A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
3D artists swapping airplane models - acceptable or not?
Topic Rating: 0 (0 votes) 
January 17, 2009
3:06 pm
Russell Smith
Member
Forum Posts: 1657
Member Since:
November 1, 2005
Offline
24823
0

That’s a very good point, Mark. John did indeed assist Keith with the ASM mural. Although Keith is given credit, to my knowledge he has never shied away from acknowledging John’s help (Along those same lines, it is well known that Michelangelo employed assistants when working on the Sistine Chapel, although I believe in that case they were used in more utilitarian rather than creative capacities.)

Perhaps the question to ask is how much creative input the second artist might have in such a situation? That’s probably more of a rhetorical question, perhaps, since arguments could easily be made in either direction. I know both John and Keith and can say that they are great friends and have a high level of respect for each other, but I have a feeling that Keith would not ask John do create drawings for him, and I’m sure that John most likely did not dare stray from Keith’s color comp. Just a random thought. I don’t want to take us off on another tangent.

January 17, 2009
3:23 pm
Frenchie
Moderator
Forum Posts: 1182
Member Since:
February 16, 2005
Offline
24824
0

What about the Keith Ferris B-17 mural in the Air & Space Museum?

In that case, the mural was done from a painting already existing of that Thunderbird Fort’ … It was just a matter of “recopy” on the wall if I can say. And as mentioned by Russ, John as always been credited for this help, that not fall for me into the case of using someone else work to produce an art on “his own”.

Vincent

Week End Aviation Artist


January 17, 2009
4:40 pm
falcon012
Member
Forum Posts: 1108
Member Since:
September 22, 2006
Offline
24826
0
What about the Keith Ferris B-17 mural in the Air & Space Museum?

In that case, the mural was done from a painting already existing of that Thunderbird Fort’ … It was just a matter of “recopy” on the wall if I can say. And as mentioned by Russ, John as always been credited for this help, that not fall for me into the case of using someone else work to produce an art on “his own”.

Yes John has been credited as it should be. I agree the other artist should always be acknowledged as Wiek and Gareth have done in their collaboration to produce the Osprey cover. In my first post I prefaced my view point by stating “as long as both artists consent.” Amongst the professionals I am aquainted with in the 3D field, they have always given credit to the creator of the model if it was not their own. I don’t see any problems with that. I was merely pointing out that such collaborations have existed and continue to exist in traditional media as well as digital. :)

January 18, 2009
5:39 pm
Wade Meyers
Moderator
Forum Posts: 2171
Member Since:
June 12, 2005
Offline
24845
0
To me, using another person’s completed model, a practice all top professionals in many forms of transportation art do, is no different than, well … using another person’s completed model, be it three-dimensional or “3D in 2D”.

Hmm no, I gotto disagree with that. In the first case Hoyne is still drawing it himself in the end, isn’t he? With 3D it’s “drawn” for you by the computer, so only if you make the 3D model yourself then you are doing your own drawing.

Ronnie, I think I see where you’re coming from, and I may be inclined to agree with your reasoning, but the context of my comments was that a tremendous amount of work was done beforehand by either the professional ship modeler or by a “3D” digital artist … then the ‘shape’ was presented to the ‘final’ artist to be either photographed and/or sketched – or dropped into a computer program to be moved around in “3D”. That’s where I was coming from – that it’s “OK” to use props or models or even ‘the real thing’ (a Mustang, for example) that the artist did not create, as reference.

In my example, Hoyne manipulated the ‘scene’ and then photographed it, freezing it for all time. He then, I assume, blew up the photo and either traced it quickly, refining it later with more detail and lighting, and/or looked at the photo by eye while he drew a rough outline. In your example, there is no room for error since the shape won’t change and is not subject to the ‘final’ artist’s wobbly tracing hand or imperfect eye as he sketches it.

Here’s where I agree with you the most: 3D models like you typically produce are ‘finished’ to the nth degree, and other than lighting, there is relatively little work for the ‘final’ artist to do. Similarly, to save time, yes, I have relied on Mr. Tamiya and Mr. Hasegawa – photographing them using my knowledge of the principles of DG – but anyone who compares my original photograph with the final refined outline drawing knows there has been quite a bit of work done to ‘perfect’ the lines as a result of the imperfect model – and modeler :lol: .

There are no quick and easy answers to the ‘purity’ of the process in an ethical sense. None of us in the Transportation forms of art created these machines we depict, and only the artist can know for sure if his work is truly his own, outside of the ‘obvious’ case of duplicating another’s work.

