navy spook...again !

[inkworm]

Could be the lighting, sometimes things look wrong when they're not, but I'll let you check it!

[Ugo Crisponi]

Some how the tail feels really high.

indeed........IMHO all the structure looks a bit stretched, fin a bit too large and also the wing tank is too small. Need a check

[Aircraftprofiles]

Outside: i´ll be happy to help you, but i think i´ll be needing abit more info about where you are stuck. Please write aircraftprofiles@gmail.com and if you include som screen caps that would be great !

Ugo and Supah: what´s the verdict ?

[Supah]

To me, when comparing the height of the vertical tail fin to the length of the fuselage it feels too high, what drawings are you using to work with?

[Aircraftprofiles]

I primarily have used photos for this one...what drawing do you use ?

[Supah]

None at the moment, I have not started reworking my phantoms. Something that could cause this kind of deformation in pictures;

1. Taken from a lower stance then the aircraft thus making tail look larger.
2. Taken with short focal length making nose and tail look larger.
3. Taken from a slightly rear position, like from 8 o clock when viewed from the cockpit.

I haven't checked it with images but the size of the tail jumped out at me straight away, I could be wrong or this could be F-4B specific though. Seeing how Ugo noticed it too it might be something worth investigating.

[MARKSTYLING]

I am rather mystified at some of the comments made about me and the work I produce on this web site. Following the latest comments I feel compelled to voice a response as well as to others previously posted.

Firstly, in response to "I dont think Mr. Stylings work should be used as a refference for anything." care of 'Supa'. I infer from this comment this means that everything I have produced is worthless and I should give up producing aircraft paintings as I am clearly not very good at it. I don't believe this to be true as I don't think I would have been commissioned to produce solely aviation illustrations for the past 26 years if it were true. I don't use other artist's work as reference and never will do so. I only use manufacturer's drawings (or create my own using measurements etc) as a basis for a line drawing and use the best photos available which are usually my own. This seems to work as there are currently seven airplanes flying that have been painted using my artwork and reference material as a basis for their schemes. If my detailed marking measurements etc were not accurate and the panel lines etc from which they are measured were inaccurate then the people painting the real planes would not be able to do the job properly. Clearly not everybody has the same view as 'Supa', so why this derogatory comment?

Next comment "I don´t want to get into a discussion of other artists accuracy, especially if they don´t have posted their work in this forum, themselves (which must mean that they are not interested in hear mine or any others oppinion)." care of 'Aircraftprofiles'. This I interpret as another jibe as it implies that I am too arrogant to be interested in the opinion of others. Again this is not true. I visit this web site occasionally precisely because I am interested in the work of others, though I have not learnt anything useful here to date. I have also posted artwork here before. I happened to be researching the P-38 for my own artwork as someone else was producing a P-38 illustration. The thread ended shortly thereafter and later another was started. It was clear to me that certain members of this forum feel my presence here is not required; again I can only speculate as to why.

Another thread, another derogatory comment about a series of books I've worked on... "Osprey aviation elite, aces, units series sucks! Those books are rubbish from profile point of view as well as from point ofinformation inside...." in the Polykarpov I-16 thread care of 'pkassak' To say that the whole tree series of books are 'rubbish' is quite astounding. To have a knowledge base that encompasses such a wide series of subjects to make such a qualified statement makes me wonder how many books 'pkassak' has written and/or illustrated himself. There are of course errors in both the text and artwork in many of the Osprey books, but some of the artists and the authors do try (and often succeed) in producing something worthwhile. To vilify two of the biggest selling aviation series in the UK in this way is simply publishing without responsibility; its easy to make statements on the internet without having to qualify those statements. Amusingly, there are at least two other threads where my line work and artwork from Osprey books have been posted as reference; let's not mention the little word copyright.

There are other comments, including one that asserts that I copied someone's B-26 artwork and his mistake. In that instance I've not even seen the supposed artwork I am accused of copying. Why do I receive such bad press on this forum? I don't see any mention of another artist getting such treatment; I don't feel particularly wounded by this, I would just like to know. I also don't see such fantastic artwork on this site that makes mine look so amateurish. I do however see a lot of artwork that I and others would not deem to be publishable in a book. I also read erroneous or misleading advice from those here who purport to know what they are talking about.

