Vulcan re-touch part 2

[Neilly]

Hi All,

Thanks for the great comments on the opening thread - I've tried to take into account what was said and tried to improve. C&C's really welcome. This is another Vulcan model,it only has a 10ft wingspan but its 100% scale. I took a picture of the model when it was on the ground & cut & pasted it onto the cloud/sky background



Cheers,
Neil

[Muscat]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Very good I would not have known it was not in the air.

[Stan]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

A very good job although from this angle there is no mistaking it as a model

Stan

[colin C]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Hello Neil

I don't quite understand why a model with only a 10ft wingspan could be called 100% scale? To the uninitiated, 100% scale would be an aircraft the same size as a real Vulcan. I also note that your previous Vulcan with a 20ft wingspan was also 100% scale.

There is obviously an explanation within the modelling world and I would be grateful to be put out of my misery.

Colin

[briansquibb]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

I suspect it is to do with lengths, areas and volumes.

If you wand it to fly properly then the arodynamics would be wrong if the linear proportions are kept accurate as aerodynamics are based on area and volume

[Canon-Fodder!]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Hello Neil;

Another excellent effort IMO... Could almost pass for an 'air-to-air' shot...

[Neilly]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Hi Colin,

To say the models is 100% scale means the outline is extremely accurate, even down to wing sections etc. I suppose its not quite correct but its the only way off explaining how good the outline is. Models which have a close resemblance to the real thing, but aren't that accurate would be described as sports scale. The Vulcan in the first post would be described as a sports scale because of its in-accuracies. The new Vulcan that Dave's building is a scaled up version of this 10ft span model and is planned to be as accurate as possible.

I've just darken the original slightly - see if the works slightly better.



Cheers,
Neil

[colin C]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Thanks Neil.

A very simple and obvious explanation, once you understand the concept.

Colin

[Neilly]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Hi All,

Another attempt. It seems really difficult to make a picture of a static model into anything other than just that - a static model with a sky background! Now where's that string & cloths line???



TTFN,
Neil

[Glenn]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

It seems really difficult to make a picture of a static model into anything other than just that - a static model with a sky background!

That's because you know how the shot was put together so to you it's just a static model with an imported sky. Where as when we see it we don't know that's the case unless you tell us or it looks odd then we know something strange has gone on

The Vulcan in your second shot looks a little too light for the sky you're using, maybe try darkening it a little.

[Neilly]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Hi All,

Okay, guys this is the final effort - what do you all think?



TTFN,
Neil

[colin C]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Errrr ......... no.

Addition of the second one doesn't work and looks added. One of the reasons is that reducing the size increases the clarity slightly, yet in real life, the clarity reduces in line with distance.

Try it lower down on the clouds in a sparate layer, use the move tool to swivel it round slightly so that they are at the same angle to each other and reduce the opacity of that layer to around 90% and it may look better.

Colin

[Neilly]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

Hi Colin,

I think I'll give up - I'm a good old technophobe at heart & this sort of stuff takes to bloomin' long to mess around with. I think its back to the normal stuff - that's why I bought a bloody good camera. Let the machinery do the work

TTFN,
Neil

[Oggie]

Re: Vulcan re-touch part 2

That first one looks good to me - the panel lines are much more like the real thing. The only suggestion I would make is a bit more saturation of the coluors in the airframe but not the sky.