As time passes I seem to learn about people as much as cars. In particular how everyone seems to see things differently - a different perspective literally, including me! My claim that what I do is not art but objective technical drawing is maybe in doubt. I am continually baffled by some of the comments I receive, especially when they compare profile drawings to photographs.
Basically, cameras do not see the world the same as humans, they are not binocullar, focus on one point at a time and move round an object absorbing or ignoring various bits of information at will. Fortunately when we look at a large picture on the wall we tend to do the same as in real life with ours eyes moving over and focusing on detail bits one at a time as if we were walking around the car bending down and looking underneath etc. Perhaps only when we stand back from a distance and look at it 'in the whole' we see it like a camera - often with one eye shut by then we have understood the object.
A simply test or example of how our expectations of two dimensional images varies is this. Ask someone to draw a 1 foot ruler square on. They look up and down the ruler, so they know it’s straight so they draw two straight parallel lines and complete an oblong shape. If, however one was to photograph a ruler, then trace image it on to a piece of paper and to present it to them it would be assumed you had drawn a cigar. For the simple reason that the middle of the ruler is nearer to the lens than ends therefore bigger and fatter. Likewise if you asked them to draw it with some perspective it is likeley they again would start off wth 2 straight though unparallel lines. Which are right - the straight lined drawings or the cigar shape?
I have found that after spending many years looking at and drawing hundreds of car profiles they don't look odd anymore. There is a certain irony in that when paintings were first done with perspective hundreds of years ago the public often criticised them for being not being 'realistic'. The artists of the day having used various tools to study and understand perspective - grids, camera obscura, mirrors etc.
Interestingly, sometimes if one does a cut-out of a normal car photo and place it on a white background then they can look really odd, perhaps the perspective needs to be relative to the background to be accepted. I used to have to direct photography for product shots and was often surprised at the oddities created by perspective - bent bottles, barrel shaped boxes etc. This could sometimes be corrected by changing the angle of the lens (no longer parallel to the plate). That's why studios used those big box-like cameras for product shots. Done in Photshop (pinch and distort filters) these days I pressume.
Back to car profiles: if I was tempted to use 'artistic license' for instance to narrow the body of a pre-war car there would be a knock-on effect eg: the running boards would be too wide and the windscreen too narrow. If I lowered the roof and windscreen, keeping the windscreen shape it then would not line up with the roof line of the side view. The rear view would actually look ridiculous. The rear wings would be too fat and the rear window might be narrower than the spare wheel. It's endless. As, one of off-shoot uses of car profiles is for model and replica car builders then it is important to be accurate as possible. One of the most frustrating cases was a gentleman who insisted omongst other things that I remove the exhaust and reduce the suspension as 'in real life' you can't see it and to 'prove a point' he enclosed photographs taken only a few yards away at waist level! He obviously spent too much of his life looking at car photos.
The only 'cheating' allowed would be to omit certain items from some views. For instance if the front wings are wider than those of the rear and thus theoretically visible from behind then if they were drawn in on the rear view of the same strength then they would merge with and create a false profile of the rear wings. Likewise, when front and rear whee track are different to draw in both on front and rear views would give the illusion of fat tyres. I usually do a flat grey profile to the furthest away wheels when they is a large differences of the front/rear tracking. If only slight not include further away wheels.
Some cars really don't lend themselves to the profile treatment. The E-type, beautiful and somewhat photogenic really does look horrid with its narrow wheel track and wide in the middle body. The lights front and rear look too far in. A shame but you can't win em all!
Basically, cameras do not see the world the same as humans, they are not binocullar, focus on one point at a time and move round an object absorbing or ignoring various bits of information at will. Fortunately when we look at a large picture on the wall we tend to do the same as in real life with ours eyes moving over and focusing on detail bits one at a time as if we were walking around the car bending down and looking underneath etc. Perhaps only when we stand back from a distance and look at it 'in the whole' we see it like a camera - often with one eye shut by then we have understood the object.
A simply test or example of how our expectations of two dimensional images varies is this. Ask someone to draw a 1 foot ruler square on. They look up and down the ruler, so they know it’s straight so they draw two straight parallel lines and complete an oblong shape. If, however one was to photograph a ruler, then trace image it on to a piece of paper and to present it to them it would be assumed you had drawn a cigar. For the simple reason that the middle of the ruler is nearer to the lens than ends therefore bigger and fatter. Likewise if you asked them to draw it with some perspective it is likeley they again would start off wth 2 straight though unparallel lines. Which are right - the straight lined drawings or the cigar shape?
I have found that after spending many years looking at and drawing hundreds of car profiles they don't look odd anymore. There is a certain irony in that when paintings were first done with perspective hundreds of years ago the public often criticised them for being not being 'realistic'. The artists of the day having used various tools to study and understand perspective - grids, camera obscura, mirrors etc.
Interestingly, sometimes if one does a cut-out of a normal car photo and place it on a white background then they can look really odd, perhaps the perspective needs to be relative to the background to be accepted. I used to have to direct photography for product shots and was often surprised at the oddities created by perspective - bent bottles, barrel shaped boxes etc. This could sometimes be corrected by changing the angle of the lens (no longer parallel to the plate). That's why studios used those big box-like cameras for product shots. Done in Photshop (pinch and distort filters) these days I pressume.
Back to car profiles: if I was tempted to use 'artistic license' for instance to narrow the body of a pre-war car there would be a knock-on effect eg: the running boards would be too wide and the windscreen too narrow. If I lowered the roof and windscreen, keeping the windscreen shape it then would not line up with the roof line of the side view. The rear view would actually look ridiculous. The rear wings would be too fat and the rear window might be narrower than the spare wheel. It's endless. As, one of off-shoot uses of car profiles is for model and replica car builders then it is important to be accurate as possible. One of the most frustrating cases was a gentleman who insisted omongst other things that I remove the exhaust and reduce the suspension as 'in real life' you can't see it and to 'prove a point' he enclosed photographs taken only a few yards away at waist level! He obviously spent too much of his life looking at car photos.
The only 'cheating' allowed would be to omit certain items from some views. For instance if the front wings are wider than those of the rear and thus theoretically visible from behind then if they were drawn in on the rear view of the same strength then they would merge with and create a false profile of the rear wings. Likewise, when front and rear whee track are different to draw in both on front and rear views would give the illusion of fat tyres. I usually do a flat grey profile to the furthest away wheels when they is a large differences of the front/rear tracking. If only slight not include further away wheels.
Some cars really don't lend themselves to the profile treatment. The E-type, beautiful and somewhat photogenic really does look horrid with its narrow wheel track and wide in the middle body. The lights front and rear look too far in. A shame but you can't win em all!