How do you get your outlines?

[DeanH]

Pretty much agree with what most here have said, perhaps the main point being 'swings and roundabouts'
Seeing HH's pictures above leads me to thinking (a dangerous thing! lol) there wouldn't be too much effort required using Macs 'remove white' on a set of blueprints and overlaying THEM on a photo, just to verify your sources, it wouldn't take long to prove your supplies one way or another.

As Blowhard mentions, and as it so frequently turns out to be the case, when you are already quite a ways into a profile and you show someone who purports to be an expert in that area/type some changes can become inevitable , and that is where a ton of layers can be a lifesaver, and changes can be made in quite a short time.
I recently completed the full series of P51d variants flown by one pilot through his career which spanned D day and the associated colour schemes, the file was 5000x1945 at 300dpi and had around 54 layers and still only came out at 71.12mb so they don't necessarily have to be ridiculously large files.
I'm fortunate in that I've just recently upgraded my system, and now have 2g of the latest fast ram, but I WOULD recommend that path to anyone who wants to use photoshop and/or work with large scale files.

I remember there used to be bit of a rule of thumb for photoshop use, you should have at least FIVE times your files size in ram. By that rule a 70mb file should have more than 350mb of ram. That was back in about PS5 days so it could well be a lot different now with more powerful CPUs and the new operating systems and CS versions of photoshop.

But remember this, RAM is like kisses from purty girls, there jus' ain't no such thang as too much of either!! lol

DeanH

[gamary]

I rather agree with DeanH here: one should keep in mind that profiles are supposed to be interpreatations, not alternate photography.

I've been working on a Stampe SV.4A for a friend. He couldn't send me photographs of his bird (F-BXCD) at first so I had to use shots of other aircraft. When I sent him the blueprint I'd created as a basis for the profile, he wrote back with dozens of corrections. It seems that nerly every existing Stampe is unique in some fashion, sometimes with rather substantial differences for each a/c. Therefore, even photographs are tricky to use.

I think that there is a point when one should say "that's good enough" because there is no end to perfecting the thing...

[Jesters-Ink]

Eaxctly, we are making drawings, not creating exact technical drawings.
If people want photographs, go take one, having said that, I'd still want my drawings to be as detailed and close to realistic as pos.

[Supah]

I draw my profiles to make accurate replications of the actual aircraft, I don't like impressionisme

[gamary]

I agree that maximum realism is better, but even your drawings, Supah, "idealize" things in a way. By that I mean that some things (the lighting in particular) are "optimal" and therefore the rendering is quite esthetic and nice to look at. Actual aircraft are sometimes plain ugly.

I was also thinking of the fact that in some cases (more rarely with modern birds), the profile is also a way to show what it looked like, when pictures are bad or non-existant.

Here is an example of what I was thinking of when I said "good enough". The Stampe I'm doing has a pipe which is bent by hand. My representation of the pipe had too sharp an angle (but not much), and the owner of the aircraft pointed that out. He agreed it was a minor detail, especially since the tube was different looking a few years ago when the aircraft hadn't been fully restored. One could build a long list of things that need minor or very minor corrections, which require more time, research and knowledge than I currently have...

I'm probably over-reacting to some corrections I've had, like a 1 or 2? change in the windshield angle, and other things of the sorts. All that frustration and impatience of mine had to come out...

[Supah]

Well a 1 to 2 degree flaw in allignment can make a lot of difference IMO. I wouldn't go so far as calling it idealising things. You are drawing things from a fixed perspective with the light coming from the same uniform direction, this happens IRL too.

Perhaps this is all down to what you want to do with your drawing. Do you want it to be "Fine art" or do you just want to illustrate how a paintscheme looked? This makes a rather big difference in how you draw. In the latter case you wouldn't draw rivets or cockpit detail etc. What would be the point? A small shape anomaly isnt a big problem either. If you are going for the first option then those things become more critical

[BLOWHARD]

Something I learned a long time ago, if you're going to paint a hamburger, don't just paint a hamburger, paint THE BEST hamburger you can think of!

I wouldn't even say "idealize" but rather "better" than realistic What that means is up to each individual. It becomes a matter of refining your art and more so, refining your ideas and goals for your art.

[islandguy]

I have heard that people that make a living out of drawing profiles put mistakes in for copyright reason... If true, best not to use one if you are going to get commercial with the result - or double check using photos etc. Then put your own errors in.....lol

[Jesters-Ink]

I'm quite sure it has been done. I've done it on other works, not profiles, in the past, and watch people walk right into it lol.
Blowhard makes the very best hamburgers I've seen todate----->http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/foru...58/index4.html I make airplane noises when I look at his work. All I do when I look at mine is sigh after seeing his!

[Supah]

I have heard that people that make a living out of drawing profiles put mistakes in for copyright reason... If true, best not to use one if you are going to get commercial with the result - or double check using photos etc. Then put your own errors in.....lol

I think Chris only does that because having two small children he is sleep deprived ;-) I think he is the only one who does this for a living.