Yup! I don't have anything else... two coats, no ink, no nothing.

Was this done with all acrylics?

Troels,

Nice bike..

"this is an exact parallel to the way I paint my paintings. I'm no photorealist, but at a distance my paintings are almost photographical. Up close they look strange."

I was going to mention something like this in my last posting, but you are dead right. Go and look at some of the great paintings around the world, and up close they can look quite rough, but at a correct viewing distance, all the detail becomes evident. It is more about getting good balance and composition, and a nice blend of colour and shape for the eye to drift over. Chuck mentioned a diorama being more detailed, which generally it has too, because like a photo, it has a limited/restricted view (think of a diorama like a 3D photgraphic chunk taken out of a layout, where the eye can't wander on to the next part because the diorama is only so big). It probably is a good way to explain some of the difference between a layout quality structure/scene and a diorama quality structue/scene.

Troels, please keep modelling like how you paint because it's working beautifully right now.

Cheers,

Dan Pickard

Dan, I couldn't agree more!! I build more for the eye than for the macro lens, which gives me the opprtunity and advantage of cheating... this is an exact parallel to the way I paint my paintings. I'm no photorealist, but at a distance my paintings are almost photographical. Up close they look strange.

On that line of reasoning, tonight I finished painting a british whitemetal motorcycle. In the large magnification here the casting shortcuts are much more visible than at normal viewing distance. There will always be a best viewing distance for any model, and my life feels too short to spend half a year whittling down the spokes and stays of this bike to get more realism at very close quarters... I fully respect the guys who does though!




And tonight I planted the first ten pilings of the Cranbery Wharf... good to get going. I'll have to shop some more piling material and stripwood :crazy:

On the discussion about "over detailing", I believe one of the problems, if that's the right word for it, is the fact we use digital camera's these days. What we actually see in a scene is often quite different to what the camera sees. How often do you read a comment on a thread "have to go back and fix that bit up, the camera picked up one of my mistakes"? In a large scale scene like Troel's is creating, the eye has a wealth of viewing oportunities, and will want to move on to the next view. When you then go and take a photo, the eye is forced to observe that view, and perhaps scrutinise it for longer, and thats when we start to notice imperfections, or things that might be missing, like extra detailing. Now if we didn't all have digital camera's, we probably wouldn't blaze away with hundereds of images to critique, and therefore not be reminded so much about the parts we didn't see or remember the first time.

Troel's, I like the level of detail you are providing, it works well in the grand scale of things.

Just some of my thoughts on the theory...

Cheers,

Dan Pickard