affinity designer P51 Mustang Nooky Booky IV

[Slammer]

Unemployed thanks to Corvid means that I have a lot of time on my hands.
A few years back I took a picture of Nooky Booky IV at the Hahnweide Airshow and always wanted to do the drawing.
The background is a composite of five pictures, the last one from Jesenwang airstrip taken this afternoon.

The shading took ages and the heavy file almost melted my mac mini to cinders, but I think I got it right, what do you think?

[Slammer]

And the Designer wirework

[dannyg9]

More brilliant work (of course!). This is not the place, but the person's name by the cockpit is the only part I have issue with.

I don't have a reference but I'm not working out the "C" on the underside of the wing. Is it half in shadow or is it a split reflection? Love the prop "movement" and the smoke trails.

[Slammer]

Major Leonhard (Kitt) Carson was a fighter ace in the USAF and flew a P51 called "Nooky Booky IV." There are a few NB4´s flying at airshow circuits in the US and the UK and this one represents a P51 based in France. The "C" is supposed to be a reflection on the underwing. It was actually a problem in Affinity´s blending but I liked the effect and kept it when changing from vectors to pixels.

[Slammer]

Some other impressions from Hahnweide.

[dannyg9]

25 minutes ago, Slammer said:

Major Leonhard (Kitt) Carson was a fighter ace in the USAF and flew a P51 called "Nooky Booky IV." There are a few NB4´s flying at airshow circuits in the US and the UK and this one represents a P51 based in France. The "C" is supposed to be a reflection on the underwing. It was actually a problem in Affinity´s blending but I liked the effect and kept it when changing from vectors to pixels.

I was referring to the Kit Carson of the American West (Not a nice guy - let's leave it at that). Thanks for the info. I love the fact that your pieces are also steeped in history.

[Slammer]

Ahh! Hadn´t thought of that Kitt Carson.

[firstdefence]

I’d have to agree with Danny over the reflection of the ‘C’ doesn’t work and I’d doubt it would be there. That said, better than I could do or have the patience to try. 

[Slammer]

So I hummed and aha´hhhed over the reflected "C" and decided to get rid of it, it´s better this way and I got rid of the grass reflection too as I was not quite happy with it, resized the plane to fit the picture better and adjusted the propellor contrails.

What do you think?

 

[firstdefence]

Looks cleaner now and the no reflection glass works. one last niggle I’ve just noticed, is the lighting direction, for the most part the light appears to come from the left and high so about 11 o’clock, the planes shadow would suggest the lighting is to the right at 1 o’clock. 

I think the conflict is actually related to the sky and the trees, the trees suggest a light at 12 o’clock the sky  at 10 or 11 o’clock, so the shadow of the plane looks wrong.

I find it fascinating that we can perceive such subtly in an image, that we know something is not quite right, however small that detail might be, shows how fine-tuned we are to our environment.

[Slammer]

5 hours ago, firstdefence said:

Looks cleaner now and the no reflection glass works. one last niggle I’ve just noticed, is the lighting direction, for the most part the light appears to come from the left and high so about 11 o’clock, the planes shadow would suggest the lighting is to the right at 1 o’clock. 

I think the conflict is actually related to the sky and the trees, the trees suggest a light at 12 o’clock the sky  at 10 or 11 o’clock, so the shadow of the plane looks wrong.

I find it fascinating that we can perceive such subtly in an image, that we know something is not quite right, however small that detail might be, shows how fine-tuned we are to our environment.

If you look at the shadow under the tailplane it would suggest that the illumination is from the left side at 1:00, and the aircraft shadow should correspond to that, but I could be mistaken. My biggest beef at the moment is that the wingtip does not quite match the underside of the wing. I may change it at some point, we will see.

[firstdefence]

Maybe do away with the linear gradient that makes the wing tip thicker than it is, or darken the lighter part of the gradient?

[dannyg9]

I'm realizing that when we create something, there are things we see and the input of others can give an "ah ha" moment. There's also that visceral attachment to what we've created, so I completely understand the sentiments over the reflected "C." That all said, I do like the newer version. I think, for my sake, the only part I couldn't "un-see" was the "C" reflection but I understand how there are parts that gnaw at you and again, that goes back to personal attachment. Personally, I didn't see the problem with the wing tip (and now that its pointed out, it still doesn't bother me), but I understand your concerns.

[Slammer]

On 9/28/2020 at 8:15 PM, dannyg9 said:

I'm realizing that when we create something, there are things we see and the input of others can give an "ah ha" moment. There's also that visceral attachment to what we've created, so I completely understand the sentiments over the reflected "C." That all said, I do like the newer version. I think, for my sake, the only part I couldn't "un-see" was the "C" reflection but I understand how there are parts that gnaw at you and again, that goes back to personal attachment. Personally, I didn't see the problem with the wing tip (and now that its pointed out, it still doesn't bother me), but I understand your concerns.

I think it could have something to do with the "uncanny valley" effect. The more you try to add detail in a picture the more it will snag on some some part of the brain as being not quite right.

[VectorVonDoom_NoMore]

It look fine apart the propellor, perhaps I'm wrong but I've not seen them look like that, usually it's just a blur. The shadow on the ground probably needs a bit more blur added, bit too defined for how far away it is. As it is it's close to the shadow of the one one the ground.

[Slammer]

8 minutes ago, VectorVonDoom said:

It look fine apart the propellor, perhaps I'm wrong but I've not seen them look like that, usually it's just a blur. The shadow on the ground probably needs a bit more blur added, bit too defined for how far away it is. As it is it's close to the shadow of the one one the ground.

I did struggle with the prop as I wanted to show a propellor on negative pitch or idling as it would be when landing, but it seems to be ok after looking at images of a landing when throttled down. Not happy with the shadow myself, I´l probably change it 

[VectorVonDoom_NoMore]

I guessed that was what you were going for, where it looks like it stutters so the propellor is clear. I did have a quick look but couldn't find any pics, they either look like they're not spinning or the normal blurred.

[Slammer]

38 minutes ago, VectorVonDoom said:

I guessed that was what you were going for, where it looks like it stutters so the propellor is clear. I did have a quick look but couldn't find any pics, they either look like they're not spinning or the normal blurred.

If you take a picture of a spinning propellor via digital camera (as most pictures are taken today) you get a distortion when the prop is under power, I tried to capture that with the Pilatus P9 a week or so ago.