Wade

February 19, 2009
8:55 pm
Lambretta150
Member
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
December 22, 2008
Offline
25412
0

Hmm’ Doesn’t this leap straight over the question of whether computer 3D is art at all? Or has this been done to death in an earlier episode?

Give me a couple of minutes before the bricks are inbound and snipers posted by the passionate, I have not got all my protective clothing on!

February 20, 2009
2:46 am
kevjon
Australia
Member
Forum Posts: 451
Member Since:
November 26, 2006
Offline
25420
0

Hi Lambretta

Yep its been discussed before
http://www.ehangar.com/modules…..ht=digital

February 20, 2009
4:31 am
Wade Meyers
Moderator
Forum Posts: 2171
Member Since:
June 12, 2005
Offline
25425
0

Yep its been discussed before
http://www.ehangar.com/modules…..ht=digital

Hoo, boy – talk about raising the dead! That thread’s so old, when it was active the Dead Sea was just a little sick … was kinda fun seeing some long-lost members, tho.

We’ve gone round and round on that topic a few times since then IIRC, but since you brought it up I think Jim Dietz’s comments near the end of the thread cited above pretty much sums up most of our opinions these days. Retro well said, Sir James! :wink: 8-) :lol:

Wade

February 21, 2009
10:52 pm
Dietz
Member
Forum Posts: 354
Member Since:
January 16, 2006
Offline
25453
0

Did I write that? Really?
I think my current view is that I don’t really care much how the art is ( was) done as long as the finished piece is impressive,if it has a life or a spirit or an impact.This is usually more dependent on the creative process than the technical one & more involved with composition ,ambition, motivation and quest for seeing the creative vision arrive more or less intact on the finished canvas than in what way it arrived.

"Listen to them Children of the night...what sweet music they make..."
January 8, 2011
9:08 pm
Lando_Calrissian
Member
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
December 29, 2010
Offline
39576
0

In production CG, this is the way it’s done. You model it, that guy rigged it, only to be animated by yet another person. Most animators cant model anyhow, so it’s a good exchange for those of us who can ;)

What about when a traditional artist uses a 3D model they did not create and then creates a painting from it?

Like this. 8-)

Or this…

and even this…?

This practice is far worse than a guy animating some models he didnt make imho.

January 8, 2011
10:38 pm
fuzzy
Moderator
Forum Posts: 2954
Member Since:
March 4, 2005
Offline
39578
0

Uh-Oh! Seems to me we saw something along these lines before!

I’m not referring to the Robert Bailey thread, it was in reference to the same artist mentioned above.

Brings to mind all those questions posed about the artist mentioned above being so “prolific”, and how that was possible…

January 9, 2011
12:04 am
kevjon
Australia
Member
Forum Posts: 451
Member Since:
November 26, 2006
Offline
39580
0

I wouldn’t like it if a artist used some of my computer models for their artwork without asking permission. If they did ask permission, I think its fair that I should expect to receive a reasonable fee for all the hard work that I have done for them.

Its a good post Tim and a interesting topic.
I haven’t seen Mark Miller on the forums for a couple of years but hopefully someone has contacted him about it.

January 10, 2011
3:52 pm
Frenchie
Moderator
Forum Posts: 1182
Member Since:
February 16, 2005
Offline
39625
0

Dear… reminds me the Russel’s topic few years ago about the same artist habits.

As a creator of some aircraft under Joe DeMarco Artist Perspective Modeler, I didn’t have an issue to share it among the aviation artists community as long as they are producing something different in angle / size, composition.
There’s even a topic on Cat2 forum which was used to share models.
But, compared to a full 3d model it’s quite less investment and I see that more as a tool rather than anything else. On the contrary, I would not be happy if an artist take one of my perspective done on the descriptive geometry method as a basis for its own artwork.

Cheers

V.

