Talk:Armor/February-April 2007

This should probably be a disambig page instead. - BeXoR 02:42, 8 February 2007 (PST)

All on 1 page?
I think every profession should get his own page --->Ritualist armor ~ Kurd 08:44, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * I'm working on cleaning this page up. It'll be more organised soon. - - BeXoR 08:46, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * I was thinking more of having more detailed pages upon choosing a type of armour, rather than having an extra page which would be more like a redirect page --PsychoticDeath 08:51, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * This page will have more information on it than just links to art pages. Armor is a complicated subject. As it is, there are around 26 different art types for each profession, and that's not even considering the bonuses. Can you imagine having 520 images on one page? I'm drafting a plan and it'll organise all of this, as well as all of the other aspects of armor. - - BeXoR 09:07, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * I get your point, maybe a heirarchy would be better then --PsychoticDeath 10:38, 8 February 2007 (PST)

The armor pages should be done more closely to what the GuildWiki has. Ofcourse we can improve that a lot, but I trust BeXoR on this one. --Gem (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * Since the work have been mostly done by Bexor, Glinis, Sylv and me I think we could just bring that think here. :pAratak 15:48, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * I say we leave it in the hands of the people who were doing the armour before: Ledrug, Aratak, Lord Ehzed, Brodly, Bexor and Craw. They knew what was going on ;)-- Scourge  15:50, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * I agree with what Aratak said, they had everything worked out for the armour :)-- Scourge  15:51, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * Glynnis work was amazing with the function. The lay out for the armor gallery has also been release.Aratak 16:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * Arg someone is uploading images of armour and they dont have the correct file names, some are dyed, others arent. Something needs to be done quickly :P -- Scourge  16:51, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Hmm, how do one keep track which image is already uploaded? I just uploaded two, and while editing the elementalist part (which now felt like it was a bad idea). I figure I should find out more about "the rules" after thinking 520 pictures in 1 page is just not a good idea.--Vermilion Okeanos 17:48, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * Ok, I think I am starting to catch on.--Vermilion Okeanos 17:48, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * Er, Aratak the function formatting was mostly my work. Glynnis was the information man. - - BeXoR 18:30, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * Sorry I mostly saw his reply on your talk page. It's the same has all the user who think you did a great job at making the galleries when he fact you just use Ledrugs format with a new naming convention :p.  I must say that you did a great job with the function and looking forward with what you will come up here.  Has always, even if we clash sometime, I have fun working with you.  When I read my post it may sounds bitter but it was intended to be friendly joke but my limited knowledge of English make it sounds bitter.Aratak 18:50, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * That's like saying I don't deserve any thanks for implementing and refining their work, nor for actually taking all of those pictures. That what I consider them thanking me for, updating the pictures, not being the one who did the code in the first place. I am well aware all of the galleries were based off other peoples' style. It's like you don't want me to have and credit for my work at all sometimes. I spent hours working on all of that stuff and yet I'm not allowed to claim any ownership as a contributor? - - BeXoR 19:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * No, I'm fully aware of the amount of work you have done but I just can't translate my idea at the moment. I always thought people would follow by example but now I know they don't even follow if you explain everything to them (Who read S&F anyway ;) )  Anyway I'm getting out of the subject.  Please accept my excuse, I didn't want this to be any demeaning of you work.  It was only a poorly structure idea.--Aratak 19:22, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * We need a size that all the armour pics should be, thye all seem to be various sizes and some are even dyed which dosen't look that good --PsychoticDeath 02:34, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 * Agreed, there are ways to do this. Either the pictures uploaded are of a certain size, or you can set the max height (or width) that is shown (and you can click for a full sized image).  For that dyed armour, that's a bit harder as people tend to dye armour as soon as they get it (also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder). -- Lady Rhonwyn 04:55, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I've moved the huge galleries off-page until this is resolved. -- Gordon Ecker 01:23, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Offering more images
I would like to add that, while I know most of the images needed for this article are already available, everything in "my" Factions Armor Guide may be used here (the same for my rather incomplete article on the NF beginning armors), if someone wishes to. I'll not change anything myself since there's already someone working on it, but if you think anything there would be useful, feel free to use them. The Nightfall Armor Guide was not done by myself, but by a guildmate - if you would like to use any image from there, I could ask him for permission. Erasculio 10:47, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Licensing
