Next competition subject?

Anyone hear from thomasthehymer for the next week's subject:

Not yet, but a PM has been sent. At this time of year people can be away, but probably not a good idea to enter if you won't be here when the winner is declared!

If there is no response by Wednesday evening I'll invite a guest judge from our list of highly esteemed forum members. I already have a victim, sorry, candidate, in mind.

I vote for George, I think he'd make a good judge.

Entry to the competition would not be advised for the faint hearted or thin skinned though.

Dan

Half the entrants will never pick up a camera again after George has finished with them

Bring it on George!

I was actually hoping George (amongst others) would have a lot more to say about my Oshkosh pictures...

And thanks to those who did speak up.

The thing about taking pictures of aeroplanes in flight is that you have a lot less control than you do when the subject isn't moving.

It's easy enough to comment on depth of field with a landscape for example, and no excuse for failing to control it; similarly with exposure - there are grad filters, polarisers, the opportunity to move the camera position, or wait for better light, all of which give you control over how the end result looks. Again with portraits, different people have different preferences over how lighting should be, and within those criteria it's easy enough to comment on expression, detail, background, sharpness and all the rest.

These aren't more or less difficult to do well than aeroplanes, but it's a different problem. You have a lot less control over where you are, and can't move around much; and you're judged more on split-second timing, uncompromising sharpness and visible detail, and you're likely to get a lot more duds.

With the Oshkosh pictures you posted, it seems to me that you got the timing pretty good, and the exposure mostly a good enough compromise, although it's very difficult to to get good belly detail as well as top and side, in light like you had.

The fact that the F86 was so bright saved the one where it was in formation with the P38 and F22, since its brightness allowed you to see detail all over. That one was interesting to me because of the way the P38 would have been flying quite fast, and the F22 quite slowly, to achieve their formation, but unless you're something of a flying nut you probably wouldn't be very interested in that.

The other thing I'd note is that the aeroplanes weren't doing anything very interesting except just flying past, so there was little in the way of a sense of drama. To capture this as well as getting everything else right is very hard, and often not possible unless you're right at the front, or standing on the control tower balcony - and you need much longer lenses since when they're turning or doing aeros they tend to be a lot further away.

So in summary, it's difficult to find much more to say than has already been said - you controlled the sharpness well; exposures were Ok, and there was probably enough latitude in the darker bits to make it worth a bit of PP to get some more detail out of them. If the F22 on the knife-edge had been the other way up it would have been astounding, not just good, but that's outside your control. The Mustang was superb, the best of the lot for me, even though if I was being picky I'd have preferred more prop movement. It was nevertheless beautifully lit and sharp, and interest from the gear on its way up too.

I guess I'd have liked to see some wing-tip vortices from high-alpha turns, some shock diamonds from the afterburners, and more formations, but they're all harder to do well.

Sorry for not saying anything.

The problem with pictures of this sort is that they are primarily designed to appeal to enthusiasts. Technically, the pictures were all excellent, but there isn't a lot more to say because (you may disagree!) there was no artistic agenda. Or if there was, I missed it.

Had you had different weather there might have been an opportunity to be more creative.

A chap called Steve Jolly shot Concorde on its last flight. The plane was almost out of sight, disappearing into a dark, murky, cloud, and this added considerable poignancy to the shot. It really did look like the end in more ways than one. But you can't do that with a bright blue sky!

Regards

G

Also, ignoring the quality of the photography for a moment, the subject matter was weaponry; things designed to kill, maim and destroy.

I wonder what the reaction would have been had someone posted half a dozen pictures of machine guns and grenades - all lovingly captured.

Just a thought.

Or protect, defend and preserve.

Not sure here is the best place to evaluate the two viewpoints.

This is a quandary I find myself in regarding aeroplanes. Most of the 'exciting' planes are weapons, they look 'dangerous', and that is most of their appeal. They look fast and sleek or ugly and 'hard'.

I compare them with racing cars, they too are designed to do one job well. They too look fast and dangerous but there is no real concern about glamorising them through photography.

Racing cars are a long way from a family saloon, but most people appreciate them for what they are, their shape, speed, colour. I may be rationalising but I see 'war planes' in much the same light, they are vehicles with exciting shapes, astonishing speed or raw power.

They still excite me.

kcmadr If you aren't happy with Chris's detailed critique of your Oshkosh
pics then im afraid you will never be happy.
Some very good shots though.
I hope now we have heard the end of it.

Give the man a chance. He hasn't replied to Chris's post yet, so it's a bit early to predict he'll never be happy.

G

No disrespect was intended and i apologise if there was. Just getting a little tired of the subject

Clarky, if you are tired of the subject, don't read the thread and don't respond to it, that way it will 'die' quicker.

however, I'm not sure what subject it you are tired of? aeroplanes, have had few column inches of chat on this thread.