Vincent

Week End Aviation Artist


January 10, 2011
5:27 pm
Dietz
Member
Forum Posts: 354
Member Since:
January 16, 2006
Offline
39636
0

Not sure this is relevant..but here goes …I build the new Wingnut Gotha ( with cover great art by Steve Anderson…)( it looks like it will take forever but it will be a great model…) then I use it to do a painting no one will buy ( oh maybe it might sell who knows…) then another artist pal of mine ( let’s call him Biff,) stops by the studio & asks if he can borrow said bomber take a few shots for a painting he might sell…what do I do? Well this is a no brainer :I let him borrow same & hope he doesn’t come close to duplicating my painting….( he better not let his 6 year old anywhere near it tho!)
BTW This did happen sans model…years ago I sold a very complex B-17 book cover painting to a friend & a couple of years later I happened to see he had done a fairly close copy with some aircraft changed,but as a water color…I was amused… 8-)

"Listen to them Children of the night...what sweet music they make..."
January 10, 2011
7:51 pm
SteveH
Member
Forum Posts: 1352
Member Since:
May 4, 2006
Offline
39647
0

I guess most people are a little gun-shy about commenting on Lando’s post. It is a slightly different issue to the theme of this thread, in that it alleges that the other artist has directly copied a digital model from a piece of Mark Miller’s finished art. If true, then this is very serious and the artist deserves the attention Mr Bailey received on this site not to long ago for exactly the same thing.

Back to the thread – My feeling is that photos and models, either digital or plastic, are just tools – as long as you have either paid for them or have permission to use them, then that’s ok. The real value lies in the artists ability to create a unique and compelling piece if art. I think Roger may have alluded to this a few posts back.

Steve

January 10, 2011
9:50 pm
Liberator
Member
Forum Posts: 21
Member Since:
November 11, 2010
Offline
39664
0

Well, I for one am not gun-shy. And my response to Lando’s post (after pulling my jaw off my desk) is basically: “Umm.. wow. 8O Deferring to figures 1-3, the prosecution rests your honor.”

At least Bailey actually drew the images he “allegedly” made. That takes a bit more artistic skill/talent than simply outlining an image in photoshop and then hitting ctrl+C and ctrl+V (copy and paste).

Worse still are the background stories of how each piece was composed. It’s one thing to simply plagiarize and not say anything about it, but to take somebody else’s image and then fabricate story for how the plagiarizer “created” it… that takes a level of audacity beyond simple intellectual property theft. It is (and I really hate this phrase) a slap in the face for the original creator. =

As for the actual topic, I think it’s fairly simple: It’s perfectly okay as long as the model is used with permission (like if the rights are given freely or sold/optioned), unacceptable otherwise.

And the machine grows idiotic
Who’s gonna be its ingenious critic?

Everybody loves the perfect solution
To beat the odds against the poorest possible substitution
What you see is never what you’re gonna get
Everybody’s playin’ Revolution Roulette.
January 10, 2011
9:55 pm
Raymond
Member
Forum Posts: 50
Member Since:
May 19, 2005
Offline
39666
0

I remember Keith Ferris talking about details, photographs and clip art for reference. And naturally a good file of general arrangement drawings.
He noted the creative mind is able to take what is in sight and put it on paper.

Yes, the mind of man is a virtual computer of astronomical abilities.

If you are a creator, do it all. I do not use a program on my computer for
drawing. I know how to do arms length drawings and descriptive geometry of all kinds of shapes in space. So if what I do shows flaws, then that is a natural drawing from the artists hand.

Joe Demarco’s program is great from what I have seen, but I want myself in what I create.

So, in the long run, you will see goofs in my art therefore guaranteeing
it is 100% original! But that is what makes it art, created by the mind of the artist! Even photographs I use are my personal shots developed by me for background and scenery.

What I put on the panel counts to me. It is all me. If you know your subject then you will capture it well. One of the reasons artists need to learn anatomy is to be able to rotate and form fluid shapes all perspectives.

If you can’t draw people, it is very hard to do much on the panel
which will not look natural. A lesson well learned.

Well that is my two bits on the subject of “Modeling”.

Cheers
Raymond

January 10, 2011
10:14 pm
Raymond
Member
Forum Posts: 50
Member Since:
May 19, 2005
Offline
39669
0

Keith Ferris first painted a small version of what the B-17 mural ought look like. He then after approval by the Smithsonian hired John Clark to assist him in the job. The work is all his.

He was the “creator and Art Director”. I remember his drawing and the details he worked up. All done by hand from the masters mind and excellent reference materials.

He also added additional flourishes and details while the work at the museum was in progress!

In my time and experience that is creativity! All original!
I visited often to see Keiths progress in his N.J. studio.

Raymond

January 10, 2011
10:23 pm
Frenchie
Moderator
Forum Posts: 1182
Member Since:
February 16, 2005
Offline
39670
0

I visited often to see Keiths progress in his N.J. studio.

