But these Fokkers were German

[Jesters-Ink]

In most aspects, you are quite right, but I'm more of a "am I the absolute law on this subject"? and I have to answer, I have been wrong in the past. So now I am a "who is paying for this, and how would I feel if I had a good idea what I wanted and the people I am paying aren't producing what I've asked for".

Don't get me wrong, I ask once, I ask twice, but a third time I'm kinda going with the flow.

[Clint Mitchell]

Well that's where the issue is. Too many authors consider profiles to be a gimmick to get the modellers to buy the books with very little care and attention for absolute accuracy. A kind of 'oh that will do' mentality. The accuracy of a profile deserves just as much attention as the accuracy of the words and information contained within the book. Did the author sit there for hours scrutinising the best photos available to ensure that the line drawings were the best and most accurate that were humanly possible?

I suppose to cut a long story short. My views are that I find it wrong that an artist should be made to use an untested and quite possibly flawed set of baselines when at the end of the day it's the artist's credibility that is at stake if and when errors are later found. Surely no amount of peanuts is worth that?

"am I the absolute law on this subject" my answer to that is simply, you should be if you are profiling it.

If the baselines are wrong then whatever is created from them is also wrong. Camouflage positioning, marking locations. An accurately sized and proportioned balkenkreuz based on reference photos cannot be placed accurately on the side of a profile if all the panel lines are off.

That's just my view Jester and I'm not trying to tell you how to boil an egg dude. I'm waffling on so I better shut up.

[Jesters-Ink]

Not at all Clint, I find your attitude towards profile production quite stimulating and refreshing, about where I was 10 years ago on the subject.
I have to say, my work was absolute crap back then, yet I believed it to be much better than it was.

The way I question the accuracy deal these days is, has anyone drawn a subject so true its exactly how it would look in perfect profile, I doubt it.
If I followed this law, I would produce nothing.

Is it good enough to do the job it is intended to do and the answer is yes, then that's fine by me. At the end of the day we are creating images of subjects we can no longer acquire enough data on, so there has to be a line drawn, (no pun intended).

To top it off, the WWI guys I do work for have requested I produce profiles with line and markings only, no lighting/3d work at all.
Their argument is, it is reference material for modellers to produce a paint job from and the lighting/weathering is subject to the timeline of the specific subject. I am inclined to agree with them, but does it look as good, nada.

Bottom line is, we do what we can with the tools we have, its a sad way of looking at things, but it gets me by.

I'm sorta happy with what I produce, but I will never say it is perfect.


In answer to your law comment, "we should be", I've seen and been the "square peg in the round hole" plenty.
It's like the crap teacher or the bad cop, we are human and nobody has offered me the job yet where I get to sit on a beach drinking cocktails all day listening to all the old classic rock bands of old, surrounded by fit, attractive, hardly dressed young ladies tending to my every need.

[inkworm]

Some very good arguments from both sides and I suspect I'm somewhere in the middle. I'll do what I can with the resources and time available to me and cross reference and question any line drawings I encounter. But I will argue the point if I think that some plans that have been provided are inaccurate. Bottom line for me is photographic evidence.

However I would love to have time time to invest in a labour of love such as BHs old wood and wire things which are a work of beauty.

As for profiles in publications I think that they can add a lot, especially on older subjects where there are no colour photos to support the text. But I have seen some otherwise excellent texts spoilt by really poor (either through the style or the accuracy) illustrations.

[Clint Mitchell]

I appreciate that a certain balance has to be made between time, money, and family for the artist. I suppose it depends what the function of the profile is, whether that be simply eye candy to fill in the gaps between the paragraphs or a standalone reliable and accurate piece of reference work in it's own right.

I agree that no 2D artist can ever hope to get anything near perfection but from an engineering standpoint an artist who utilizes a 3D or CAD package to model an aircraft using the measurements from surviving factory blueprints and the best photographic reference available can get to 99% of what's physically possible in regards to perfection in profile form. Sadly this option requires a considerable initial outlay and an unbelievable amount of time after that which can never be fairly balanced against a livable wage. Which is why it has to be a passion with the realisation that the only worthwhile product of your labours at the end of the day is your own satisfaction.

I'm happy that Simmers has become a bit busier of late. I do enjoy a good chat/debate with fellow profiling aviation enthusiasts. The site was getting a bit quiet and disused. I'm glad things appear to be perking up.

[inkworm]

I suppose it depends what the function of the profile is, whether that be simply eye candy to fill in the gaps between the paragraphs or a standalone reliable and accurate piece of reference work in it's own right.

I do think that fortunately most of us on here have the same general approach and professional pride in doing the best we can. I would like to think that what ever the primary reason for commissioning a profile the latter reason is why we do it. There is nothing worse than getting something in print and then discovering errors for whatever reason (normally some other photo coming to light).

I agree that no 2D artist can ever hope to get anything near perfection but from an engineering standpoint an artist who utilizes a 3D or CAD package...

And look what happens when you do go down that route, who wants to end up like Ronnie?

[Jesters-Ink]

I'm sure Ronnie would agree with me on this, even a 3D artist with CAD can still fudge it up. Boils down to anything human/computer related . . .crap in = crap out.

We do what we can with the tools we have, don't make me start quoting Douglas Adams, or Kelly's Heroes, or worse still Star Wars.

Hey, you might be glad the forums are more alive, but once again, I'm getting less drawing done

[BLOWHARD]

heheheheehehe This is why I do what I want and haven't (as of yet) done anything for pay. I do it the way I want and for my own enjoyment and I'm glad I don't worry about a lot of these problems I had more than enough of this when I was a freelance illustrator.
...plus, I doubt I could compete for jobs with you guys anyway!

[Jesters-Ink]

heheheheehehe This is why I do what I want and haven't (as of yet) done anything for pay. I do it the way I want and for my own enjoyment and I'm glad I don't worry about a lot of these problems I had more than enough of this when I was a freelance illustrator.
...plus, I doubt I could compete for jobs with you guys anyway!

Well said!

[gamary]

has anyone drawn a subject so true its exactly how it would look in perfect profile, I doubt it.

Actually, most of my profiles (except one or two, perhaps) are absolutely perfect profile representations. Sadly, as none of us has perfect profile vision, this extraordinary feat is not widely acknowledged.

Sorry, couldn't resist.