted but very accurate.


Milton

[Simon Robbins]

"Don Stauffer" > wrote in message
...
> I once read a fascinating book about the use of photography in
> painting. Apparently many famous painters of mid to late 19, and 20th
> century were also into photography, and used photography in their
> painting work. One can claim that drawing perspective control lines on
> canvas before painting is also cheating.

I guess cheating's all a matter of perspective. :^)

One could argue that a photographer cheats if he didn't build the
church/plant the tree in his photo. Extreme example, but it illustrates my
point, i.e. that the final product is the artistic work, and that has
nothing to do with the techniques employed to create it. I was taught that
it's pretty much a cardinal sin to even use a ruler to draw a straight line.
Except no one could give me a sensible reason why, so I ignore them all and
do whatever gives me the best results.

Si

[Rufus]

I think it's prevelent enough now not to be considered "cheating" - you
use all the tools you have and I'd have to consider it just another tool
in this case. I've heard of many airbrush artists and technical
illustrators working from photos - particularly figure
painters/illustrators, where using a photo would be much cheaper than
paying an artist's model to sit for an entire session.

I'd agree that the "art" comes in the departures from the photo - as
mentioned below.

--
- Rufus

Don Stauffer wrote:

> I once read a fascinating book about the use of photography in
> painting. Apparently many famous painters of mid to late 19, and 20th
> century were also into photography, and used photography in their
> painting work. One can claim that drawing perspective control lines on
> canvas before painting is also cheating.
>
> Simon Robbins wrote:
>
>>"Don Stauffer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>After having trouble for years with perspective on both ships and
>>>aircraft, I have found a solution, and it even involves scale modeling
>>>:-)
>>
>>Some would call that cheating, but not me. I was told by a professional
>>illusrator that there's no such thing as cheating when it comes to paying
>>the rent. So I do a similar thing. I take photos, print them out at the
>>right size, flipped X axis, and then transfer the basics of the image using
>>a trace. The way I see it, you use whatever tools necessary to produce the
>>best quality image you can.
>>
>>Only thing is, perspective often looks better if it's exagerrated,
>>especially in action shots. And remember, when drawing pictures of land
>>features (such as airfields) from high altitude, the curvature of the Earth
>>distorts the perspective.
>>
>>Si
>
>

[Simon Robbins]

"Rufus" > wrote in message
news:U_1Ib.690640$Tr4.1720884@attbi_s03...
> I think it's prevelent enough now not to be considered "cheating" - you
> use all the tools you have and I'd have to consider it just another tool
> in this case. I've heard of many airbrush artists and technical
> illustrators working from photos - particularly figure
> painters/illustrators, where using a photo would be much cheaper than
> paying an artist's model to sit for an entire session.

That's basically what I do. I haven't as yet done any aviation painting, but
my company keeps on about getting me to do some promotional stuff for them
of ASW scenes. Technical illustration doesn't work well from live study
compared to impressionist freeform, too much time and precision involved in
planning and laying out an illustration.

My last piece was a character study from the movie The Last of the Mohicans
for my neighbours as a gift. I worked from printed screenshots from the DVD.
Painted with transparent inks with a Paasche AB Turbo airbrush. (If anyone's
interested, send me an email and I'll reply with a digital photo of it.)
Not much creative input since it was a recreation of a screenshot, it was
more an exercise in airbrush technique for me.

Si

[Rufus]

Simon Robbins wrote:

> "Rufus" > wrote in message
> news:U_1Ib.690640$Tr4.1720884@attbi_s03...
>
>>I think it's prevelent enough now not to be considered "cheating" - you
>>use all the tools you have and I'd have to consider it just another tool
>>in this case. I've heard of many airbrush artists and technical
>>illustrators working from photos - particularly figure
>>painters/illustrators, where using a photo would be much cheaper than
>>paying an artist's model to sit for an entire session.
>
>
> That's basically what I do. I haven't as yet done any aviation painting, but
> my company keeps on about getting me to do some promotional stuff for them
> of ASW scenes. Technical illustration doesn't work well from live study
> compared to impressionist freeform, too much time and precision involved in
> planning and laying out an illustration.
>
> My last piece was a character study from the movie The Last of the Mohicans
> for my neighbours as a gift. I worked from printed screenshots from the DVD.
> Painted with transparent inks with a Paasche AB Turbo airbrush. (If anyone's
> interested, send me an email and I'll reply with a digital photo of it.)
> Not much creative input since it was a recreation of a screenshot, it was
> more an exercise in airbrush technique for me.
>
> Si
>
>

I recall that when I was sculpting artisticly, I preferred not to look
at a model just for that reason - I didn't want to make a "copy" from
life...I just wanted it to come out of my head. One of my cousins whom
was a professional artist once remarked that my figures, while not 100%
anatomically correct, had a great deal of "freedom and movement" in them
- I like to think not using a model was part of the reason.

I think if I were sculpting the human form these days I'd pay more
attention to anatomy and at least use a pose book, though. I've thought
of trying to pick up the craft again.

--
- Rufus

[[email protected]]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

>
>That's basically what I do. I haven't as yet done any aviation painting, but
>my company keeps on about getting me to do some promotional stuff for them
>of ASW scenes. Technical illustration doesn't work well from live study
>compared to impressionist freeform, too much time and precision involved in
>planning and laying out an illustration.
>
Si, have you seen any of Geoff Bennet's work?...he paints ASW
scenes mostly of Argus aircraft. A most excellent artist I'd say
too. He originated from your country, served and now has retired
in Canada.
--

-Gord.

[Simon Robbins]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Si, have you seen any of Geoff Bennet's work?...he paints ASW
> scenes mostly of Argus aircraft. A most excellent artist I'd say
> too. He originated from your country, served and now has retired
> in Canada.

No, I'd not heard of him, but I just did a web search and checked out some
of his work. Very good indeed. Most of the paintings my company commission
are of Nimrods, since that's the primary platform my company produces
equipment for. I'll have to take a look next week when I'm back at work and
see who they're all done by.

Si

[[email protected]]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> Si, have you seen any of Geoff Bennet's work?...he paints ASW
>> scenes mostly of Argus aircraft. A most excellent artist I'd say
>> too. He originated from your country, served and now has retired
>> in Canada.
>
>No, I'd not heard of him, but I just did a web search and checked out some
>of his work. Very good indeed. Most of the paintings my company commission
>are of Nimrods, since that's the primary platform my company produces
>equipment for. I'll have to take a look next week when I'm back at work and
>see who they're all done by.
>
>Si
>

Ok Si, I'm quite familiar with the Nimrods. When they replaced
the Shackletons in RAF ASW service they had one here at
Summerside and quite a few of us were given a spin in it. We flew
the Argus in ASW service for the RCAF and Canadian Armed Forces
then and we used to visit back and forth with ASW crews based at
Kinloss Scotland. We did the same to the USN ASW Orions based at
Brunswick Maine too as I'm sure your Nimrods did as well.

I has a look with Google and find that Geoff Bennett doesn't have
much available on the web, no Argus paintings that I found at
all. I'll try to find some examples of his talents. Always
interested in ASW info. Did it for a lot of years with
Lancasters, Neptunes and Argus.

Cheers,

--

-Gord.