Jump to content

NeilF92

Members
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NeilF92

  1. My respects to all four , particularly Colin Armstrong . He was ex 92 Sqn ( Lightning F2's ) where I met him and his family . A decent sort . His was the second loss of an ex 92 Sqn pilot with the Red arrows in the space of two years with the loss of Jerry Bowler in 1969 .
  2. I have a 50mm lens on my big camera but am unwilling to swap lenses because of the dust mote problems that entails . The small Powershot zoom is difficult to figure out where 50mm is so lens distrortion is a probability - I can see the exif readings and most were at 140mm equiv. but at quite a distance from the model.
  3. Thanks jimbuna. Walrus - I made a quick APM projection but the difficulty with that is getting the parameters to produce the exact pitch and roll and viewpoint as in the photo. I rechecked the tracing from the photo and found it was accurate and I can line the plastic model up with the painting and confirm all the angles are as drawn so at the moment I'm sticking with it . APM offers the best chance of getting it right but ,as said, it is time consuming working through the possible combinations of angle to duplicate this image. I have changed one line - that is the flap hinge on the port wing which I had slant the opposite way to what it should be . Also - I will probably cut the trailing edge of the port wing to meet the fuselage further forward. Any distortion could be the result of a viewpoint too close to the subject but at the moment I'm leaving it be till I do a bit more thinking and try outs. It is quite tricky to get the model poised at the right angle and see that the image agrees - very easy to set up what I think is the angle only to find various lines do not agree - but it can be done so I need to check it out before changing anything .
  4. Thanks Walrus - no problems re pointing things out. I've had some concerns about that port wing . The problem for me is that I have taken photos of my 1/48th Lightning and this is how the wing comes out . Could be that the lens used is too large - - should be 50mm equivalent . I'll double check - using a very quick APM 3D projection - that should let me see the right dimensions .
  5. Thanks Enzo - yes still a WIP - had to redo the sky and haven't quite figured out how it should look finally. Also , at this , size 24" x18" , Acrylic on canvas there's a lot of detail to go into the aircraft.
  6. Still a WIP but heading in the right direction at last. See end of thread for up to date image.
  7. I worked on them 68/69 - memory hazy back over those years but I recall the F2A cockpit as grey.
  8. Yeah - that reminds me of mine at that stage . I followed the guide and it came out OK. A leap of faith is required but go for it!
  9. http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/v...umb=vm4ttdNfIGx I googled ratog and found a Wyvern build by Craig Sargent , ARC, who says black - not grey for the cockpit
  10. Thanks John - I appreciate the confirmation from folks familiar with the area . Hopefully we've managed to push the background back in time to match the aircraft .
  11. Other way round Larkie - the tall version of the landscape was a misadventure with the virtual camera in Blender . I had to take the landscape from the original photo and not the render version which was stretched somehow . Many years ago -30 ? I usd Oils but switched to Acrylics sometime in the 80's and never regretted it . Windsor and Newton and Rowney are the two brands I use . I have tried Liquitex but it can be a bit runny for my liking .
  12. Hi Dave - thanks for the comment. Much appreciated . In this instance the painting is a one off original for a friend so I don't think there will be prints. I'll have a word with him though . To be honest - apart from some Lightning profiles I did a while back and an abortive episode with 17 Sqdn Typhoons I've never ventured into prints . Technology today has made it easier to produce prints to order but still involves a bit of expense and for me , unless folks suddenly started to clamour for a particular piece , (I can dream )it's not worth the time spent marketing them.
  13. re Prelim sketches It's been a long haul creating this one - the background was shot from the air a few years ago by my friend who commissioned the work. For the aircraft I created 3D models using Blender software where you can position and light them as required . I then rendered the formation from there as a JPEG . I used Blender because there are so few useable shots of either Martinets or Beaufighter IIf's. After that it was just a case of scaling the JPEG image and transferring it to the canvas for painting. Will see if there are any early bits still around. Start of the Beau in blender finish Martinet; composite:
  14. Thanks for the kind words. Mackem - They are headed rather closer to Berwick - RAF Charterhall and RAF Winfield - not sure which went where but they are 54 OTU Beaus.
