Site Transformation?

[Jesters-Ink]

I'm in a happy place.
I love simmers, I like people here and I like the fact that anyone can show their work, no matter how good it is/isn't. The people here are fresh and don't have a stick up their arse like on some forum I could mention. That said, the people here give their honest opinions without being offensive. I think profile (art) goes hand in hand with skinning and is a complimentary subject to skinning. It's not for all, but I still think it works.

If it did become a problem, I would not be offended if I was asked to post profiles elsewhere, but I consider simmers home.

[adlabs6]

Something which I find an interesting question, is the different 'styles' of profile art which I have often seen, even published. For instance, aside from the more detailed and weathered profiles like I've tried my hand at, often all that will be included in a publication is a plain line drawing which seems to serve only as a camo/scheme/marking reference.

So with this in mind, it's why I do not often speak immediately about such detailing when I see a new profile posted. Are these types of profiles a particular subset which the artist is working in? I'm not really well versed in the details of this hobby (as you all may know, I am little more than a beginner at profiling), and never have taken a look at the business side of the hobby.

[Goodwood]

An interesting question, and something that may have a bearing in the six profiles I've submitted to the site in less then a week.

To answer: templates. Take the crude tutorial I made. Essentially it's a "how to" for making paintkits, templates, whatever you want to call them. The same goes for skinning - often the best skinners work from their own templates, while others simply make templates for others to use. In turn, each skinner, like each profiler, has a preference for how they like their skins: factory-fresh, light wear and tear w/ a few kill markings, or "coming apart at the seams". The same could be said for profiling; some prefer the quick and easy "camouflage and markings" (see here for an example), while others prefer to go all-out with the 3-D effects, weathering, and individualized lighting, etc., with variations filling the gaps. It's a question of effort, really, and how much one is willing to invest in their work.

Personally I think it's perfectly acceptable to put a lot of effort into making one or two all-encompassing templates per each type of aircraft one wants to profile, then having only minor variations in the template's various components per profile (aside from the different markings, mind you). However, when it comes to skins, a measure of variety seems necessary (IMH, as these are supposedly depicting things that will see action, if only virtually, as opposed to the static imagery of profiles. It also depends on what the publisher wants from his or her artists -quick and clean or meticulous and detailed. Take the profiles in the Osprey books, for instance - they're being printed four or five to a page, quite small by our standards (A3- or A4-sized seems to be preferred); some even look as though they've been pulled from other sources. Personally I think the book-publishing world is only recently becoming aware of the possibilities offered by computer-generated profiling. The example I pointed out is less then ten years old, and since then we've come from basic "wire-frame" camouflage and marking profiles to sophisticated works that look as though they could be a screen capture of an exceptionally-rendered and -skinned 3D model. In fact, I would very much be surprised if that *doesn't* become the norm in the next ten years, profiling from renders.

Just my $0.02...

[anadc4]

Paintkits! Ah, yes. It was the airliner paintkits created by the talented Aardvark team for Flight Simulator 2002/2004 AI traffic that introduced me to layers and their potential in 2D art. When I switched to profile art, the layered paintkit was always going to happen. Profile art for me was about colour schemes and from the outset I wanted a paintkit that could be used over and over again.

I hawked my profiles around to various magazines and publishers without any success. Hardly got a reply. Now there are some brilliant profile artists around who are being published but there are some with regular gigs who are amateurs compared with most of the work I have seen here. These days I use my artworks as a thank-you to people who kindly provide me with photos and other resources needed for a profile. Have one of my profiles with the Friends of SAS display and another displayed at the Northwest Airlines Heritage Centre. Several authors have my profiles, which they have permission to use in future publications. Others have simply printed them out to hang on the walls of their studies.

While it would nice to make some money from the effort, I do them for the personal satisfaction.

David

[Supah]

How detailed you draw profiles depends on what you are planning to do with it, if you are selling it as a art prints then the more detail the better. If it is merely used to illustrate a paintscheme then a lot of detail is wasted.

I don't see how profiles could be "a problem" here. Skinning bores me because I can't do the planes I want. I can't do a F-4C, NF-5A or a F-104G without having to look for ages for a model in a game, then pbb buy the game. Toss that, I'll make it in photoshop myself As a site profiles are more attractive because they can be sold commercially and so there is a possibility to take up the middle man position. You can't sell skins easily so anything asociated with that will always be a "Labour of love".

[gamary]

How detailed you draw profiles depends on what you are planning to do with it

No it doesn't. It's just because we're raving lunatics. I spent 3 hours yesterday just setting the rivets on the cowling of my future T-6G. There weren't that many of them, but I had to compare pictures (they're not so visible when painted yellow) and place them exactly as they are in reality. When it was done, I realized that if I kept going on at this rate, the line drawing for my Texan would be ready in the first quarter of 2012 (maybe)...

The worst thing is that nobody would notice rivet #567 is slightly offset, and if somebody did, he wouldn't give a d---. Actually, the worst part is that I know that, but I keep doing it. Just like drugs. And I'm sue I'm not the only addict in these quarters...

[Supah]

It's not wether you expect a lot of people to notice inaccuracies. It is more wether you notice them and/or if the work is going to be used as a refference by someone else. BTW I'd love to have those texan line drawings Just did some math, approximately ~500 homes have art of mine on the wall ranging from afghanistan through Iraq to Italy to the state of indiana (mostly there thanks to the 181st FW!) Pretty cool thought!

[gamary]

OK about the line drawings. Just keep in mind they're "production-oriented" so they might not be very good on a stand-alone basis. What I usually do is chose one (sometimes several) existing line drawings and correct/modify them using as much photo reference as possible. It is quite time-consuming of course, but doing it gives me a chance to get pretty familiar with the aircraft and thus draw it better.

I'll send them to you when done.

[Goodwood]

I wouldn't mind a good line drawing of a P-47 (razor and bubble) and/or an Fw 190A "at rest"...

Just kidding...

[Supah]

OK about the line drawings. Just keep in mind they're "production-oriented" so they might not be very good on a stand-alone basis. What I usually do is chose one (sometimes several) existing line drawings and correct/modify them using as much photo reference as possible. It is quite time-consuming of course, but doing it gives me a chance to get pretty familiar with the aircraft and thus draw it better.

I'll send them to you when done.

Well all the line drawings I've found have been really really crap so I am more then happy with anything better that that Looking at the Alphajets I think you do a very good job on them!