I did find that Sketchup 6 was acting glitchy on my mac, so I downloaded Sketchup 5 instead, and haven’t had any problems, though it’s missing a few of the features of Sketchup 6, and you can’t use models created on Sketchup 6.

Another thing I discovered that seemed pretty cool was some of the landmark models. I found a great scale model of the Bay Bridge, and if I ever had a need to draw the bay bridge, I could use this model to easily draw it from any direction. If I were to do this I’d use photos of the real Bay Bridge in conjunction with the model, and draw pretty freely from there.

I’ve long been resistant to using 3D software, but Sketchup has really sold me on the idea, and I love the fact that people share their toys.

I did find that Sketchup 6 was acting glitchy on my mac, so I downloaded Sketchup 5 instead, and haven’t had any problems, though it’s missing a few of the features of Sketchup 6, and you can’t use models created on Sketchup 6.

Another thing I discovered that seemed pretty cool was some of the landmark models. I found a great scale model of the Bay Bridge, and if I ever had a need to draw the bay bridge, I could use this model to easily draw it from any direction. If I were to do this I’d use photos of the real Bay Bridge in conjunction with the model, and draw pretty freely from there.

I’ve long been resistant to using 3D software, but Sketchup has really sold me on the idea, and I love the fact that people share their toys.

Like you said, I don’t think we’re really arguing here.

What I meant by fidelity to your reference was fidelity as in: not being slavish to the photo (I mentioned multiple sources), but using reference for signifigant and important details, like the armor you’re mentioning. Not overgeneralized. Realism not as in photo realism, but probably more accurately, naturalism. Or at least that’s what I meant by “fidelity”. Whether it’s the gesture of a figure or the detail of particular kind of car or hat.

As for using 3d software as an aid: I meant that using 3d models as a reference in combination with other reference—like you might use your horse model as reference, for instance—has a different look than if you were to trace or render something entirely on the computer and install it into your image. I’d think, the ideal use of 3d software for me, personally, as a tool, would be to use it to plot out perspective, maybe position a few models of more geometry based stuff, like cars and buildings, and then use photo ref and my imagination for the rest.

With my own work, there’s a certain ammount of expressionism that would be lost if I were to render and trace buildings and cars and so forth from 3d models outright and plunk them into my images, no matter how much I ellaborated on them with photo ref afterwards. If the foundation was a traced model, it would be jarringly contradictory to the way I draw figures. So my ideal use of the tool would be to use it as if it were just another photograph I’d made of a toy car or airplane, used in conjunction with other reference.

Like you said, I don’t think we’re really arguing here.

What I meant by fidelity to your reference was fidelity as in: not being slavish to the photo (I mentioned multiple sources), but using reference for signifigant and important details, like the armor you’re mentioning. Not overgeneralized. Realism not as in photo realism, but probably more accurately, naturalism. Or at least that’s what I meant by “fidelity”. Whether it’s the gesture of a figure or the detail of particular kind of car or hat.

As for using 3d software as an aid: I meant that using 3d models as a reference in combination with other reference—like you might use your horse model as reference, for instance—has a different look than if you were to trace or render something entirely on the computer and install it into your image. I’d think, the ideal use of 3d software for me, personally, as a tool, would be to use it to plot out perspective, maybe position a few models of more geometry based stuff, like cars and buildings, and then use photo ref and my imagination for the rest.

With my own work, there’s a certain ammount of expressionism that would be lost if I were to render and trace buildings and cars and so forth from 3d models outright and plunk them into my images, no matter how much I ellaborated on them with photo ref afterwards. If the foundation was a traced model, it would be jarringly contradictory to the way I draw figures. So my ideal use of the tool would be to use it as if it were just another photograph I’d made of a toy car or airplane, used in conjunction with other reference.

I assume that when Jed mentions 3d above, that he means the products of 3d modeling and rendering software or something, since he states that such reference is not as good as something observed (which would, presumably, be 3d). I’ve never used any 3d software, but I’ll always take real life over a virtual model of it. I consider real life to also be “reference,” however, and I don’t think that term means the same thing to everyone else in this discussion. I also think we’re all using terms like “copied,” “rendered,” in slightly different ways.

Anyway, I also tailor my working methods due to time and money constraints–who doesn’t? If I have to paint a knight on a horse, I gather old drawings and photos of armor and tackle, photos of horses in different positions, I probably set up a small horse model to look at, and finally I probably shoot a photo of myself or a friend posing in the same manner as my sketch. Then I use a little of all of that reference at the same time, make some stuff up entirely, and readjust things like lighting and form as I combine it all in my head. If I had all the time and money in the world I’d hire a professional model, rent a horse, have armor and tackle made to my specifications, dress everyone, then have horse and rider stand there in an appropriate setting while I painted them. But that, by my definition, would still be “using reference,” and I’d still make changes in my head if reality didn’t quite live up to my expectations.

Anyway, I have nothing against Immonen. I think he’s awesome. I just worry about all the high school and college age people reading this and thinking “real” illustrators or cartoonists make everything up. That, while working on their comic they never shoot reference or look at a model, not even for a really difficult pose. That, if given an assignent to paint Tony Blair they do it from memory or something. Anyone who looks at my work will hopefully understand that I’m not talking about taking a photo and copying it as closely as possible in oils. It would be impossible to get good reference for most of what I do, but I use it whenever I can. In fact, I tend to feel guilty when I DON’T use reference, but could have–my end result might look passable, but it bothers me when I know I could have done it better, but deadline pressures persuaded me not to set up some reference material.

I assume that when Jed mentions 3d above, that he means the products of 3d modeling and rendering software or something, since he states that such reference is not as good as something observed (which would, presumably, be 3d). I’ve never used any 3d software, but I’ll always take real life over a virtual model of it. I consider real life to also be “reference,” however, and I don’t think that term means the same thing to everyone else in this discussion. I also think we’re all using terms like “copied,” “rendered,” in slightly different ways.

Anyway, I also tailor my working methods due to time and money constraints–who doesn’t? If I have to paint a knight on a horse, I gather old drawings and photos of armor and tackle, photos of horses in different positions, I probably set up a small horse model to look at, and finally I probably shoot a photo of myself or a friend posing in the same manner as my sketch. Then I use a little of all of that reference at the same time, make some stuff up entirely, and readjust things like lighting and form as I combine it all in my head. If I had all the time and money in the world I’d hire a professional model, rent a horse, have armor and tackle made to my specifications, dress everyone, then have horse and rider stand there in an appropriate setting while I painted them. But that, by my definition, would still be “using reference,” and I’d still make changes in my head if reality didn’t quite live up to my expectations.

Anyway, I have nothing against Immonen. I think he’s awesome. I just worry about all the high school and college age people reading this and thinking “real” illustrators or cartoonists make everything up. That, while working on their comic they never shoot reference or look at a model, not even for a really difficult pose. That, if given an assignent to paint Tony Blair they do it from memory or something. Anyone who looks at my work will hopefully understand that I’m not talking about taking a photo and copying it as closely as possible in oils. It would be impossible to get good reference for most of what I do, but I use it whenever I can. In fact, I tend to feel guilty when I DON’T use reference, but could have–my end result might look passable, but it bothers me when I know I could have done it better, but deadline pressures persuaded me not to set up some reference material.