Alphan Stingray

[sotoolslinger]

I have a skylight over my modeling area so I will have to wait for dark to get shadow shots

[Weaver]

Now that's a lot better, if I do say so myself:

[Gondor]

Just wondering if a picture could be produced of the model placed on the original picture?

Gondor

[John Howling Mouse]

Ha, Weaver beat me to it...outstanding!  Ron, as mentioned in my e-mail, a single (distant) light source will likely make the model look more like a "real" spacecraft in the NASA sense but, as you know, that was not usually the graphics style of the original TTA, anyhow.  The original art was often exceedingly luminescent, on purpose.  Because of the purposely wild color scheme, I don't know if the more authentic lighting would make it look any more realistic.  If you notice Weaver's background interpretation, there would be so much ambient luminescence from nearby nebulae and such that a model shot with singular lighting might actually look out of place.  All a question of aesthetics, in the end.

Still, worth experimenting with, anyhow.

[John Howling Mouse]

Here is my take on one of your first images, Ron.  I tried to balance making the background interesting while still retaining focus on your model as the primary subject.  The starfield and nebula is just my own, home-drawn but the planet is borrowed (and modified) from someone else's artwork, got that from the TTA RPG, in fact.
Just one possible perception of countless others out there.  Hope some of our bonafide graphics gurus will show us how the pro's do it!

[GTX]

Regards,

Greg

[bobbo]

^^^^^What he said.^^^^^

bobinleipsic

[sotoolslinger]

Those are freaking awesome dudes
I am very proud that you think highly enough of my build to create those

[Weaver]

Ha, Weaver beat me to it...outstanding!  Ron, as mentioned in my e-mail, a single (distant) light source will likely make the model look more like a "real" spacecraft in the NASA sense but, as you know, that was not usually the graphics style of the original TTA, anyhow.  The original art was often exceedingly luminescent, on purpose.  Because of the purposely wild color scheme, I don't know if the more authentic lighting would make it look any more realistic.  If you notice Weaver's background interpretation, there would be so much ambient luminescence from nearby nebulae and such that a model shot with singular lighting might actually look out of place.  All a question of aesthetics, in the end.

Still, worth experimenting with, anyhow.

Cheers!  Yours is excellent!  

In the interests of clarity, let me point out that "Weaver's background interpretation" is just a straight Hubble shot of the Orion Nebula, nicked off the web, with no more modification than flipping it left to right.

You're absolutely right about the ambient lighting in the books: alternatives to black starfields are part of the "Foss Schoo" style to which these artists belonged*. When I suggested "single source lighting", I didn't mean realistic, ultra-contrasty light like you get in real space photography, but just something that created some light and shadow so that you could make it look more like it "belonged" in the background.


* Of course, the little detail that most of these artists missed (or ignored) is that these beautiful nebula pics mostly have greatly enhanced false colour, and if you were really flying that close to them, you still wouldn't see anything like that with the naked eye. I still like their version better though....

[John Howling Mouse]

When I suggested "single source lighting", I didn't mean realistic, ultra-contrasty light like you get in real space photography, but just something that created some light and shadow so that you could make it look more like it "belonged" in the background.

* Of course, the little detail that most of these artists missed (or ignored) is that these beautiful nebula pics mostly have greatly enhanced false colour, and if you were really flying that close to them, you still wouldn't see anything like that with the naked eye. I still like their version better though....

I might still try to play with some "Star Wars" style stark shading using Ron's single-source lighting just to see what his creation would look like in that very different milieu.  And yeah, don't ever make the mistake of pointing out to your kid that the "National Geographic" style astronomy pics are digitally enhanced (or airbrushed as they used to be in the old days).

[Weaver]

Just found another digital artist working on TTA-style designs:

http://www.digitalwaterfalls.co.uk/dwsteve6.html

Note that this guy is NOT linked to the folk doing the updated books or RPG as far as I can tell.

[sotoolslinger]

Thanks y'all It's getting dark now so I should have some better shadowy pics up later.
Weaver I have that dudes site bookmarked and I would contact him but his last update was 2009
By the way. It is my intention (READ DREAM) to design or build models as a profession.
How does one go about copywriting ones work?

[sotoolslinger]

Here are a mess o single point lighting pics







There are more here
http://s253.photobucket.com/albums/hh50/sotoolslinger/Alphan/
Let me know if there are any specific angles or different lighting you would like to see

[Weaver]

Thanks y'all It's getting dark now so I should have some better shadowy pics up later.
Weaver I have that dudes site bookmarked and I would contact him but his last update was 2009
By the way. It is my intention (READ DREAM) to design or build models as a profession.
How does one go about copywriting ones work?

Honestly havn't a clue. I know that for music or prose in the UK, there's some process whereby you post it to yourself, thereby establishing the date it was made, but what the equivalent is for models I really don't know. I suppose that on the one hand, you could go down the artistic route, define it as "sculpture" and use whatever process they use, but on the other hand, if you were doing work for film/TV companies, then they'd own the copyright by contract anyway.

[sotoolslinger]

Well if someday, someone wants to use my stuff commercially I would look into it. I just notice that the dude in your last link purports to sell prints of his work. It just occurred to me that I would be really miffed if one of my models got used in a photoshop and sold as a print Not that that would ever happen ..... I'm just sayin....