We are waiting on ArenaNet's lawyers to announce about the copyright on in-game content. Until then it is best not to upload any armor images (plus we haven't decided on a size/style). - BeXoR 00:23, 14 February 2007 (PST)
 * Anything happen yet? It's been 6 days, surely something has happened :) Scourge 19:07, 19 February 2007 (PST)
 * User_talk:Gaile_Gray, not yet. -Smurf 19:12, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Licensing and official images
Hi guys. I just wanted to let you know that we have posted an updated copyright information page, and because of this change we are now able to contribute images to the Guild Wars Wiki. I will be contributing rendered images for sections like the armor section and the weapons section so you guys can have crisp and clean images for the pages. I hope these will be helpful to you in making the pages pretty and full of information :) --Emily Diehl 18:59, 23 February 2007 (EST)
 * Lovely, just what I've always wanted :D No fuss with light and posing anymore :) &mdash; Anja  19:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)
 * Was hoping someone at anet could do that, this will be so much better then random screen shot! --Bob 00:00, 24 February 2007 (EST)
 * Fantastic news! :D - B e X o R  00:28, 24 February 2007 (EST)
 * Woohoo!--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  09:08, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Armor renders
The discussion below started on my talk page, but I'm shifting it over here so it can be found better. --Emily Diehl 15:06, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * If you could take a look at Mesmer armor and check out the file names used there. If you could upload any further images using that naming convention that would be great. Are we going to get front, back and side pictures? And dyed/undyed, etc? The file names there are for if we only get the front view, but if the other sides and colours are coming too, then they'll need to be changed.As of yet, no one has objected to anything on my proposal so I've gone ahead and made some examples in the namespaces. I'll be continuing with all of the Mesmer bonus articles (like Virtuoso's armor) because we haven't figured out a format for the actual art pages (like Mesmer Ascalon armor) yet. - B e X o R  06:42, 24 February 2007 (EST)
 * Could you let us know if you'll be doing any more than a front dyed view. At the moment it's difficult to draft any ideas without knowing what kind of images we will be provided with. - B e X o R  10:54, 24 February 2007 (EST)
 * This looks great! And of course, I can follow any format that you guys decide for file naming and the like. I'll tell you what...if you want renders for these images, just build the armor pages with the file names of the shots you'd like and I can contribute my pictures molded around exactly what you guys want on the pages. For the Assassin armor, I was just showing the images that I could contribute if people would like them to use. I had a feeling they would need to be moved around and the like to get them right :)


 * I will look again at your Mesmer armor page and see what kind of shots you would like. In general, I'd like to let you guys know that I am very excited about the wiki and want to facilitate great pages in any way I can. While I may not be able to devote my workdays to the site, I'll still be able to work with you guys quite a bit. If there's an in-game item that you'd like a nice render of, feel free to let me know on my talk page or on a section's talk page. I'll be helping on a lot of sections as the wiki pages get developed, and I think armor is a good place to start. --Emily Diehl 15:18, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * Well the Mesmer armor page isn't final yet. The proper file names can't be decided until the specific art pages are formatted, and I'm waiting on other people to give that a go because I wasn't happy with my example . It shouldn't be too soon that you'll be needed for the armor images, but in the meanwhile, perhaps you could provide us with some of the other images, like inventory icons for kits, materials and trophies, etc? It can be hard to crop the background out of them. Also, png is the nicest file format to use, but I'm unsure if the proper plugin is installed that makes them resize properly (who are we meant to ask about that?). On gwiki they would get compressed badly and look all pixelly, and we were forced to use jpgs and sacrifice having the nice transparent backgrounds. :( - B e X o R  15:28, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Before I continue submitting images, I want to make sure they are capped in the way that you guys want them. Do you guys like the renders? If so, is there a specific pose or background you would like them on? Right now I was just capping a default standing pose against a white background to make it "pop" on the wiki, but I can do whatever the community would rather see. Also, is there a specific proportion size you'd like me to crop the images into (so they scale the way you'd like to see them in your templates)? I'd love to contribute images to the site, but I want to make sure that they are something that everyone likes and can use. Let me know your thoughts and opinions! --Emily Diehl 15:02, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * They look really good. I've seen requests from people for front, back and profile (one side or both left and right), undyed view (gray), dyed view, component view, etc. Now that we know we can ask for specific things we can work on formatting examples for the galleries, then we can say for sure what we would like. - B e X o R  15:08, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * That sounds fine to me. