Using a completed build as a reference for a 2D painting?

[neillydone]

Does anyone use their completed model builds as reference for 2D fine art paintings in oil or acrylic etc as with the many talented folk who photograph their models with convincing backdrops.

 

I've seen scale models used as references (I assume for dimensions) in the Youtube videos of Mark Postlethwaite or Darryl Legg, for instance.

In some respects it might be useful, except the 'live' lighting would be very difficult to recreate...but in the absence of getting physically close to the intended subject it might be a better alternative than a photo...

 

If this is a regular practice for us 2D artists out there, are there any tips or is it just a matter of applying the same principles as setting up a still life? 

 

Neil

[hoppie]

I don't use completed models, god knows I wouldn't get far that way considering how slow a builder I am. But sometimes I use a temporarily put together model as reference to create a line drawing. Basically I use it as a perspective reference, lots of stuff gets corrected and changed in the line drawing according to research since it can be a bit tricky since not all models are necessarily accurate in shape and detail. I don't use it at all for light, just a starting point for perspective.

[rob Lyttle]

It's an interesting idea, Neil. Not sure what the answer is. I haven't used it that much, but I'd say that the process of building the model will definitely get you familiar with the subject, and that has got to be a good thing. 

Useless for lighting and atmospherics I guess, unless you go all out for creating the effects you want in the artwork. 

Perspective and "zoom balancing" is going to be worth considering. 

I got a very good result doing a drawing off a Fairey Swordfish derived from a photo of an RC model. It was an excellent scale model, prize winner grade, which was why it was featured in the magazine in the first place. That would have been maybe 4ft span, that kind of size. 

When you get down to the scales we tend to model in, that fisheye lens effect from being so close to the model is going to need compensation. 

But getting to know your subject has got to be a good thing 👍

[Nils]

I agree with Rob, getting familiar with the subject is vital. If not modelling, you can try schetching as many angles and versions as you can from photos to familiarize with the subject

[Michael Leek]

On 04/05/2021 at 21:20, neillydone said:

Does anyone use their completed model builds as reference for 2D fine art paintings in oil or acrylic etc as with the many talented folk who photograph their models with convincing backdrops.

 

I've seen scale models used as references (I assume for dimensions) in the Youtube videos of Mark Postlethwaite or Darryl Legg, for instance.

In some respects it might be useful, except the 'live' lighting would be very difficult to recreate...but in the absence of getting physically close to the intended subject it might be a better alternative than a photo...

 

If this is a regular practice for us 2D artists out there, are there any tips or is it just a matter of applying the same principles as setting up a still life? 

 

Neil

I’ve used both models that I’ve built and diecast models as props for paintings. No different to artists and illustrators using studio props such as life models, etc. However, you need to have a reasonably good understanding of perspective and field of view, because the relationship between the aircraft and the background must be always be complimentary. If not, the painting will always look odd, even to the untrained eye.

 

One problem with creating a photo-painting by adding a background to a photo of a model is that models often look like the models that they are. For example, not all panel lines are visible in reality, and they’re often too pronounced on a model. Another issue is ensuring colour balance and tone are identical between model and background. Light source must also be constant. I use dedicated artists lights which have a completely neutral white balance in terms of temperature. This allows me to adjust settings to ensure the background matches that of the aircraft, and vice versa. (When I’m next at my desktop I’ll source and post a photograph of a diecast RAF Phantom model that I superimposed on a landscape photograph to give the impression it was a low level photograph from the Mach Loop in the 1980s.)

 

For paintings (I usually use acrylics, but sometimes watercolour), my use of models is different, especially when there’s more one aircraft in the composition. I’ve developed a process that works extremely well. Could provide more details if people are interested…

 

Regardless of whether you’re creating a photo composition with a model, or using models as props for a painting, it’s extremely important to consider focal length. The human eye is approximately equivalent to a focal length of between 50 and 75 mm. Anything less than 50 mm becomes wide angle, which for the human eye is unnatural. Unfortunately, there are a number of digital artists who don’t seem to be aware of this, resulting in digital paintings that are distorted and simply ‘don’t work’. It might be that some of these digital artists are trying to create enhanced drama in their ‘paintings’, but the use of wide angle on subjects like aircraft, ships and cars, results in images that sit uncomfortably with the eye.

[Farmer matt]

I have only just found the aviation art section, so forgive me being very late in attendance. I have two books of Nicholas Trudgian paintings, and he describes building (basically and without painting or anything) kits in order to photograph them in various poses. Not only does he use the images for compositional reference he traces or photocopies the outlines and pounces or otherwise transfers them to canvas. Must admit I was a tad disappointed, but it would be impossible to freehand accurately enough to acheive his detailed paintings.

Regards,

Matt