Styling Snafus

[martinfan5]

I am impressed with your PS skills.

[Ace-Garageguy]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:37 AM, Harry P. said:

Just one more for tonight. Once again, committing blasphemy by messing with an icon, but that's why God invented Photoshop. And I do think I improved the original! 

I think cleaning up that useless and overly complex bumper is an improvement, but the strakes over the wheel arches have an actual aerodynamic function on this particular car.

[Harry P.]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:39 AM, martinfan5 said:

I am impressed with your PS skills.

If you mean me... thank you! But these were all "down and diry".... more like PS sketches than anything. None of them took me more than about a half hour to do, and that included the actual time to think about the redesign. When I take my time with PS, there's nothing I can't do. That sounds pretty egotistical, but it's true. I'll post a few examples.

[martinfan5]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:43 AM, Harry P. said:

If you mean me... thank you! But these were all "down and diry".... more like PS sketches than anything. None of them took me more than about a half hour to do, and that included the actual time to think about the redesign. When I take my time with PS, there's nothing I can't do. That sounds pretty egotistical, but it's true. I'll post a few examples.

Whoops, meant to quote you , so yes,  my post was aimed at you

For sketches, they are impressive,  one day I would like to learn how to use PS , seeing how its on my computer

Edited November 13, 2016 by martinfan5

[Harry P.]

Here's an example of one of my PS illustrations. It is not a retouched photo... I created the car starting with a blank document. The only "real" part is the sky, which is a photo I dropped in... but the car is 100% illustration... took about 6-8 hours.

A few more PS illustrations. I got a million of 'em!

[Harry P.]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:51 AM, martinfan5 said:

one day I would like to learn how to use PS , seeing how its on my computer

PS is hard to learn, only because there is so much in it! I've been using it on a daily basis for 20 years and to this day there are plenty of features I have never used even once... and probably plenty of features I don't even know are in there! I'm probably only using 20% of what's all in there. It's a crazy huge program.

[Harry P.]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:42 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

I think cleaning up that useless and overly complex bumper is an improvement, but the strakes over the wheel arches have an actual aerodynamic function on this particular car.

I had no use for them...

[martinfan5]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:58 AM, Harry P. said:

PS is hard to learn, only because there is so much in it! I've been using it on a daily basis for 20 years and to this day there are plenty of features I have never used even once... and probably plenty of features I don't even know are in there! I'm probably only using 20% of what's all in there. It's a crazy huge program.

I have to agree with you,  I have older version's of PS/CS that Adobe gave away free a few years ago with every intention of learning how to use them.  I quilcky realized that I was not going to learn it just by messing around the program. 

I have no doubts with what you are saying about only maybe using 20% of the program.

So let me ask you this, when you learned how to use it, was it less complex?, or has it always been a complex program?

Edited November 13, 2016 by martinfan5

[slusher]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:37 AM, Harry P. said:

Just one more for tonight. Once again, committing blasphemy by messing with an icon, but that's why God invented Photoshop. And I do think I improved the original! 

That looks good Harry..

[talon63]

Along the same lines, If you want to play with design, and don't want to invest in the full version of PS, which can get pricey for some people, there is an alternative. GIMP is free, open source, software that provides a lot of the same functionality, supports many of the same plug-ins and effects, and reduces the learning curve. 

I've used both over the years, and since I no longer need to do "professional" illustration, I use GIMP.  While I'm nowhere near as skilled as Harry P., I do find that I can often do "down and dirty" modifications in minutes. Blank canvas work does take a bit longer, and I will use a tablet rather than relying just a trackball.

[Sixties Sam]

Harry, those are amazing sketches! I like the SSR. I always hated that strip through the headlights, too! The Mercedes looks a lot cleaner in your version. I like it!

Sam

[Lovefordgalaxie]

1970 Galaxie Standard by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

Transformation V by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

Transformation VI by CCCP Digital Studio, on Flickr

[Sledsel]

Wow, That wagon photo shop looks so long, although it is the same as before.

 

[BigTallDad]

I remember the Mercedes with Corvette front fenders

[cobraman]

Looks like that could be fun but I would not even know how or where to begin.

[MrObsessive]

This was my Mom's first brand new car bought in late '67. I dunno, I kinda like the original as is------guess it's because I've seen it this way after all these years. I do agree that the much shorter AMX could have stood to have its front wheels moved forward a bit. The front end overhang on that one does make it appear to be more unbalanced styling wise.

[peekay]

A most enjoyable thread, keep 'em coming!

[Harry P.]

[Harry P.]

[Snake45]

Okay, PB's working again, so here are my crude and unsuccessful attempts to do something with the '66 Marlin. I only opened up the rear wheels in the first one, but this should be done on all.

I wasn't really happy with any of these. Can someone do better? (First pic is the stock car.)

[Ace-Garageguy]

The worst problem with the Marlin is the roofline. It's just an ugly curve. I'm certain the "reason" for it was to maintain rear-seat headroom, but it's still a just flat ugly line. It looks like a whales butt.

Rake the windshield back a little and fix the roofline first.

And remember...styling changes DON'T have to be dramatic or radical to make vast improvements in a vehicle's overall first-impression.

As little as 1/2 inch or less (in full scale) difference in a line or curve can transform something that looks goofy and clunky into something graceful, elegant and sophisticated.

And adding more crapola doesn't usually improve a design either. Simple and clean is good...and it's a lot harder to do well than adding a lot of carp lines going every-which-way and useless "details".

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[talon63]

Here's a bit more of the cleanup. Someone posted in the OT about the roofline looking mid-90's Caprice. It was actually borrowed from a 2017 Ford. I do agree with other comments, especially regarding the pillars and the skirting. Converting this from pixels to plastic might be fun.

Edited November 13, 2016 by talon63

[Ace-Garageguy]

Much nicer. The greenhouse is a lot lighter visually now, and less in competition with other elements of the design.  

(I like the roofline...it was the side window treatment that I thought looked like '90s Caprice. The 2017 Ford musta borrowed from the old Caprice then...)

Building a real car with no side-window frames (a "hardtop" as you have it now) takes a little more sophisticated engineering to get the door glass to make an effective wind and weather seal, as the top of the window isn't supported by a track, obviously. But it's a much cleaner and lighter look, and I think worth the extra engineering effort to achieve it.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[sjordan2]

  On 11/13/2016 at 2:37 AM, Harry P. said:

Just one more for tonight. Once again, committing blasphemy by messing with an icon, but that's why God invented Photoshop. And I do think I improved the original! 

The real improvement was made at the factory -- bumpers on both the Gullwing and cabriolet were optional, and they looked better without them. Of course, that made them more susceptible to dings and dents.

[Snake45]

  On 11/13/2016 at 6:17 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

The worst problem with the Marlin is the roofline. It's just an ugly curve. I'm certain the "reason" for it was to maintain rear-seat headroom, but it's still a just flat ugly line. It looks like a whales butt.

 

I'm not going to argue with you about that, but consider: It's virtually identical to the '66 Charger's roofline, and even though that roof doesn't look quite as sexy today as I thought it did in 1966, it sill looks better than the Marlin. (Guilty as charged: I thought the Marlin was pretty sharp back in 1966, too.)

I thought changing the shape of the rear window opening might help, but couldn't come up with anything that worked and/or that didn't look like a copy of the Charger, '68 Torino, or something else. Sigh.