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I'd say to go ahead and build the pages with what you'd like. I am assuming the file names will be at least semi-self-explanatory, but if they're not, could you guys also post a list of the render shots you'd like on the armor talk page so I know what I am taking shots of? You guys may even think about creating some kind of image naming guide or key for the armor formatting guide that will help people to learn a uniform way to name their images and image requests. --Emily Diehl 15:22, 24 February 2007 (EST)
 * If you provid us Uniform shots (Renders) of the armors, you will make a dream come true, having a Great looking Armor page ^^... Thanks a lot --M u r d o c  [[Image:Murdocav.png]] 17:01, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Render poses

 * In response to: "Before I continue submitting images, I want to make sure they are capped in the way that you guys want them. Do you guys like the renders? If so, is there a specific pose or background you would like them on?"
 * We have used the /attention emote in the past for armor images, which I quite liked. I would ofcourse like more input on this, but it might make the armor even more clearer. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 18:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * I got a few complaints about the attention pose. I used to to square off the character so that from the front you could clearly see both sides of the body equally, but people complained that 1. the hands were obscured a lot and 2. that it made the armor seem lifeless and lack character. I think we'd need to have some compromise to make everyone happy. Most male characters stand fairly straight on, but females like Mesmer or Dervish turn their torso sideways which is annoying. And I really prefer the white background Emily has already used. If I had had the time I would have cut the background from all my armor screenshots at gwiki, but that was too much of a momentous task to even consider. - B e X o R  18:55, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * I totally agree with the background. Makes the armor page look so much more professional. /attention does have problems on some profession/sex combinations, but so does the normal pose. One possibility would be to use the one which works the best for each of them, but then we wouldn't have a uniform style. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 19:01, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * I wonder though if Emily can design a pose for us that is relaxed but not contorted? Also, another reason attention was used was that when a character is relaxed they stand a lot wider, and we always wanted the 200x600 size ratio, and if they stood relaxed there would be so much dead space above and below to compensate. But because we aren't going to use a gallery template (like the old profession indexes) we have some flexibility in resizing the thumbnails. Of course a uniform style is desirable, but it would be able to change depending on profession or gender if needed. - B e X o R  19:05, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * Just to add my two cents: I think it's better to show the armors at the casual position than with the /attention. This being because, in the end, people want to see the armors not only for the armor themselves but also for how their characters will look while wearing then. Given how we spend more time at the casual position than at the /attention emote, I think renders with the former would be more useful. Erasculio 19:35, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * That's a subjective sort of thing. I never stand around in town looking at my armor. 90% of the time that I see my character they are running around, and even then or if they are fighting, I'm not really looking at them, but at the surroundings. The main reason the attention pose was used is because the screenshots are meant to document the armor and its details, and the clearest way to do that was to have the character squared off. How can you tell what the armor will look like on your character when you can only see half of their body? You know the pose your character stands in, and you can translate that using your imagination. It's like when you buy clothes. When they're on a hanger they're flat and shapeless, but you look at them and think, that cut might suit me and I like that little detail on the shoulder. If they are on a mannequin, it's a bit silly to only be able to see half the garment, but in real life we have the luxury of 360 degree view. With 2 dimensional images you want to see as much as possible in the one shot. All of that given, the attention pose is NOT the ideal pose (hands get hidden in skirts, chin is up too high), but it's better than having your view obscured. An example of a good female relaxed pose would be the assassin female. Her body is basically squared and facing the front, including her face. The Mesmer or Elementalist or Dervish females have their hips and face forward but their shoulders at a 45 degree angle and you lose the detail from that far shoulder when the armor isn't symmetrical. - B e X o R  19:42, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I decided to break this section into a chunk, since it was getting lost in the shuffle.

