02RAF_Puff 0 Posted November 25, 2009 Hi folks..been a while since I been on...just popping this up to have a quick critque from the folks that know..its now on its fifth attempt and is driving me nuts!! anyways, poor photo, but you'll get the idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Siggi 10 Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) Much better than the last one. Looks very nice in fact. Are you sure you have the perspective length of the top wing correct? The righthand side looks a tad long to me. Just to say, for what it's worth, when I used to draw I either gridded-up an existing photo and enlarged it in my drawing, or I took a photo and did likewise (in the case of your subject I would use a plastic model for reference/photo/gridding). I wanted the shape 100% perfect, the fun for me was the freehand shading. Your shading is superb by the way. Edited November 25, 2009 by Siggi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OvS 8 Posted November 25, 2009 Well... thanks to you... I don't look at pencils the same way anymore. If this one doesn't work out... can you send it to me? I'll take it as it is right now.. framed on a nice white backer board, with black matting in a shadow box will look fantastic on my wall next to my 2 Dietz's. Seriously.. do you sell or give them away? I'd love to own your artwork.. heck ... you own mine... OvS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
von Baur 54 Posted November 26, 2009 The skill of the artist is obvious. The accuracy of the subject less so. The fuselage appears too short and the horizontal stabilizer/elevators could be larger. As to the wings, the magic number is seven. Each bottom wing had seven sections, each middle wing had seven sections past the cutouts and the top wing had 21: seven for each aileron and seven between them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
02RAF_Puff 0 Posted November 26, 2009 The skill of the artist is obvious. The accuracy of the subject less so. The fuselage appears too short and the horizontal stabilizer/elevators could be larger. As to the wings, the magic number is seven. Each bottom wing had seven sections, each middle wing had seven sections past the cutouts and the top wing had 21: seven for each aileron and seven between them. Thanks for the input, now to try and fix it before its to late :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnGresham 0 Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) Much better than the last one. Looks very nice in fact. Are you sure you have the perspective length of the top wing correct? The righthand side looks a tad long to me. Just to say, for what it's worth, when I used to draw I either gridded-up an existing photo and enlarged it in my drawing, or I took a photo and did likewise (in the case of your subject I would use a plastic model for reference/photo/gridding). I wanted the shape 100% perfect, the fun for me was the freehand shading. Your shading is superb by the way. My thoughts exactly; there's definitely a problem with the perspective and foreshortening of both the top and mid wing on the right side, they're both too long. She looks very lopsided. Wouldn't fancy going up for a spin in that. :) Edited November 26, 2009 by JohnGresham Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnGresham 0 Posted November 26, 2009 One more thing, the problem with the lopsided length of the upper wing becomes obvious if you look at the positon of the cockpit struts in relation to the crosses. She's got way too much wing on the right side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duce Lewis 3 Posted November 27, 2009 Excellent work Puff! Thank you for sharing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ConradB 0 Posted November 27, 2009 One more thing, the problem with the lopsided length of the upper wing becomes obvious if you look at the positon of the cockpit struts in relation to the crosses. She's got way too much wing on the right side. The lobsidedness you mention is probably from the lad using a photograph as a reference. I discovered it some years ago when I was referencing photos for some stuff I was working on. Photographs at certain distances will distort the proportions of subjects like planes and ships. So I got used to buying and assembling a model of a specific subject before sketching or painting it to board. It helps to have a plinth if you wish to show it in a flying attitude. And a height adjustable table for viewing it in a static position. One other artist who made mention of this was Robert Taylor, as he noticed the same distortion prespectively, but went further and did tests if I remember correctly, and wrote a portion of a chapter in one of his books that I once read. But the heart is still there. Still a very good job! Like the portraits you've posted over at A2A Puff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
