Which painting software should I use?

[Burning Beard]

I've never worked with Inkscape, but if it is like any of the other graphics programs I've played with it isn't necessarily intuitive. Also, I have found that going from a vector to a raster program is equally confusing. Kinda like playing with direct logic and reverse logic on calculators. Review the instructions and take your time, you will learn the tricks as you gain experience.

Beard

[John Bowden]

Just my opinion............ but I beleive for someone starting out Raster (GIMP, Photoshop, etc.) is the way to go. It is more like using an airbrush to paint with...... because of the way things are handled in the programs...........

Vector is not as forgiving to learn, and painting techniques like what is done in card modeling, are not as easy or cut and dried.......... especially if you are wanting to do multi-colored camo like an USAF SEA theme and such........... again this is just my opinion.........

[cfuruti]

Originally Posted by John Bowden

Just my opinion............ but I beleive for someone starting out Raster (GIMP, Photoshop, etc.) is the way to go. It is more like using an airbrush to paint with...... because of the way things are handled in the programs...........

Vector is not as forgiving to learn, and painting techniques like what is done in card modeling, are not as easy or cut and dried.......... especially if you are wanting to do multi-colored camo like an USAF SEA theme and such........... again this is just my opinion.........

To each its own. For someone used to paintbrushes or airbrushing, raster seems natural. Vector drawing is really not appropriate for some kinds of detailed texturing, and that's why any good vector editor can import raster data.

On the other hand, CAD enthusiasts and other more engineer-oriented can be much more productive with vector editors.

You might think raster is more forgiving to learn - I'd say vector is more forgiving to fix own's mistakes, because you may change anything of an element independent of others, anytime (almost like everything has its own layer). Not to mention non-destructively rotating and scaling anything anytime with no loss of precision, without resorting to absurd resolutions.

I wouldn't think of tweaking a texture or touching up a photograph with Inkscape (even though SVG filters can do some pretty mean synthetic textures). But neither I would use Gimp to design a model from scratch (that is, without a 3D program) or modify parts (see e.g. my thread on enhancing a Mechwarrior Osiris).

[cfuruti]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

I've never worked with Inkscape, but if it is like any of the other graphics programs I've played with it isn't necessarily intuitive. Also, I have found that going from a vector to a raster program is equally confusing. Kinda like playing with direct logic and reverse logic on calculators. Review the instructions and take your time, you will learn the tricks as you gain experience.

Beard

Different metaphors, just that. With raster applications, one applies successive strokes of virtual paint (a "stroke" could have a predetermined shape like a rectangle or oval, but once drawn it is just stamped paint). If two partially opaque strokes cross, it's not easy changing or erasing just the one below, unless they are in different layers.

With vector editors, one instead cuts pieces of colored virtual plastic and lays them at place. At any time one can remove/replace/change position/shape/color/thickness/opacity/border/stacking/order/whatever of any piece without disturbing the others. Obviously,because nothing is permanently "glued" to the virtual canvas (i.e., the application "remembers" each action), creating a complex drawing the way an artist uses a paintbrush could easily get confusing (and very inefficient in memory and disk space).

Due to their CAD-like nature, vector editor have some interesting features for paper modellers, like precise positioning and cloning of elements. Imagine creating a line of dozens of rivets, or airplane windows. Just create one, then specify a number of copies and their displacement and rotation - the editor does the rest. You might even specify random disturbances to make the result look more natural. What's better, the clones may be linked, following any further changes to the original.

[John Bowden]

Vector can do some pretty neat stuff......... but you really have to work at it.......

[sharunas]

@ John

but how do you maintain the quality (or high resolution) of the lines, because most of the models are made in vector environment?

@ cfuruti

That's true. However sometimes it is impossible to manage textures with smoke residue or rust without using raster editors. Or maybe there is a technique to make such "effects" on vector editors?

[John Bowden]

Originally Posted by sharunas

@ John

but how do you maintain the quality (or high resolution) of the lines, because most of the models are made in vector environment?

In vector you are correct in that you don't have to worry about DPI becasue vector will stay crisp clean no matter what size it is scaled to.

Raster is not the case, when I did raster repaints I always worked in 300 DPI format. This maintained the detail, but also made for some very large files when finished. To me this was the reason for going to vector format.

Now you state "that most of the models are in vector environment".

I must disagree with this statement. Yes there are some designers that do design models in vector format, but the majority (IMO right now) do not, they still use raster.

I know I'll get flak from some people who will disagree with me on this, but I have had to convert a lot of modesl to vector in order to repaint them.......... but again this is my opinion.

If you do raster repainting you have to do things at a high DPI.......... but it is easier (IMO) to use raster tools like paintbrush and airbrush to paint the files. You'll have to use many different layer in order to separate objects.......... but this is raster.

If you do vector repainting this is not a problem you still use layers, but as separators for many, many objects........... but you do not have the use of these tools........ you can still do almost the same things, but it is a little harder to do because you have to manipulate the object.

john

[sharunas]

Originally Posted by John Bowden

I must disagree with this statement. Yes there are some designers that do design models in vector format, but the majority (IMO right now) do not, they still use raster.

john

I meant 3D design output. Of course, it is possible to export sheets in raster format.

Anyway, if the result is good i doesn't mater what technique was used

[John Bowden]

Originally Posted by sharunas

Anyway, if the result is good i doesn't mater what technique was used

You have hit the nail on the head.

Again the reason for my switch to vector format was that finished file size of my work in raster was excessive to say the least.

I mean 12 to 14 megs per page was too large (IMO).........especially when I can do it in vector format for usually under 1 meg per page.

[cfuruti]

Originally Posted by sharunas

@ cfuruti

That's true. However sometimes it is impossible to manage textures with smoke residue or rust without using raster editors. Or maybe there is a technique to make such "effects" on vector editors?

Sure, you can apply blur and translucent layers to vector elements (I guess the wing camouflage in John's example are just blurred Bezier curves, clipped to the wing shape. You could also use masks, but in this case I think it's overkill). And like I mentioned, any good vector editor can import raster data: you could also create/tweak your textures in your raster app of choice, then load them into vector for the final result.

Also, take a look into the attached samples of SVG effects in Inkscape (sorry, I forgot the original URL - just Google for Tamvjong's guide to Inkscape).