I can take render shots in any kind of a position you'd like, be it at attention, in combat, relaxed... If you give me a bit of time to finish up some stuff I need to get done, I can take a few example shots of poses so you can have some visual examples to talk about. I'd say I can probably get those to you within the hour or so if all goes well. Also, if there are certain professions that work in a certain pose better than others, you can let me know what pose to put them in and I can cap them in that pose for their specific armor page. You may want to decide if you'd prefer them all to be uniform or not though. --Emily Diehl 19:45, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * Well, we'll see what you can give us and then have a discussion. By the way, we've nearly finished the art page designs and we will begin implementing them soon. - B e X o R  19:52, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * Here are 6 poses that I think would work for armor, some better than others. Let me know if there is anything you like! (And that's great news on the art pages...just make a decision on the armor poses, and I can be ready to put images in them when they go up! :))
 * {| style="margin:0.5em; border:1px solid #000; border-collapse:collapse;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" rules="all"


 * [[Image:ArmorTestPose1.jpg|64px]]
 * [[Image:ArmorTestPose2.jpg|64px]]
 * [[Image:ArmorTestPose3.jpg|64px]]
 * [[Image:ArmorTestPose4.jpg|64px]]
 * [[Image:ArmorTestPose5.jpg|64px]]
 * [[Image:ArmorTestPose6.jpg|64px]]
 * [[Image:ArmorTestPose7.jpg|64px]]
 * }--Emily Diehl 20:26, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * }--Emily Diehl 20:26, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * Zomg they are so cute! ^_^ #1 is a bit bland, but really is good for showing all of the armor. #2 is cute, but her shoulders seem rounded, #3 chin too high and hands too close to the sides, #4 has that shoulder too far back problem, #5 is great apart from the clenched hands, #6 is good, but the shoulder is a little too far back again. I would say a mix between 5 and 6 would be great - #5 with #6's arms? Or really, #1 with her arms a little more relaxed. So hard to decide. :( - B e X o R  20:32, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Wow those pictures are excellent, thanks Emily. I like 1, but BeXoRs suggestion of a mix of 5 and 6 would look good as well. 2 is pretty good as well :) -- Scourge 20:40, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Well, I unfortunately can't really do a blend of poses. The only way I'd be able to simulate a blend of poses is to play an animation, and try to pause it in the right spot to get the desired result. For example, on the ones with her head and shoulders too far back, I could try to pause her on a down-breath. As you may guess, this isn't terribly effective for getting uniform poses. Are there any I've provided that you guys think would work as is, or would they all need some kind of modification? --Emily Diehl 21:18, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Picture #6 would be my first choice; the pose seems natural and all components of the armor are very visible. --Dirigible 21:22, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I've added a 7th option, which is a lower view of 6. Because of this, her shoulders don't seem as far back. Is this any better? --Emily Diehl 21:23, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * #7 looks to be the best - FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.png]] 21:24, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * (edit conflict) That looks very good. I'm voting #7. Best of both worlds there really. Can you make the other female professions stand like that? And can we have a male test range too? - B e X o R  21:25, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * 7 looks good to me, it has my vote. (every time I tried to reply I got edit conflict lol) -- Scourge 21:26, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Unfortunately, each profession has a slightly different pose for #7. I don't think you'd catch a mesmer standing defiant with her legs spread apart like an assassin ;) I think that the easiest thing to do is to simply decide on a per-profession case if there's doubt about the stance. I can do a profession-by-profession comparison if you think it's best. May as well make the decision beforehand to save work later I'd guess. --Emily Diehl 21:34, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Good morning! Back from bed. I just love the #1, it fits showing off armor excellently. The pose is unnatural and has no life in it, but it shows every detail of the armor perfectly. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 00:56, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * I would choose #1, but people complained about /attention being lifeless. My priority has always been showing the armor properly, but sometimes you have to meet halfway. - B e X o R  01:11, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * I don't think that you can safely say people as only a few have voiced their opinnion yet. I strongly support #1 unless something even better is presented. Emily said: "Unfortunately, each profession has a slightly different pose for #7" which makes it a lot less attractive for our use. #1 would be exacly the same for every profession and nicely represents the armor; just what we want. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 01:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * How about a mix of stances for different purposes? Say a neutral/relaxed pose dyed shot for the overview and then grey #1 (doll pose) for the detail? --Aspectacle 01:33, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * Well, the purpose of the galleries and pictures isn't to merely show off the armor details, but also to show how they actually look when being worn by a character. It's the same reason why expensive clothes stores don't just hang their items on display, but use mannequins in lifelike poses instead. #1 is a pose that you will absolutely never see from any GuildWars char, ever. Numbers 6 and 7 are far more normal poses, this is what you (and the others) will actually see when they look at your char. It won't be when your char is engulfed in flames from hydras throwing Fireballs around, it'll be when calm, when just standing around. Likewise, in the majority of cases it won't be when standing in /attention, but when either standing around or doing /dance, things like that. Just like the mannequins, these poses should be as lifelike as possible (if you can use that term in reference to anything in a videogame). That's just my opinion, of course. Feel free to disagree with it. :) --Dirigible 01:41, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * I feel totally free. ;) Like Bexor said earlier, most of the time the characters spend time running, attacking, casting, etc. The relaxed pose is seen really rarely. Would you like to see the armor pics in running/fighting pose? Neither would I. In the armor galleries the point is not to see the pose which you might be able to have in game as it doesn't make the armor look any different. The #1 pose shot just shows off the armor details far better than the relaxed pose shot. In game you wont be looking at a single frame but instead you can look all around the character which makes spotting different details easy in any pose. In screenshots/renders we need to be carefull to show the details as neatly as possible. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 01:47, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * Gem put my thoughts very well there. But Aspectacle has a good point. The planned galleries will have an overview of front back and both sides, and then component views of headgear, "chest and feet front and back" and "arms and legs front and back". It wouldn't be a bad thing to have the component view in the doll view. Or we could go a completely different route and have all the gallery shots in the paper doll pose, and have a completely different image of the armor in the art info box pictures in the relaxed pose - in fact I think that would be the most ideal solution. I'll make up a quick "draft" to show what I mean. - B e X o R  02:21, 27 February 2007 (EST)

(reset indent) This is what Anja and I have been working on: User:Anja Astor/Assassin Shing Jea armor will be the format of an art page. User:BeXoR/Assassin Shing Jea armor/Female is a gallery example. Please note this is not the final filename convention and please use your imagination to see what the pictures would be by looking at the description beneath them. Also I was a doofus and misnamed the page. Another thing to note Emily, in your Shing Jea render, the chest of the female is all blue, and there are some blue patches on other parts of her body. Some sort of graphical error? Also, if you could crop the images so there isn't as much white space, that would be a great help too (and make sure they are uniform size). Because the images are so wide and empty the thumbnails are pretty small in the infobox here. Of course we are still ironing out glitches, but that's pretty much what we'll be implementing over the next few days, seeing as no one was really interested on the policy proposal page. If there are any problems with it let us know. I'll do a mesmer example too. - B e X o R  02:47, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * Here is another exampple: User:BeXoR/Mesmer Ascalon armor and User:BeXoR/Mesmer Ascalon armor/Female . I couldn't find any female Mesmer relaxed poses that I took, only the male one and it's not Ascalon armor, but it should at least give an idea. The info box images would be named "Profession Type armor x.jpg" where x is f or m depending on gender. In the gallery there aren't any headgear pics cause ascalon doesn't have headgear, but that's an example of the proper filename convention. - B e X o R  03:01, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * Mesmer Ascalon armor, Mesmer Ascalon armor/Female, Mesmer Ascalon armor/Male - set up for images to be uploaded/overwritten. - B e X o R  03:13, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * Coming a bit late to the conversation I know, but hey :p The renders are great. I like BeXoR's idea - have a "real" pose for the overall view of the armour being worn (in the case of the female assassin I'd definitely go for number 2), but use the "doll" view (number 1) for component pics. One of the problems with the component pics at the moment is that the hands and legs armour often overlap on a normal, relaxed stance - having the arms raised like that would fix it in a stroke. If all the professions have different poses then we can just go for whichever looks best for the case in hand (should be a load of fun discussions there). --NieA7 04:42, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * I like the new suggestion a lot. Relaxed for the two overview shots and pose #1 for the component/dye/undye shots. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 04:56, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * No objections to the layout?!?!?!?! My heart is bursting with joy! Seriously! lol! Why don't we do the profession pose shots on the profession index pages, ie Talk:Assassin armor, Talk:Mesmer armor? This page is starting to get cluttered. - B e X o R  05:03, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Further render discussion
