This are based on some old fan-published prints from the late 1980s. The views don't match up on my redraw, but it's pretty close.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Haha! I taste revenge!
The lines are too thick and those gradiants need alot more contrast to them. I think you should seriously consider changing your light source from directly above to the dorsal - starboard region. As you can see flat surface gradiants look really bad like this, unless you just use a flat colour.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm trying to find acceptable thicknesses for the borders and the structural lines that don't obscure the details and don't fade out on small pictures. The structural lines are probably too thick here. I beg your forgiveness, Rev.
I'm always used a direct top light. Not going to change. Ever!
I was experimenting with some flat surface gradients. Back to the drawing board.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Wow. You actually...finished it. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Yeah. The trouble was that my drawing program had a bug that wouldn't allow large jpg to be imported (for tracing) without increasing the drawing's file size enormously (several MB). I upgraded to Freehand 10, and the problem disappeared.
I'll have to work on the Winston shuttle next!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: I'm trying to find acceptable thicknesses for the borders and the structural lines that don't obscure the details and don't fade out on small pictures. The structural lines are probably too thick here. I beg your forgiveness, Rev.
What I normally do is to give the major structural lines a thickness of 2 and the smaller details like gridlines and the like a thickness of 1. Of course, given that thats as thin as PSP will go I also have to draw my ships about twice as big as yours then shrink them down after they've been saved as GIFs or JPGs. I think I still have that Kestral comparison somewhere, if I come across it I'll post it for those budding artists who are no doubt listening in.
quote: I'm always used a direct top light. Not going to change. Ever!
Well that is of course up to you, but just to make sure you don't set a bad example (j/k) I'll give demonstrate the differences between the two lighting methods to those who wish to learn.
On the right you will see a sphere and a flat surface which is lit from the top down, on the left you will see the same but lit from the right and above (these are both dorsal views of course). I have found that the left hand method serves me best when I wish to achieve a 3-D effect and while completly flat surfaces are a little tricky, this method is much easier to cheat at. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The contoured gradient for the square wouldn't really work for the top view of a flat horizontal surface. Such a surface would simply be evenly lit. The lighting would be the same even if the light source were slightly to the side. You wouldn't get so much fall off that one corner would shadowed.
Whether to put the light directly from the top or the side is just my choice. I find that it allows better contouring for the bottom surfaces and allows the images to be flipped left/right without having to change the lighting.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I'm already glad if the gradients give my drawings a little depth. But in case you wanted to hear that, Rev: your 3D impression is the best I have encountered in 2D drawings. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Rev: How are you making your thick outlines now?I have usually just made a thick line (after using the merge command), but find that that obscures at lot of details, especially for small sticking out parts, like antennae and masts. What I've been doing recently is to use the merge command to make a silhouette, which is then enlarged (by using the wonderful line inset tool with a negative number) to the desired thickness of the border. The silhouette is colored black and placed behind the ship. If you don't have the inset tool you can just make the line of the silhouette thicker.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: I'm already glad if the gradients give my drawings a little depth. But in case you wanted to hear that, Rev: your 3D impression is the best I have encountered in 2D drawings.
I learnt from the best...but I'm not saying who that is since you'll both get swollen heads. Although I will say that your Java-Class is easily one of my favourate fan designs that I've ever seen, if nothing else but for the sheer sense of scale you've managed to capture.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Rev: How are you making your thick outlines now?I have usually just made a thick line (after using the merge command), but find that that obscures at lot of details, especially for small sticking out parts, like antennae and masts. What I've been doing recently is to use the merge command to make a silhouette, which is then enlarged (by using the wonderful line inset tool with a negative number) to the desired thickness of the border. The silhouette is colored black and placed behind the ship. If you don't have the inset tool you can just make the line of the silhouette thicker.
I use a very similar technique. Firstly I shift-select all the vectored objects that touch the outer "edge" and as such would contribute to the silhouette. I copy and paste those object into a new image where I group them and remove the fills altogether then give the group a thick black line, usualy 6, depending on the scale. I then paste the group back into the original image and making sure it is alligned correctly I set it behind everything else.
Of course this method does have a few drawbacks when used on more complex designs like the Charybdis that involves thin cables and antennae.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
