No more Fokkers!

BLOWHARD · 13 January 2006, 12:56 AM

Nice work Tim

Please don't take this the wrong way, this is a fantastic image, and what follows is just my opinion, so take it as you see fit.
The one thing I don't really see is any depth on the central plane, True, you've got the perspective worked out, 3D and otherwise. But I think you could go with a bit more depth implied with variation in the color and intensity, especially on the fuselage. I see the fuselage cross, and the rudder, to a little less extent, competing with the wings for the same space. When you've got such a strong contrasty object, like the cross on the fuselage, it wants to jump in front of any objects with less intensity. Maybe you could try pushing them back by making them a bit less intense, a weeker black and a toned down white?
I hope you don't mind me throwing in my comments but I think it's a really strong piece and could be even stronger.
Again, nice work!!!!

Russell Smith · 13 January 2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLOWHARD

Nice work Tim

Please don't take this the wrong way, this is a fantastic image, and what follows is just my opinion, so take it as you see fit.
The one thing I don't really see is any depth on the central plane, True, you've got the perspective worked out, 3D and otherwise. But I think you could go with a bit more depth implied with variation in the color and intensity, especially on the fuselage. I see the fuselage cross, and the rudder, to a little less extent, competing with the wings for the same space. When you've got such a strong contrasty object, like the cross on the fuselage, it wants to jump in front of any objects with less intensity. Maybe you could try pushing them back by making them a bit less intense, a weeker black and a toned down white?
I hope you don't mind me throwing in my comments but I think it's a really strong piece and could be even stronger.
Again, nice work!!!!

Very nice work, Tim. Your best yet as far as I am concerned. The detail in closeups is outstanding. I agree completely with Blowhard, though. A slight hint of atmospheric perspective on the tail and maybe some reflected sky here and there would help to push that tail back behind the mainplanes and help the tripe sit in it's space better.

Russ

RED BARON RETURNS · 13 January 2006, 08:23 AM

Tim,
Great work....Your getting better each time you make one of these fine prints.
Later Days,
JEP
RED BARON RETURNS

Mr_Flibble · 13 January 2006, 08:37 AM

Oh very nice render...

That wouldn't look to bad on my desktop for the next few weeks.

josef scott · 13 January 2006, 08:39 AM

Tim

Terrific pic! I'm with Barker on this - the pilots are outstanding and were the first thing I noticed. They ARE your thing. They seem well-proportioned to the aircraft, which isn't such an easy feat. And a good resemblance to the subject. Great detail. Really first-rate!

1998328is · 13 January 2006, 03:26 PM

Tanks for the new desktop image Tim.
Great work! I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet but the spinning prop and motor look pretty darn good!

Nice bit of photoshop work with the pilot. I didn't realize thats how you did that one until I read through your post. I know that was not easy to do. (or maybe it was for you. I know it would be difficult for me). Maybe you have found another outlet for your creativity (another tool for your toolbox as it were)

I do agree with Mr. Blowhard. Something to think about, objects usually get darker the closer they are to you. Best way I can explain it is if you face a window in bright daylight, take your hand and hold it out at arms length and then bring it towards you and see if it gets darker. (least way thats what I remember being told in Art school) hope that helps.
I'm sorry to hear that your bored with this model, but I am hoping that it means we will be seeing another great aircraft soon.
Regards
PA

Tim West · 13 January 2006, 05:57 PM

Whew, what nice comments. Thank you one and all

I am really encouraged by the response to the pilots. Its all nice to hear.

Oh, crits are always welcome. Its a great learning tool for me to hear what others see and give some simple guidance for things I don't always think about.

Thank you Blowhard, Russ and PA for helping me realize what I was seeing in regard to the rudder and the high contrast of the cross. I felt that something in this area just looked goofy and for the life of me I couldn't see it till you pointed it out.

Russ, some reflective sky might be neat. I think I will tweak the image one more time to see if I can address the above issue.

Some have asked what next? I have some ideas but it probably wont be an airplane. I just need to do something different for a bit, expand my horizons , see other people......

. Still I will be doing some work on the DH-2 which I have been slowly working for a bit now. Once I get somewhere with it I will be sure to post about it here.

Taz, I now proclaim you "Cowl Master"

BLOWHARD · 13 January 2006, 09:47 PM

I really think this sort of thing is among the hardest to do, it's really a yin/yang situation. You've got to keep all the technical parts in mind and at the same time create art from it. Getting a good mix between the 2 things is quite a balancing act but you've managed pretty well!
I think any artist here will say this, it's much more easy to put the finger on an area that needs improvement on someone else's work than it is too see it in one's own

After working on any painting for a while I have trouble even seeing what's there. Intimacy with our own work keeps us from seeing the overall.
Again, great stuff, I'll be looking forward to your next subject

BTW 1998328is, I got a big kick out of being called "Mr. Blowhard". Those two things are pretty incongruous especially if you knew my character

ONEALM · 14 January 2006, 06:04 AM

For determining if the front of the airplane appears closer than the back is to mask out the middle and ask yourself which part (front or back) is now closer to you....

If you can't tell, time to start pushing the back back as Russ has already suggested, by using some of the surrouding color.

Same applies for lots of digi stuff I see with multiple airplanes in it. Hard to tell if the smaller airplane is farther away - or just a 3/4 scale replica flying in close formation.

We have a natural tendancy when looking at these things to mentally adjust the depth of field since we "know" what the image is supposed to be. To short-circuit that bit of mental gymnastics, isolate parts of the image and look at them seperately. That'll give you a better feel for what's where in space.

I like the feel of the image and it's arrangement though. The viw of Weiss's Triplane is one we don't see often, so enjoy that particularly.

Keep 'em coming....

Mark_Miller · 14 January 2006, 08:43 AM

nice image Tim
your textures have improved quite a bit and I believe that is what is making the difference.

as for depth cueing
yeah, i agree - it would help the illusion if your color/contrast deadened out as you get farther away from the viewer.

in microstation i use a feature called fog
you define a color - I always use a light sky blue
and then it uses the display depth as the front and back edge and then you define where you want to start ramping up the fog.
uhhh...sound complicated the way i'm describing it - but it is realy simple
I generaly exagerate the effect as it realy helps push stuff back
well...not sure if maya has a similiar feature

another good trick is to render the distant planes out seperately
then you can load them up on there own levels in pshop and interactively work the color/saturation/contrast until the plane sits right.
sometimes just making it a little transparent works well - depends if there is stuff happening behind it - or just sky color.

anyways
great work