Some new considerations: Character height and hair style. The long hair styles are a problem with the headgear pics, so selecting a good hair style will be needed. I don't have strong feelings about character height, but someone else might. -- (gem / talk) 05:20, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * I don't think height matters, because the armor scales, but the bigger the character, the bigger the picture which is good. And I prefer short hairstyles, and hairstyles that are off the face. Really high hairstyles are annoying too. - B e X o R  05:28, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * I love the idea of the natural pose for the main and doll for the layouts (concensus ftw!). I do have a question though.  Will the assassin image that is temporarily being used be the resolution that is used too?  I really can't get that close to see the detail and was hoping for a higher resolution or larger picture when I click on it.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * Why don't we have smallish JPEG thumbnails for the page, linked to large PNG renders for high resolution? Assuming Emily Diehl can accommodate this, of course ^.^ --NieA7 09:34, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * I also like the idea of natural pose for the main and the "unatural" position for each section. The only thing I would ask for is to have the natural position image in a high resolution, for us who favor it more than the other kind (like the images we get when clicking on the images at Assassin armor, nothing absurd). And I would like to second the idea of the bigger the character, the bigger the picture - that would be good, IMO. Erasculio 09:48, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * Those images you directed to Erasculio are what I was looking for. That's a good size to view most of the deetails at.  That would be what I was looking for.  I love this.  This whole part with Emily helping and supplying the armor art is so frikkin' excellent.  Thanks again Emily.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  09:58, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Sorry guys. I had to break this section up so I could see what I am addressing. Alright, here are some responses to questions/comments: While I don't mind providing images for pages, if I can avoid having to take multiple shots for each gender/profession/armor style/color, it would save me a lot of time and allow me to use my time resources for providing other images for other pages. It's not to say that we can't always add more images over time, but to start the pages I'd much prefer if we can stick to a few key images :) --Emily Diehl 13:43, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * I can do multiple poses for images, although we should figure out for sure what is wanted where. I gather the following from reading your comments:
 * People would like to see both the #1 paper doll look as well as the #7 idle pose. Has it been decided what pose should be used for which page?
 * If both images are desired, are both going to link to full images? Or is the paper doll going to link to an idle pose?
 * I may not be able to get the dyed renders up immediately. Right now, I can easily do default colors, so it should be planned to just use those for the time being and I can add colors as I am able to do so. I think that just the defaults will provide quite a bit of information to start.
 * I can crop the images further. Is there a specific size you want me to crop them to for the full images? As you all probably know, scaled images uniformly scale based off of the size of the large image. Right now, all images are the same size, but I should trim them up more.
 * Yes, there are a few blue patches on the Assassin female due to a glitch. I will be replacing them with corrected images as the pages are created.
 * I can't really do anything about character height, as I can't scale a render model to a specific height that would be accurate to all in-game proportions. This could technically be simulated by my zooming out on the character, but I don't think this would be terribly effective. Armor should appear the same regardless of the scaling of the model, so I don't think this is a realistic thing to do.
 * I can choose short hairstyles for models if that's what is desired. At this point, I will only be able to provide the default dirty blonde hair color. I don't think this should be an issue (since we're looking at armor for these shots). It would be nice to be able to show all armor on all appearances so readers could see their character in any armor, but this just isn't realistic enough to be an option I'd say.
 * I can technically link a .jpg to a .png, but I don't think this is too efficient. In order to do this, I would need to upload two separate images (which would take up quite a bit of space considering I will be uploading screens of all armor, weapons, creatures, items, etc). Pngs are fairly large, and large .pngs are even larger. I think that for the time being we should just stick to .jpgs. I can make them large enough to see the armor, so visually it shouldn't be an issue.