So what is going on here? Is this a forum where people wish to gain knowledge in how to improve their artwork or just a mutually exclusive club where people want to congratulate each other and/or be seen as an expert. Why is it that someone with 26 years of experience in producing aviation artwork is vilified when there is a small possibility they might have something to offer? Is my work really that bad or am I just getting a whiff of the green eyed monster? If no-one here has any interest in my work I would prefer that in future both me and my artwork could be left alone.

Yours respectfully,

Mark Styling

[Ugo Crisponi]

Mark is right. This forum should be a valuable place to exchange our ideas and constructive criticisms. We may like or dislike each other approach to drawing but we ALWAYS should respect each others. Mark has a long career in this hard and competitive job and has all my respect for what he has achieved so far.
I apologize for using Mark's work as reference, causing the comments that involved him.

[pkassak]

Dear Mark,

Please take my post as a reaction just to: "Another thread, another derogatory comment about a series of books I've worked on... "Osprey aviation elite, aces, units series sucks! Those books are rubbish from profile point of view as well as from point of information inside...." in the Polykarpov I-16 thread care of 'pkassak' To say that the whole tree series of books are 'rubbish' is quite astounding. To have a knowledge base that encompasses such a wide series of subjects to make such a qualified statement makes me wonder how many books 'pkassak' has written and/or illustrated himself. There are of course errors in both the text and artwork in many of the Osprey books, but some of the artists and the authors do try (and often succeed) in producing something worthwhile. To vilify two of the biggest selling aviation series in the UK in this way is simply publishing without responsibility; its easy to make statements on the internet without having to qualify those statements. Amusingly, there are at least two other threads where my line work and artwork from Osprey books have been posted as reference; let's not mention the little word copyright."

As to the question how many book did I (or we, as I closely cooperate with Zamex) illustrate, I may say, that we regularly produce profiles and line drawings for two polish magazines (Lotnicztvo (also special issues) and Historia wojskova). As well, recently has been published a book, where we have our profiles. So we did some artwork and try to do it as much precisely as possible. I know that Osprey series are low cost projects, so the artwork done there is in high numbers for low reward (I assume), but a bit more accuracy, as far as I mainly meant to reffer to Weals books, would be good.
As for the historical text, the same as above. I am author of few books, so know how to research. And do not think Osprey brought (again referring mainly to Weals books, or lets say Weals Luftwaffe books ) something stunningly new. I made my opinion basd on Osprey aviation/elite/aces books, I know it is wrong, but it is like that. Shame on me...
That just for answering your question...
But I agree with Ugo. We can discuss someones drawings when he posts it here, and asks for comment, but do not judge critically others work not shown here. If we were too critical, forgive us and enjoy painting/drawing/researching....all the best and peace

[Supah]

First of Mark I'd like to apologise for my earlier comments, looking back I agree they may have been over the line. I love your non-profile work and most certainly couldn't do better there. When I look at your profiles and especially the 100% crops on your website I am less impressed but as you say sales figures don't lie and in that respect you probably have me beat squarely, in the end everyone has to work in the way they feel comfortable with.

With regards to the Osprey Aces and other series I'd have to agree with Peter, the few books from the series I bought mostly just qualify as a primer on their subjects and for the money I don't feel you are getting "a lot of book". A lot of the books I bought from big publishers like for instance Squadron Signal for my current F-104 project were not that great an investment. Squadron Signal adopts or adopted a cookie-cutter approach to books in their walkaround and in action series. The information in them could have easily been found on the web too or is outdated, a lot of the pictures are the same in all the books from the big publishers and a lot of the profiles show machines in incorrect configurations for their operator and time period or with shape deficiencies. The few books I could recommend on the subject are all from smaller companies or from individuals and often considerably cheaper then the offerings from their more established counterparts. The Squadron Signal offerings about the 104 are perhaps best suited as just a primer or for people with only a passing interest in the subject matter. For more indepth study I enjoyed the book by Klaus Kropf and some of the Japanese books a lot more.

If you see work you feel could be improved feel free to post constructively in the threads with comments as to how you feel the person posting could improve his work. If you feel people are giving poor advice or are misinformed about a subject again feel free to comment on this. With regards to your comment about possible copyright infringements, could you please send me links to the posts that you feel violated your copyrights and I will delete them immediately?