One thing though, your cast shadows from the wing and tail are way too sharp and simple. Your plane will look much more realistic with a few easy fixes.
First off, your reference photo tells you something very important about the nature of light and the way it casts shadows. The further away from the object casting the shadow, the softer the edges of the shadows get, and also less intense. This is always true. The amount of softness and intensity depends on how strong the light is of course.
Your cast shadows under the wing and tail are of equal intensity and sharpness. Take a look at the way the shadow falls on the tail of your reference photo. See how it gets softer both in it's edges and it's darkness as it stretches away from it's source?
You don't need to go crazy with this though, just enough to see that it's happening. I trust your shadows are on a separate layers? If so, take a really soft fairly large eraser set to a low percentage, maybe 10%. Take a pass and the lower half of your shadow and see how it looks. You might need to do several passes of course. Then whip out your blur tool and fuzz the edges as they recede. Same thing with the shadow of the prop, shadows from the wing on the gear doors and radiator housing.
The other thing that needs to be done with shadows is to have them follow the contour and relief of the objects. The only place lacking on your profile is the tail wheel. The shadow from the fuselage is being cast over a round tire, a hub with many raised and recessed details, and the gear forks that wrap around the wheel.
Your lighting will look much more realistic if you work on these areas.
Thank you fellas!
After Blowhard's comments, I got work to do! But I did say profiles are never done!
I do value each and everyone's critique of my work as it one hell of a great way to learn about things and helps open your mind through your eyes of many.
One tremendous thing about this site is the valuable help you get from the experts along the way. After you learn the tricks of line illustration and rivet making (which you do very well), the supreme experts like Blowhard come along and help you look at your art in a new way with a critical examination of light and shadow forms. IMHO this part of profile rendering is the most challenging and sets the levels. The result of their guidance is much more satisfaction for you as you learn to climb the hill!
For your consideration, I think if you examine the shape of the shadow on the lower fuselage underneath the intersection with the wing fillet, you'll conclude that the shadow there cannot be as rendered, but will curve forward and downward in a curved path as I've tried to sketch here.
In any event, welcome to the world of hill climbers!!
I'm afraid I disagree, Joe.
For the shadow to be as you describe, the light source would need to be pretty much just above and directly behind the viewer.
I think you've got the positioning and shape just right, Jadehawk, and it matches your other shadows. I would, however, soften the edge of the shadow, and lighten the shadow, as it moves away from the wing root. The shadow will be darkest closest to the wing and will lighten off as it travels down the fuselage and more light can get to it.
Does that make sense?
Anyway, great work!
Graeme.
Hmmm- Let's see: Aussie Beer vs. Virginia Ham--a good bet, huh?!
I love this site and the various ways people interpret lighting (infinite solutions). My classic lighting is sun high above the aircraft at 10 o'clock in side view, offset slightly toward viewer in plan view. I think profile renderings of Mustangs will be close to Jade's shapes in that bottom wing root area. Tullis has it right on this one.
Like Grubby says, great work, Jade! Any more subjects in the que?
OK.
I reckon Rikyu still has it too vertical. His leading and trailing edge shadows should be almost parallel.
Jade, maybe you could tweak your wing root trailing edge to give it a bit of curve. I thought it was going into the fuselage in a straight line.
I took a serious look at all the images I have and Joe does have it close on regards to the shadowing where the wing meets the fuselage for the angle of the sun I'm using. However, I also have another photograph that shows the same angle I already used. But it does not match the sun angle I'm using. It's rather one that is low and just about when the sun is going down within a hour from sunset. So in a way you both are right!
I too was stumped about this and it took me about an hour to find the images that gave me the confidence that what I finally did was close to what Joe is talking about. In fact, I already did my changes before I saw this post and I do know how that the shapes of objects, how their angle protrudes, etc. will determine how it affects the sun shadow and can be hard to determine.
Rikyu Wataknobe's Ki-61 shows close to what I was able to find in several photographs which I'll post later when I'm done making the current changes to the profile.
Thanks again everyone!
Last edited by Jadehawk; 16th April 2008 at 03:00.
Reply With Quote
But I did say profiles are never done! 