 * It seems like we've agreed that the art page should look like User:Anja Astor/Assassin Shing Jea armor or similiar. The images there should be in the relaxed #7 pose. The style for the male and female galleries would be User:BeXoR/Assassin Shing Jea armor/Female or similiar. These would need several shots from sifferent angles, but we could probably manage with only part of them in the beginning as long as you don't forget to get the rest later on. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 14:03, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * My two cents - don't worry about dyed armors for now, the default is going to be fine (especially since the armors come dyed - the NF assassin armors in the link above are dyed blue, for example, so it would be easier to see where dye would act), at least for now. Also, I would suggest not worrying about hair color or alikes - if it's possible to just give everyone a short hair (so it won't stand in front of the armor) that's perfect - different shots with different hair kinds would be way too much work for something so small. Also, don't worry about height if that's a troublesome issue, as has been mentioned the armors scale anyway (and the assassin images are perfect just as they are). The only request I have is to keep the high definition version for both the "paper doll" look (#1 pose) and the idle look (#7 pose), the former for the male/female shots and the later for the general gallery one, if that won't take too many resources. Erasculio 14:10, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * Fantastic! I will look at the pages that seem to be up and running and contribute images to them as I have time throughout the day. --Emily Diehl 14:21, 27 February 2007 (EST)
 * I think Emily will surpassed Gaile in brownie points very soon at this rate.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  14:47, 27 February 2007 (EST)


 * Just want to confirm: relaxed pose for art info box images, anything on the gallery pages should be in paper doll pose. Dyed = default color, so that's fine, but we do need the gray for comparison (the links will say whether the armor should be colored or gray). The only purpose of having colored and gray shots is so the user can see what the armor will look like when they buy it, and also see which areas will be colored when they dye it. Hair doesn't matter as long as it doesn't cover anything. Keep all the images in jpg, because there are problems with png for IE users (until we get a fix which could be a long time) and the added filesize isn't really worth it. It's fine to have really big pictures (like 500px wide) because when you specify a width the wiki software generates thumbnails (small filesize), and then users can zoom in by loading that full picture if they choose. If you have any more questions (about headgear or such), then let me know. - B e X o R  00:58, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * I would suggest that we use a different skin color for the grey version, so that both the dyeable portions and the transparent portions can be identified. I believe that the only IE-specific problem with png images is transparency, but there's still the thumbnail issue. -- Gordon Ecker 02:29, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * What do you mean by different skin color? Character's skin color? Wouldn't it be better to have the same skin color so you can have both images open in two windows/tabs and switch between them to quickly see differences? - B e X o R  04:40, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * I think he meant like the case with Monk Istani armor. You can't really tell that the legs and arms are semitransparent without showing it with different skin colors.. &mdash; Anja  05:10, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * Ah, I see it is important in cases like that. - B e X o R  05:22, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * As I've mentioned, I am unable to do any other colored shots for the time being. For this reason, I'll have to just continue getting renders for the main armor pages as I've done with the Mesmer and Monk for a bit. Until then, if you guys could decide details like when you want headgear to be on a render, that would be great. Similar to dying, I don't know if I can capture a render with a different skin tone at this point. If this is something you would like to see, please decide the exact details and let me know. I don't mind taking render shots, but I think the process is a bit more involved than you guys may realize, so I'd like to keep the number of times I have to re-cap things at a minimum :) --Emily Diehl 14:27, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * I've compiled a list of armor with transparency and / or skin-colored portions:
 * Ranger (female only): Shing Jea, Kurzick and Ascended Kurzick Armor.
 * Monk: Istani Armor, Primeval Armor.
 * Necromancer: Istani, Sunspear, Ancient, Primeval and Obsidian Armor.
 * Female only: Bonelace, Ascended Bonelace, Ascended Necrotic Armor, Canthan, Ascended Canthan, Ascended Kurzick, Luxon, Ascended Luxon and Vabbian Armor.
