One May In France

Artwork Finished Projects
1

As a part of work on exhibition: Forgotten Heroes. Polish Airmen in France 1940 was done this image. It is show start of two polish Morane Saulnier MS.406s from GC I/2 in may/june 1940. Planes are piloted by plut. Antoni Beda (in background) i ppor. Stanisław Chałupa.

http://www.airart3d.com/images/stories/forums/Morane/One_May_In_France_small.jpg

Attachments


2

Goto(Gallery);

3

gallery…?..why…?..not hi end work…

4

Good work on this image.

5

In his opinion he thought it was worth going to the gallery… It’s not his fault if you don’t like it, maybe you could also have offered some more constructive criticism?

I would also say gallery, but the paint on the planes seems a little off. (I’m not sure why it just doesn’t feel right.)

6

We better give a ticket to mrys, for a free entry to the gallery.
Or just update the already existed posts there.
These images are perfect. They have this essence… of WW2.
What else can I say?
!!!

7

I agree. Images are great!! Super work as always mrys!!!

8

Your images are really beautyful. Great work

9

absolutely fantastic, great work.

10

Yes, very nice images !

11

Yet another beautiful aircraft render!

very good! can’t find any major mistakes.

Guss

12

As always, mrys has made an excellent image. The only reason why this picture shouldn’t go to the gallery is… because most of his work should be in it.

For those who might be interested, the air fights in May - June 1940 over France were very violent - according to the “Battle of France” article on Wikipedia, more than two thousands Allied aircraft and 1300 German ones were destroyed in six weeks. During WWII, Polish pilots were highly estimated for their skills and their heroism.

13

I think that if work in just some aspects a little more, the image should go to the gallery. The ground need some grass and etc. No ground is just a green plane! And I didn’t understand correctly, but if the image represent a war, so need some smoke, fire and etc. But the ground is priority. Give some details to it. Try some mountais too. This should make your image a lot better.

14

Beautiful work! Well done!

15

Beautiful! I like your gallery on your website too!

16

Yes, this is the only concern I have from the first glance. Even in realtime environments (games etc.) one can rarely see only flat grass. But the picture is great! :yes:[nonenglish]Powodzenia![/nonenlish]

17

I would think it obvious that the field shows no detail because it is highly motion-blurred. The camera is tracking on the planes to keep them in relative sharp focus while they are moving very fast, so everything that is not moving in the scene will be blurred.

Not only a fine rendering but also an excellent composition and depiction of the action. The foreground plane taking off at a slight angle, one wheel after the other, is typical of the “get it in the air quick as possible” combat takeoff, particularly from a grass field (bumpy!). I don’t know much about WWII aircraft paint in terms of specific patterns & markings, but nothing about it looks out of place to me. As a rendition of that period’s aircraft, this is an A+ effort.

18

Thanks for comments. I’am not making my images for beeing in any gallery - of course it is always pleasure, if they are but really, it is not important. Important is something else. I realised that many times peoples are looking at this kind of images from wrong point of view. Render, model, CG art… It is what I really don’t like. I think that it is not any basic differences between classic approach to “paint” and “modern” CG way - only tools are different. In both cases final image is most important. I’am trying to save equilibrium between used techniques and emotional/colour/narrative aspect of image. Not always succes, but it is level I want to finally reach. So I’am not looking at image as set of shaders, render passes etc. I’am asking: what this shader or something can do for my image. Which elements are really important and which are making only a mess.

So:

  1. No, ground should be as is. Chipmasque said what I shoud say about speed and blur, so don’t need to repeat. No bumps, no visible grass (only few visible grass strands would ruined sense of speed - in fact it is very gentle “grass glow” over grond, but almost not possible to seeing, if you don’t know how to see). And - ground plays only secondary role in this scene.
  2. War is always smoke and fire. Yes. Especially in bad war movies. It is not a challenge to show war by puting smoke and fire and even more smoke and fire into images. It is boring. Smoke and fire can be very good elements but NOT in this image.
  3. No, I will not add any detail to ground and background. Look at this as at classic, painted image and try to remember one of composition rules: any element, that grab attention from forefront elements is needless. Any details added to background or ground will do nothing for story or image but will upset the balance of whole composition.

Usually I’am not fully happy with my images - always can find things, I could did better. This time I had good day and image is EXACTLY as I imagined this before start to working with shaders, renders etc. So this time, sorry, will be no changes. This image is between very few of mine I like most.

19

This statement warrants posting in every thread where someone raises the issue of “realism.” Realism does not exist except in perceptions, and everyone has different perceptions. Rather than trying to cajole an artist into conforming to your perceptions (speaking to all viewers of art here), try seeing art as if trying to know the artist’s perceptions. It can make experiencing any art a lot more enjoyable.

20

Maybe these are the wisest words I ever read from a CG artist talking about CG art. There’s lot of people talking about technical stuff, and nothing about the semantics of a image. And lot of time, realism eats the expression.
Definitively, this paragraph deserve a place into Gallery :wink: