I'm at it again

[JMSmith]

sod that,

whens he going to teach me how to chip paint

[ratfugel]

Why is the 52b so light under the wing? It's dark at the tail. so one would have thought that the underwing would have been much darker to match.
The rest of it is super, to say the least. When I grow up I'd like to make profiles like this

rat.

[BLOWHARD]

Why is the 52b so light under the wing? It's dark at the tail. so one would have thought that the underwing would have been much darker to match.

You missed out on that discussion, please see page 4 of this thread-
http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/foru...52/index4.html
Right or wrong, those are my reasons

Are you alright BH, would you like to borrow a MiG-21?

Sure, how's this?

BTW when do we get to see thumbs of the rest pls?

I think most if not all have been posted here since 2007. But I'll see what I can do...

[fritzie101]

I'm not sure about the prop color on the fishpropbed

[Otterkins2]

HA! Caught you out at last BH...those are the wrong markings for a Mig-San Sushifuton!!!

[BLOWHARD]

Oh the shame!

[ratfugel]

Thanks for pointer to P4. Should have read the small print. Doesn't change my thinking though. Everyone has a reason for what they do, trouble is, if the end result don't look right, it generally ain't. Regarding your observations about what is a profile and what isn't, then a purist might say that what Otterkins does is actually the real profile. When we start to decorate it with colour and shape, then it must by definition become an art form, even though it's lacking perspective. (Picasso seemed to have this problem!) Oddly enough I've never seen an aircraft profile in an art exhibition - now there's a thought for somebody. Maybe the Tate has some spare space?

rat.

[Jesters-Ink]

I said borrow, not butcher!!!

[BLOWHARD]

then a purist might say that what Otterkins does is actually the real profile

No, he uses the same goofy rules we all do. no three dimensional shape exists the way we draw it in profile with no perceptive. It just doesn't happen! My point is we've started out with a flawed unreality, it's a little too late to worry about rules if you're going to toss some out right at the start.
What Otter, and all the rest of us do is a form of abstraction. I wouldn't call it art, at least not something that will ever make it into art history books. We just make nice pictures of airplanes.

Everyone has a reason for what they do, trouble is, if the end result don't look right, it generally ain't.

What "ain't" right to you might be more than correct for others. I call it like I see it, the light and dark on my Zeros makes visual sense to me as well as following artistic conventions as I've set out. On the other hand if the main wing on the Zero had no dihedral, it WOULD look just like the tail. But it's a different shape, it has a different attitude to the fuselage and so has different lighting.
BUT, I'd be glad to listen to any other ideas if you can show me examples of how it should look, especially if you can darken that main wing so it matches the tail and still have it look three dimensional. I'm all for more art lessons
(I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, but if you're calling me out, you'll need to give me more to go on than "the end result don't look right.")

I said borrow, not butcher!!!

I didn't butcher it, I improved it!!!!

[ratfugel]

No fights BH, life's too short. However, I still feel that there is actually no 'norm' for profile light and shade. I personally call it as I see it. I try not to follow others simply because they do things a certain way. That's their prerogative. What I see and what you see may differ and I will never argue with that. For many years I have been a photographic judge, and whilst some of my decisions may have been contentious, I have always said that 'a judge is only right on the night' after that, it's back to square one. Same thing probably applies here. I personally love your work and will defend your right to an opinion to the death even if I don't quite agree with it.

rat.