 * Mesmer (female only): Courtly, Enchanter's, Ascended Enchanter's, Krytan, Performer's, Noble, Canthan, Ascended Canthan, Kurzick, Ascended Kurzick, Luxon, Ascended Luxon, Primeval and Obsidian Armor.
 * Elementalist (female only): Aeromancer's, Ascended Aeromancer's, Ascended Geomancer's, Ascended Pyromancer's, Krytan, Ascended Canthan, Luxon, Ascended Luxon and Ascended Kurzick Armor.
 * Assassin (female only): Kurzick, Ascended Kurzick and Obsidian armor
 * Ritualist: Vabbian Armor.
 * Female only: Exotic and Ascended Exotic Armor.
 * Paragon (female only): Paragon Vabbian Armor.
 * Skin color shouldn't be an issue for any of the other armor sets. -- Gordon Ecker 20:20, 28 February 2007 (EST)

(reset indent) It might be a good idea just to do one gallery first, to see if there are any problems. I hope that it doesn't turn out that you can't provide us with the images we need, cause that would be a pity. :( - B e X o R  14:38, 28 February 2007 (EST)
 * 1) Headgear should always been shown in overview pictures (the relaxed previews and the first 4 paper doll shots in the gallery) but only if the art has a matching headgear (for example Mesmer Shing Jea does, but Mesmer Ascalon doesn't). Monk head tattoos for art types with matching headgear should be visible (thus the character has to be bald).
 * 2) The colored shots you've been taking are considered dyed, there is no need for any other color for the dyed pictures. We do however, need the gray shots for the component paper doll images in the galleries.


 * For the time being, I cannot take grey shots of armor, nor can I take any shots of tattoos. This may be remedied in the future, but I can't promise any time frame for this. As far as the other images go, it sounds like you guys would like me to re-capture almost all of the images I've taken thus far. It also seems like I need to take colored component view renders.
 * As I get time today, I will try to do the shots for the Mesmers. To prevent having to take hours of time to get shots that are ending up needing to be replaced, I'll do one Mesmer suit as an example suit. When I do this, I ask that you guys look carefully at the images and let me know exactly what needs to be changed or modified. As I've mentioned before, I really don't mind providing images to help make the galleries look nice. However, I can't keep re-capping the same sets over and over again because of small nuances because it's extremely time consuming, and there are many other sections that need renders as well. --Emily Diehl 14:55, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Side and rear views?
Will it be possible to add side and rear views of the armour? I ask because we tend to see the rear of the armour when we are playing and the rear details on the armour may affect our choice on geting some armour or not. I realise that this will triple the pics needed, but it will be very helpful. Omens 23:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
 * If you look at any of the art pages that currently has content you can see there's a gallery linked and placeholders for more images. Just be patient while Emily sorts out some things and pictures will be on the way in the future. - B e X o R  01:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How about component views? I've noticed the pages are there, but need to be filled out; plus, there arent any "Crafting materials needed" for any of the armors (unless I'm blind and can't find them)Tuor Son Of Huor 14:59, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Component views are added in the galleries created, just not filled in yet. What do you mean with "crafting materials needed"? There is crafting tables on all the current armor art pages, as far as I know. - Anja Astor  16:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Concept Art
I just saw some of the armor concept art for nightfall and they just look great, so I wonder if it would be possible to add concept arts to the corresponding armor page. I would really like to see how the armors looked as concept and also these arts wouldn't go into oblivion.
 * We could add them, or link them, depending on their size. I agree they would be a nice addition. Where did you find it? - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  04:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Factions concept art, Nightfall concept art. There's some great stuff in there. --Dirigible 05:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Are we allowed to upload those here, or will we just be able to provide links? - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  05:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm fairly sure we are allowed to use anything from the galleries at gw.com, and I think they are in there in zip files. - B e X o R  08:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Cool armor pictures
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/images/Characters.jpg <-- apparently that is on one of the walls in the Anet offices. It looks really neat! - B e X o R  05:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yep, that's part of a big collage in the character design room. I can talk to the artists and see if it would be acceptable to include concept art of various pages. I'll let you guys know what I find out. --Emily Diehl 17:48, 13 April 2007 (EDT)