Focal Point

[JMSmith]

This is mainly for GM but others can learn as well,

GM claimed in Clints thread that i was wrong, he should have known better, remember the B25 wing

we draw and produce drawings with multiple pocal points, so when we look at it ALL of it is square to the veiwer, unlike photos which have a single focal point,
now if we start saying the shadow MUST be curved then the complete profile needs changing to take into account a single focal point, and if we do that then we might as welll post photos

the two attached images show what i mean, but if you really want me to go into scientific detail i can.

the curved shadow used by some profile artist is just that, artistic flair, NOT technically correct, the demo photo that GM posted prove only that with a single focal point the shadows at the sides will be curved

do you really want to be shot down and buried, dug up again and shot down again, or are you prepared to listen to facts, if you don't believe me then google it, i will except your apology with thanks

by the way, the last bit above is just playfull banter between GM and myself, i love him really.

[Serval]

Ik think the photo I was you guys kidding with a couple of weeks ago shows it nicely. Wher the canopy looks pertty good for a profile, the wing looks different.




(Jesters profile for comparisation)

[Clint Mitchell]

Profiles are a tough one, the problem is these things started out as black and white or very basic (brush painted) coloured technical diagrams. Which whilst being black and white and quite basic your brain and eyes thought of and translated them as being just that, a technical diagram devoid of any perspective and realism. With the advent of the air brush in the eighties things changed. Artists were able to add another dimension of realism to their technical diagrams but unless of course the artists name was Dru Blair (Best photorealist ever) your brain still accepted them as being Technical Diagrams/Illustrations. So your brain was not expecting, neither was it looking for the same level of perspective, shadowing, lighting etc as you would get if you was standing there staring at the real thing. Thing is these days with a puter, some software, a bit of talent, time, and attention to detail you can get these profiles to a standard were they do look as if you could be standing in front of the real thing, believe me some of you fellas do it. I believe this causes problems with how your brain translates the profile. What we end up with is a visual conflict. Something that looks very real but in a way does'nt, because real things have perspective. What you have to consider is this: What do you want it to look like? A photo that looks wrong? Or a bloody nice illustration that does exactly what it's supposed to. What I'm trying to get at is that it does not hurt to have a bit of artistic licence with these things ie a curved shadow, a subtle outline or whatever just to remind the viewers brain that after all it is just a technical illustration allbeit created by a very talented switched on, focused, detail seeking visual archaologist stroke Technical Artist.

Where did that just come from? Its nice to have somewhere to shoot of your theories on the matter of profile art. Just my 2cents really. Whats your opinion?

Thanks

Clint

[Jesters-Ink]

Here here Sir John and well said.

[GrubbyFingers]

I'm with you on this one John, I don't use perspective on my profiles at all. I subscribe to the multiple view-point school.

Grubby.

[Vacajun]

John, John, John,

I had to down two cool ones before responding to your post. Two observations about postings on this site that we all love:

1--Flaming doesn't do any of us any good, and 2-- We all have something to learn here. None of us know everything and need to admit it.

Your shot from the hip directed at GM was really about my posted photo, so direct your comments to me.

I have tremendous respect for your drive for accuracy in profiles and your reference material, but would like to point out that you are totally wrong on this issue. The curvature of wing shadows cast on fuselages, nacelles, wing tanks or other cylindrical or curved surfaces is dependent on the sweep angle of the leading edge of the wing and has NOTHING to do with perspective. I could have chosen to place the rearward-swept card in the middle of that photo, but the curvature would still be the same. Try it yourself.

For a classic profile (sun forward overhead), the wing shadow line on a curved surface will always be straight for an unswept wing, but curved for sweep back or sweep forward and the amount of sweep exaggerates the effect. Thus, the shadow of the leading edge of a He-162 is straight; the shadow of an F-106 wing on its wing tank will be curved. Note Baron's recent He 162 post--he got it right. Straight shadow for wing leading edge line, curved for the swept-forward trailing edge line.
I repeat--this has nothing to do with perspective--it is a multi-focal point phenomenon!

Bottom line is that those profile artists that use curved shadows are correct--using straight lines is in fact "artistic license".

Peace.

Joe

[BLOWHARD]

Uh...that better not be the "all rights reserved" copyright protected registered trademark BH Mk.1 eyeball? It looks familiar somehow...

I think I've told a number of people here this, there really is no correct way to do a perfect flat profile. It can never exist in reality for precisely what JM lays out. Only there are many more than just 3 focal points, they are infinite and exist in all focal planes, not just front to back, but top to bottom and every point in between in every direction.

I'll see Joe's comments and raise him one;
Bottom line is that all "flat" profile art is "artistic license."
As I said above, what we do doesn't and can't ever exist in real life. Either you do a full on perspective drawing, something like Serval's Hurricane, or you use your eye and create what looks right.

The really important thing is to capture the shapes as correctly as possible as interpreted for a flat profile. The hardest part is to hold everything to the same visual standards, all parts to use the same interpretation. Kind of like mixing tenses in a sentence, if you start out with past tense, you must remain in past tense. Otherwise you'll end up with something that doesn't look right.

There is no science here, no absolutes, only feeling for what looks correct.
If you want scientific art, you MUST always use ALL the rules of perceptive, in all directions. You can't have it both ways.

[JMSmith]

hey joe, sounds like a song,

not flaming, did you not read my last line on the post me and gm love each other to bits and his work is fantastic, i just have to keep tickling him under the arms, its the only fun i have.

the post was for newbie to try to understand how profiles work, as BH quite rightly says it is a multi focal point, i just put three in as an indicator.

[gamary]

This is getting complicated. I'm feeling dizzy and am going to have a nose bleed again...

I stand with Joe here. (BTW, he's a rocket scientist and he wrote the books that you use as avenging reference ). I've also run the test on a 3D engine and got the same results as him.

It's funny because to me, it seems that profiles actually have no focal points. I'm probably getting confused with focal points and perspective but, as mentioned earlier, I'm dripping blood with all of these complicated things going through my mind... We Frenchmen only care for women usually, not such complex matters which can be used to hypnotize water buffaloes.

[Vacajun]

GM,

Great,great post! LMAO big time!

Joe