Downing a Dinah

i like it but the flame is kind of fake but i like how you have only one prop running and of course the corsairs in the back looks good

Thank you, duckman. I wish I had better flames with which to work.

Pix, i have a question for you: i have trouble looking at the images on the page as they are much larger than the window and i have to use the scroll bars to see the whole thing (piece by piece).
i tried copying this one down to my hard drive and looking at it in Graphics Workshop, but if i reduced the image to screen size, it got funny looking (over compressed, i guess) and was not very crisp.
am i too dim to figure out what i should be doing, or is this pretty much the way things work w/ these images? i can't seem to get a screen sized image that looks in focus.
thanks for posting them.
ed.

Looks great, Pix! Very dynamic.
Or should I say Dinah-mic!

Oh, boy...that was bad. Sorry!

I think the flames look fine, but might be the weakest part of the composition.

Other than that, it's a little too action-blurred for my tired eyes, but it certainly looks realistic.

30 layers?? Crimeny!

Wildwilliam, every time I open a new forum or even scroll around the same one, the pictures AND text always are changing size!
I assumed it was my crappy old computer.

Thanks, J-Hulk. I wanted to try and capture the violence of an aircraft disintegrating in flight.

QUOTE: I only hope that you don't use such words as "fake" to describe the work of others who may feel insecure about what they create. Had this been someone's first effort, they may not try again. Please send your comments as you would like to receive them.

I don't know.... I've always welcomed constructive criticism (from those qualified to give it, of course), as it gives me different prospective's and different views from different eyes, which has ALWAYS helped and encouraged me to become a better modeler.

Back in 1998 I was planning on doing a painting which documented the rescue of the crew of "Birth Control", after being shot down in the rice paddies just NW of the Citadel in Hue, Vietnam. I had a nice image in my head of how it should look, and sketched that image to show to the Veterans who were involved in that action. INSTANTLY, I was bombarded by e-mail's telling me THIS wasn't correct, or THAT wasn't like it was..... Exactly the information I was needing to create an accurate painting! Had I ignored or scorned those criticisms, a Historically Accurate depiction of that event would not exist today.



"If ya'll see something that's not right about any of my work, please feel welcome to let me know because I want it to be right.... and thanks to Everyone for all your help!"

Frank

Of course I welcome CONSTRUCTIVE critisism. The piece written by J-Hulk is a FINE example of this. However, I WAS offended by duckman's use of the WORD "fake !" I doubt there is a modeller on this site that could take that word constructively.
Your comments seem to suggest that there is a universal "right" and "wrong." I firmly believe that those terms only apply to an INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE. For someone else to imply that there is a universal "right" is pure folly, almost dictation.
I wish I had the right to express myself in the things that I make without having them labeled. As you grant yourself the right to an opinion, kindly allow me the same courtesy. I work with what I have, and try my best. I take chances whenever I post an image. I will continue to do so. If you would do something differently, then fine ! But don't try to belittle me & my efforts by saying "I do it RIGHT. This guy does it WRONG, because he doesn't follow my advice."

Pix,

QUOTE: Your comments seem to suggest that there is a universal "right" and "wrong." I firmly believe that those terms only apply to an INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE. For someone else to imply that there is a universal "right" is pure folly, almost dictation.

In the context my statement was intended, I was referring to the positions of the aircraft, personnel, Huey's, and cloud/smoke density in my painting, as being as close to historically accurate as possible; "having it right", in other words. If I had depicted it being a sunny clear day when that action took place, it would have been "wrong". Or if I made the two Chinooks facing the same direction, it would have been "wrong", because that isn't how they were. If I may substitute the word "right", for "Historically Accurate".

QUOTE: As you grant yourself the right to an opinion, kindly allow me the same courtesy. I work with what I have, and try my best. I take chances whenever I post an image. I will continue to do so. If you would do something differently, then fine ! But don't try to belittle me & my efforts by saying "I do it RIGHT

Again, I was NOT referencing your work when I said what I did.
Since I have never had any closer relationship to a P-51D, than seeing one sitting on the flight line at an airshow, if I get ready to build/paint one from a particular unit, I would have to research pictures and/or articles from those who flew or worked on the aircraft, in order to locate the decals/detail/paint in the correct location.

When I made the statement about "....if anyone see's anything that's not right about my stuff, let me know because I want to make it right", I was talking about the ACCURACY (as in Scale, Color, Numbers, etc etc)

I'm very sorry you interpreted my comments as a "belittle" of you & your efforts.... I always thought your work was pretty good... I said something about displaying in natural light one time, but that's just talk from a fellow builder, and not meant to be taken as saying what you do isn't right.

"Gentlemen, start your APU's"
Frank

I'm sorry about all the confusion, oldhooker. I guess that I'm less interested in historical accuracy than I am in trying to depict a representation of an imaginary scenario. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Hoping to be your friend, Pix.

Pix,

Accepted.

I think we were coming at it from two different points of view; You, from "Technique", and I from "Detailing". I have applauded your technique of making propellar blurs for a long time, and certainly your subject matter continues to be compelling.

One of the faults of this cyberage we're living in, is that we turned loose of the facial expressions, hand jectures, etc etc so common with spoken conversation. Most misunderstandings that take place online, without a doubt, are largly due to the fact that you can't see nor hear with whom you're talking.

Anyhow, we're square, so let this be the beginning.

"Two six zero at eight, G'day"
Frank

Thanks, oldhooker. You are right, it is two different points of view, and the more points there are, the stronger our hobby becomes. And it is difficult to understand a person's meanings when communication takes this disembodied form. Looking forward to hearing from you, Pix.

Please note - I have edited my replies on the above after consideration of assumptions that I erroneously made. My apologies.

Glad to see Dinah back!!