Untitled

please compare this angle with the other mustang picture that i now

have up in my portfolio from a slightly different angle.

 

comments and critique are always welcome and appreciated.

Not a good angle. None of the features that Make a P-51 unique are discernible in this image.

is there really that much different to a mustang than other rectangular fused airplanes? Is this better than the first mustang i had up though? (The silver one with the blown highlight on the flap). I guess i'll have to look closer next time.

 

thanks for the critique.

The Mustang was a higly detailed, finely built Airplane, in comparison to the rippled hodgepodge built by slave labor in Germany. Its laminar flow wing allowed it speeds and efficiency that even the first Mig-15 fighter had trouble achieving.

All detail was finely done, even the covers over the machine gun barrels in the leading edge of the wing. The ram air intake for the heat exchanger underneath, which could adjust itself was superb. This is why as late as the early 1980's, the Air Force seriously considered re-engining this Airplane and using it again. With the Rolls Engine at full boost, a low pass by one of these sounds like a jet fighter. But, none of those details show here.

ok, definetly a very valid point. Have you ever been on fencecheck.com? Going after the details like the gun ports would be like what a person over there does often, Francoise (sp?).

Well, I think it's quite a nice image. John has a fair point that it does not bring out the Mustang-ness of the Mustang -- or does he? You can see the flush-rivited smoothness of the Mustang in this pic, which is one of the very points John stressed: If this pic were of an Me 262 (or for that matter even a Hellcat!) you would surely see the ripples and bumps. So the slippery airframe is well captured here.

 

More important, though, is the aesthetic value of this pic apart from what it does or doesn't convey about Mustangs. The converging lines of the bar in the insignia are the most powerful graphic element here, and they do their job pulling the viewer's eye forward to the front of the plane. The eye also tends to roll rightward down the wing, swoop up on the frong of the D-day stripes, and again come to rest in the middle. So, viewed as an abstact composition, I think this is very strong. Stronger than the other Mustang closeup adjacent to it in the gallery, which omits the converging lines and instead imposes the barrier of the vertical stripes at right.

 

Bottom line, I think this is a fine image and a real photograph, not just a picture of an airplane. The one thing I would do is color-correct it so the white of the insignia is more neutral. The pic was probably taken in warm light so the existing cast may be "correct," but I don't think that the pale orange beige tint of the white parts does anything for the image.

 

 

thanks once again for you time, August, its well received. As for the white being not neutral, that seems to have been amplified slightly by photonet from my computer, but you'e right in the asumption of warm light, exiff info says about 5pm. I kinda like that personaly, to each his own i guess.

 

Thanks again.

I agree with some of the comments, but at the end, is an excellent shoot. It was worth to take it and worth to show it. I love the composition and has it MOJO. Good shot!

Great Image! I like the simplicity, it effectively gets the point across, you don't need tons of detail with an iconic plane like this, we have seen the side and the nose many times-this is a unique standpoint, makes me want to run out and join the Air Force!-Well done!

Thanks Kellen.