Hi raymond, how lucky you are ! I would kill my boss to have this opportunity. I would kill my boss for any reason anyway :hys

Vincent

Week End Aviation Artist


January 11, 2011
5:43 am
fuzzy
Moderator
Forum Posts: 2954
Member Since:
March 4, 2005
Offline
39681
0

I was comparing Miller??™s Albatros to Berryman??™s, looking for what is different (except, of course, for the mirroring).

Finally, I noticed the rudder. Miller??™s has right rudder, while Berryman??™s is undeflected.

Also, Miller??™s is a DV, and Berryman??™s is a DIII – a different rudder shape.

I went back to Berryman??™s WIP on ???Brothers In Arms??? which can be read here (worth reading!):

http://www.ehangar.com/modules…..8;start=15

In the WIP, I noticed that Berryman??™s initial drawing had the same DV rudder and deflection as Miller??™s aircraft. Oh my, what are we to make of that?

??¦here is the next part of the WIP.


Photograph 7

Now, Miller has depicted a very unusual set of control inputs. Right stick for right roll, right rudder to counteract the yaw due to the right roll, and lots of forward stick for nose down. I??™m not sure what to make of that as I??™m not a pilot. My best guess would be outside snap roll? Pilot input would be helpful here. As I said, very unusual. Doubly unusual that Berryman chose the identical inputs.

Berryman, however, decides to change his rudder here:


Photograph 23

On now to the main subject of this painting, Albatros D.III Nr.2253/17 and, straight away, something that has been bugging me from the start needs to be put right. To obtain this angle, I employed my usual technique of photographing a 1/32nd scale model (see my WiP for The Final Curtain, elsewhere on this website) and I had kicked the rudder round slightly on the model to make it a bit more interesting. On reflection however, it occurred to me that the rudder position was all wrong for the manoeuvre that I am depicting here, so a bit of rudder correction is necessary first of all before I start on anything else. It is so often the case that something in a composition just doesn??™t quite gel and it??™s not always immediately obvious what it is. Very often, it??™s a case of going home and coming back the next day with a fresh eye. That??™s exactly what happened in this case. I walked into my studio, looked at the canvas and thought, ???that??™s not right???. So it??™s out with the white paint, as can be seen in Photograph 23, and the error is instantly corrected.

The rudder is now the proper DIII shape, and the rudder deflection is gone. Again, I??™m not sure what the remaining control inputs get you. Left stick for left roll, stick forward for nose down, rudder neutral. Not a pilot so I could use some help here. Without the rudder deflection, thought, I don??™t think the ball is going to be centered! Also, left roll is taking the Albatross away from its prey. I??™m not sure why Berryman would want that left roll input. Just what is the maneuver he??™s depicting here?

fuzzy

January 11, 2011
1:09 pm
Raymond
Member
Forum Posts: 50
Member Since:
May 19, 2005
Offline
39689
0

Fellows, . . . it’s your creation, . . . or copy?
Is it original or a copy!

How can you say you drew from your mind and
put it all in shape with a model? A model is someone’s
work so that when you have finished copying it, it is a deritive of
the “Others” work! Did you get permission to do that?

The “Masters” studied and developed skill
by copying, by WATCHING AND DIGESTING.
Copying is a tool for instruction, not creation.
Copying is learning the skill of observation
to teach one art and “why did he do it that way”.
By this one learns to create masterful jewels one might say.

Go to this site, . . . http://www.artrenewal.org/.
Here you will see masters displayed.
It is rich with history and fine art.
Our Genre should be included in this.
Can it? Ought it if we are copying?

Raymond

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 85

Currently Online:

See All Online Activity

Top Posters:

Russell Smith: 1657

SteveH: 1352

Brian Bateman: 1227

falcon012: 1108

Daz: 986

NeilF92: 969

paletteone: 955

Steven6095: 856

Smeagol: 764

CBI: 753

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 601

Members: 1505

Moderators: 6

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 10

Forums: 40

Topics: 5310

Posts: 53765

Newest Members: fidel, weicool, kennmack, robert352, rockapesniper01, batemanart, airman, knightflyerii, wingsart, darbytheartist

Moderators: chasmq (797), fuzzy (2954), Stormchaser (1616), Frenchie (1182), Wade Meyers (2171), Blacksheep (1815)

Administrators: eHangar (2474)

RSS Latest Directory Listings

You must be logged in to post a comment Login