Any fellow aviation artists out there?

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:

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

"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

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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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.