PDA

View Full Version : Tornado pair - near end. Comments/crit welcome


NeilF92
05-30-2017, 06:37 AM
Nearing the end game with this one . Still bits to do to the main a/c . Not really happy with it at the mo. The landscape / loch still needs tweaking here and there .
Feel free to critique or comment .

Chas McHugh
05-30-2017, 07:09 AM
I had a play with what I would do with glazing; but I do not think the difference to be of any significance.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-May-2017/984204-ApaircropX.jpg

.... and therefore I think that the only way you are going to make significant change is by hyper detailing the aircraft and exaggerating tonal variation - specifically shadows and highlights. The verticals of the rocks ahead of the aircraft do not lose you speed as they could have - whereas having the lead aircraft as far right as you have removes canvas for it to appear to fly into. This is suggestive of a flawed composition - though Robert Taylor often does the same and gets away with it.

I would look at the painting directly through squinted eyes - you will only see blocks of light and shade - which may point you in the right direction. Otherwise either try via a mirror and/or a black and white reproduction.

I used this photograph as a cross reference:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-May-2017/984204-RAF-Tornado-GR4-ZA550-31-Sqn-Photo-1.jpg
.. and could only observe that you have left the inflight refuel off - removable I know - but a linear feature aligned to the direction of travel.

The lake will act as a lead-in feature; but I fear because of the direction of travel that it takes the eye the opposite direction of the ideal.

The positive thing is that you are back in the saddle. Sorry that I could not be more constructive.

NeilF92
05-30-2017, 07:48 AM
Thanks Chas , good points made , most useful. I like your revision with the glazing . I did toy with the idea of misting the far distance to throw emphasis on the aircraft but chickened out after an attempt . Seeing your changes make me consider trying again.
I deliberately left the refuel probe off as it hid the canopy too much .
I was aware that the main a/c was fairly far forward in the composition but figured the inclusion of the second aircraft would balance the composition and there was just enough space ahead of the main a/c given it's approach angle . I also felt that the centre of interest on the main a/c ,the intake and weapons was far enough back and placed to draw the eye in . I like the reference photo you posted - handy!
I constantly check the painting in a mirror as I progress , it certainly helps pick out anomalies . :) Quite by accident I see I have created a triangle with the two a/c and the sandy bay feature , I think that helps keep the eye withing the picture .
Usually I create black / white images as I progress but haven't done so on this one as yet for some reason. Neither have I dabbled with changes in Photoshop - I guess I'm out of practice :)

Trumper
05-30-2017, 10:26 AM
For me the painting changed.I was looking at it on the computer screen so probably about 12 inches away from the screen then i moved back a couple more feet and it all sharpened up.
I think the dark parts on the aircraft could be quite alot darker ,if you squint it may help as Chas says lighten up the highlights.

NeilF92
05-30-2017, 11:14 AM
Yeah - I think the underside of the aircraft can go darker . Lot of food for thought now :)

NeilF92
05-30-2017, 04:04 PM
Considered Chas and Trumpers advice . Concluded that the photo is not representing the real image .
Faded the far distance a little and continued working on the main a/c darkening the darks etc. It appears to me to be coming round , the aircraft comes out of the canvas as I wished . I'll try and get a better photo in daylight with my SLR but this is the best I have right now - and it is still not true to the real thing .
Must remember to add the underwing roundel on the stbd side and the navlights etc.

Trumper
05-31-2017, 08:27 AM
I like that ,very nice and i think it does stand out more.It does make you realise how much difference the camera /monitor makes to people viewing all around the world.

NeilF92
05-31-2017, 05:51 PM
Thanks Trumper - Yep - .My small Canon Powershot takes really good landscape shots but put a painting in front of it and it finds the wierdest reflected colour it can.

NeilF92
06-01-2017, 12:18 PM
Following Chas's advice I chopped the image into 3rds and did a Black/ white version . I'm not too unhappy with it at present as regards composition . This is the composition I settled on after much 3D shifting of models and cameras and I feel it conveys what I set out to achieve . The tonal values - I'll keep working on it.

Kassal
06-02-2017, 03:17 AM
My view, for what it's worth: with my own painting "Remagen Strike" I was similarly tasked with fast jets down low in a valley, and the danger of the vertical sides slowing down the action. I'm not sure what the best answer is; some artists would paint the rock features with a lot of horizontal strokes... I did a certain amount of this but had to preserve the distinct features of a specific place, including the "Erpeler Ley" which is a vertical bluff, and there was no getting away from that. In the end I jabbed horizontal strokes in where I could using the mist and cloud around the aircraft to suggest speed, but you have a relatively clear day in your valley. However.... Chas's hazing of the left hand side does a very great deal to improve things, and I would go even further with this than you have already; you can put as much atmospheric haze in as you like... it's your weather.

But to me the lead aircraft nearing the edge only increases the momentum for you, so I'd respectfully differ with Chas on that... it couldn't really be changed at this late stage, but I honestly wouldn't want to even if I could. The wing-tip vortices help enormously and in this way the only other thing I'd try if it were mine would be some subtle 'speed streaks' (for want of a better term) behind the lead plane, coming from the brighter extremities like the fin tip and the underwing/fuselage stores. Some people would hate that idea but it all depends on how subtle they are.

NeilF92
06-02-2017, 04:59 AM
Thanks Kassal .To be honest I didn't give the speed aspect on the main a/c much thought beyond the tip vortices but I did toy with the idea of some vapour flashes trailing off the wings and maybe some vapour forming round the weapons underneath. Will dabble with those ideas . The backdrop slabs are ,I feel, too far removed to resort to speed blur convincingly but some subtle refinement / lines might help as you say.
I'm taking it easy with fading the distance . The front to back distance in this image is something like a mile , mile n'a 1/2 so not too much scope unless I opt for mist in the valley slowly clearing . As
does happen . Tornadoes have an annoying habit of flying through haze so thick you write off the chance of anything low level . Then just when you are packing the camera -EEEyowlll! Tornado!

Kassal
06-02-2017, 05:15 AM
Okay, but the violet-blue in Chas's rendition really helps with perspective a lot, even if you don't want to add any extra mist.

NeilF92
06-02-2017, 06:04 AM
Yeah , I quite like Chas's haze effect . I'll mess around some more .

Kassal
06-02-2017, 06:31 AM
:thumbsup: :)

NeilF92
06-02-2017, 07:17 AM
More tinkering in PS - I veered away from Chas's blueish haze and opted for a golden early morning version which ties into my initial intentions for this painting better . Dashed in a few vapour flashes for go faster effect and it may work.

vegaskip
06-02-2017, 07:33 AM
Nice painting Neil, thanks for sharing
Jim

NeilF92
06-02-2017, 11:31 AM
Thanks Jim - all I got to do now is paint the canvas like the last Photoshop version :)