  15. Inbound over Berwick on Tweed . Acrylic on canvas 24" x 18"
  16. I like the clean , crisp style - well suited to the ultra modern shape of Concorde .
  17. Blooming good effort I say - you did the boys proud . I'm only allowed to paint walls under wifely supervision .( I wonder why?)
  18. Superb work - the radome colour and dark band look just right .
  19. Yes -- the elongated wing or fuselage is the main kind of fault I had in mind . Lens distortion is a whole subject to itself and I’ve added a few links here that give a fair amount of info about the topic . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_d...n_(photography) http://www.khulsey.com/photoshop_tutorials...correction.html http://www.digitalimagemagazine.com/blog/f...ference-photos/ http://toothwalker.org/optics/distortion.html Usually it's the near wing that is elongated but other problems can occur. The pictures below illustrate what went wrong when I chose to view a Blenheim from too far away when creating a 3d geometric projection - much the same as would occur if an aircraft was photographed wrongly - in this instance the near wing is too short and the far one too long . The red marker shows the correct placing - the blue is the incorrect version. Some photographs will be more or less accurate and some quite badly distorted - I have no ready examples to show - but I’ve seen plenty of magazine pictures with obvious faults. One thing you can do is check that the lines in the photo obey the normal rules of perspective I.e. converge to a distant point . If they don’t - have a good look and a think about it. Cockpit or cabin glass may simply wobble the image as in a hall of mirrors. p.s You will struggle with small 1/72 models when freehand drawing - probably better to practice on random real lif objects even if they aren't planes Sorry I can’t be of more help . cheers Neil
  20. Another point you need to watch - whether freehand or trace copying a photo . The photo itself may very well be distorted. You need to check it for lens and cockpit glass distortion and correct for these faults . When I talk of tracing I mean transferring a very ,very faint line to the workspace . The individual pencil work comes in as you translate the edges into positive or lost lines through shading and strokes . The trace lines disappear in the process . It is quite possible to get it wrong , as the work progresses - the trace lines vanish and it is easy to wander off .
  21. One compromise you can think about is , if using a photo , to mark a few ( say 6 ) key points on the aircraft and transfer these to the work place at any suitable scale . Then it's a case of drawing your own lines but with certain critical depth and length points to keep you right - kind of forces you to see just how the line should run rather than wandering off .
  22. Definitely on the right lines - the more you do the better/ easier it gets - there is unfortunately no easy way to gain the skill level if you want to sketch accurate freehand . Just practice and attention to detail . Plus the ability to tear your own work to shreds and start again till you know it's right or good enough for purpose. I think most of the pros these days take short cuts - photograph the real thing or models and trace or create 3D models either with geometric projection or in CAD software so that the image they capture is genuinely original to them - but not necessarily derived by freehand drawing. It is very enjoyable being able to sketch accurately freehand but don't go beating yourself up because your efforts don't seem to match up . I think much more important is the ability to visualise a scene and place the aircraft within it in a realistic pose and at a practicable size. If you get the chance then sketching real life objects like Upnorth did is better than copying photos in terms of improving your ability .Nevertheless ,copying photos is a good way of honing observation and accuracy in absence of real aircraft. The Buccs in my avtar are created from a 3D geometric projection which gives you the key points to hang a pencil drawing around and flesh out . Keep at it!
  23. Like riding a bike - once learned never forgotten - but you can be a bit wobbly after a long lay off Looks pretty good to me considering it's done from life . It will be good if you find the old enjoyment from drawing coming back. Pencil work is one of those art avenues that never ceases to entertain me - every so often I have a dabble just for the pleasure that creating a satisfying image brings.
  24. Thanks Upnorth - no worries with the crit - as a small pencil sketch it's served it's purpose , this will be as far as this one goes . It is interesting to have your crit with an eye to any later full render / painting I make of this image . Lines and points tend to "creep" once you get caught up in shading/ painting so it's best to keep an accurate tracing of the initial subject to keep the rendered image on track.
×
×
  • Create New...