Photoreal Paints

[Tweek]

I've always wondered how photoreal repaints are achieved... Is it a matter of going out and getting pictures of aircraft, and literally cutting the pictures out, and putting them into position, or is it meticulous hand painting, copied directly from a photo, down to the last detail?

Would be nice to know exactly how to do it, to see what results I can come up with

-Tweek

[ozzy72]

" . . . literally cutting the pictures out, and putting them into position,"

Precisely!

IMAGE REMOVED FOR BEING NEARLY 100 PIXELS WIDER THAN THE FORUM LIMITS!

[Tweek]

I suppose I'll have to go about finding suitable pictures, then!

Done properly, photoreal paints look excellent... it's just a matter of being able to do it!

edit: Ok, after trying it, I seemed to have a slight problem with finding photos of certain parts of the aircraft. Unless it's a fast jet, or an aerobatic aircraft, it's extremely hard to find clear photos of the top and bottom of the wings.

This is the best picture I can find of any USAF C-130, showing the top of the wings.

http://images.airliners.net/photos/phot ... 733268.jpg

Problem is, if I put that into the paint, it will just look warped. Is there any way of getting round this, using photos, or will it just have to be painted by hand?

This is what I have so far... the tail


And yes, the flag is meant to be reversed

[Katahu]

I usually take photos from the web, cut parts of them that have a nice perspective, and paste them on certain texture files. I also organise them for optimum use.

[H]

A good graphics editor is a big help. The old MSPaint worked but it is certainly -- nay, absolutely -- nowhere near superb.

...is it meticulous hand painting, copied directly from a photo, down to the last detail?

Before I had a scanner and no connection to the internet (actually, still don't with my personal game computers), that's basically what I did (since I like making variations, I still do some of this) but very lax on the true detail. There are many, more talented artists around but I've honestly seen worse than even my older ones.

Is it a matter of going out and getting pictures of aircraft, and literally cutting the pictures out, and putting them into position.

Much closer once I got a scanner. Hand drawing works, too. I don't have a digital camera but that would be better. In the case of a plane, it's best to have a side view (fuselage), top and bottom views (wings, elevators) and front view (windscreen, prop, radiator, engine - depending on plane type). Different angle shots give a lean as to any additional shading you may wish to provide in texturing. Prior to scanning, any cutting I did was by editing the picture (at the time, in MSPaint). That was particularly necessary for biplane fuselage textures because the wings and struts needed to be removed from the picture (although they may be seperately refered to for shading purposes).

[CODY614]

I'm fighting this right now....
I've got a couple of repaints going...Carenado's mainly.
He has some nice paints,But his templates make it hard sometimes to get a good paint job, I was thinking about starting a thread asking how to acheive the photo-real results with out the photo!...I mean it all comes down to panel shading and rivets and such.
I've been messing around with one, redoing all the lines,rivets,screws....Etc.,But the instant you use a plain white back ground....it looks awful.

[H]

What are you using for resolution in the edit? CFS1 will only acknowledge 256Color and MS Paint does a poor job of converting from 16M to 256. Some while ago I acquired PS Pro8 so I can convert back and forth, making use of the 16M during edit and then converting to 256 for the working texture. If you have the appropriate graphics program, 32bit color may work better than 24bit (16M) but color quality is important when converting.
I should mention that, especially with instrument panels, there may be some conflict with the set color format of the original (the basic color format is usually listed just above the overall sizing index in the panel.cfg; sizing is usually the last entry in CFS1 and CFS2).

[UKMIL]

i specialise in photoreal paints, and have done lots. the problem is you need as many photos as you can of different anlges, but alas you can never get all angles. so you need to copy other areas of texture.

here is a tonka i did





the wings were not available in any photos, so the the textures was copied ffrom other areas such as the fwd fuse etc.

also one problem you get, is not all photos are taken in the same light, so your c130 tail will be one shade of grey, and the other parts will be different. you can try and play around with tones and lighting but you can never get it perfect

[UKMIL]

here are some 130's i did in photoreal.

notice the difference in grey tones.  but as they were AI aircraft, i was not too bothered about sorting them

firstly the J model




the green one was a bit better

[Katahu]

I like to add something to my last comment. One of the main advantages of having Paint Shop Pro 9 [which can cost up to $110] is that the user can adjust the color tone and fix the perspective of certain parts of a photo so that you can use those parts as textures.

[UKMIL]

true, but i use PSP, and i can spend hours trying to get a match and never get there

[Katahu]

true, but i use PSP, and i can spend hours trying to get a match and never get there

Let me give you a little tip.

During your free time, just play around with PSP and do a lot of things with it. I do the same thing for both Gmax and PSP. While fiddling, one would run into the solution of his/her problems by accident. It happened to me a lot times while I was doing meaningless projects like trying to recreate the city of Atlantis [as seen in Stargate: Atlantis]

You know what the irony is? I usually study many tutorials very hard in order to look for a solution to a problem. But just when I give up and start playing around, the solution pops out of nowhere. Kinda like looking for one thing when you want it but not able to find it and then find it later on and not want it.