My first profile

[gamary]

You're welcome. What exactly do you mean by cleanliness of image? Using BH's profiles as a reference is a good idea of course (a very good one even - I've reverse-engineered his material to develop new techniques but he can't prove it so I'm lawsuit-safe ) but all of the other members posting here have drawings that should also be carefully studied. IMHO there is no limit in what one can learn from others, just by studying like that.

[BLOWHARD]

What you don't realize is my technique comes from reverse-engineered alien technology kept at Area 51!

Cleanliness? Maybe sharpness is what you mean? I think that’s due to the file size.

Kid, I see 2 things I think would be improvements. Surface texture and stronger 3D shapes.
This is a fat round plane. You don't need to make the shadows darker necessarily, but you need to define that round shape so it looks round rather than shallow relief. This is a complicated plane as far as shape since so much of it's fuselage is dominated by a large wing fillet.
Here's some examples, not necessarily to copy, but just to give an idea of how it can look more round depending on how it's shaded-



And especially it's good to keep the cross section of the shape in mind-

Notice how the shading is continuous? It's not just a little dark at the bottom and the top with a highlight in the middle, the whole thing is a gradation.
Here are profiles by other people, not really that great but these show the round shape good-


Not and I-16 but...

And a few good cylinder studies-




Aside from that, surface texture, light subtle scuffs, dents, blotches and discoloration of the paint, this will really make it sing. Find the other I-16 profile post, that one really ended up nice

[Supah]

One moment this thread is about drawing planes and the next its about drawing oil pipelines :| I'm confused!

[AGNT_Matt]

and me, who's gonna profile an oil rig then! i've got 20 bucks on it not being me!

[kidcan]

Blowhard, Thankyou, yes it's a cylinder for sure! I get what you are saying I got the shading right in the gun barrel but the body is not quiet right, see what you are saying. Maybe a few gentle and subtle dents in the metal areas(cowling) would be a idea. This is a commanders plane and in the VVS, it was Siberia time if the commanders plane was not kept in pristine condition, even in combat situations, this plane is preware, so I am sure it truly was nearly spotless. But shading wise I couldn't agree more! it's just figureing out a way that works best. But yes I actually copied the one pipe image to my desktop because it has some interesting higlights.

Not sure how to create that sunglare...sure there's a tutorial somwhere on here....

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and give advice, I know you're a very busy fellow.

Cheers

Das kEEd!

[gamary]

This is an I-16 drawing which I thought was good:



This is one I tried to make good:



(That is, aside from the wing f**k-up bit).

BH is right in saying that the shape is trickier to draw than one would think.

[BLOWHARD]

That's the ticket Is that Sundin's profile?
Keep going Kid, there's always more to do I'm still finding things wrong with my Zeros and spending hours fixing them

[gamary]

I have no clue as to who made the profile.

On mine, I copied your idea, BH. I put the highlight on the center of the fuselage (lower than what is usually done) to show the rounded shape of the fuselage. This aircraft is just a barrel with wings and a cockpit. Further on, they had it swallow a jet engine and called it the SAAB J.29 Tunnan.

[kidcan]

I had to kinda taea few steps back. Also I sometimes just get into it and get lost dabbling away, add a layer and not name it. So I went back did that and now am ponderng the best way to get that shape to look right. I think I am going to do it free hand and go at baby steps. Anyhow I ap[reciaet all the help.

[Jesters-Ink]

I find the most common mistake I make (I also see others do too), is the presumption of what they think they see.
Lighting is the difference between a good profile and a really great profile.
Most of us here suffer from the insufficient reference syndrome.
Seeing as most of us don’t have an arsenal of WW2 military hardware parked in our back yards, we don’t have the “real deal” to work from.
Lighting isn’t constant and the way we see lighting in real life isn’t the same as we see it in a D2 drawing.
Sundin uses the same base techniques as the rest of us, but he has an eye for spotting the subtle changes that the rest of us miss.
He then exaggerates them slightly to “boost” his work, making it look more 3D that it probably would in real life. He is a clever artist for sure.
I don’t see a lot wrong with your I-16 here Gamary on the whole it looks very good, but its those little extra peaks of light and shade I see on Sundins work which set him above the rest of us.

I’ve blagged some arrows onto the areas I think have been “boosted”.
This is only my view on the matter so have a bag of salt ready
I include Sundins “magical texturing technique", which the rest of us can only dream about. < ---------- speaking for myself again