Just as examples, here are a couple taken through the perspex. It is possible to get the reflections down to a very low level, but the aircraft has to be pointing in the right direction for them not to be annoying in the direction you want to shoot.

This is what I meant by it being easier in only some ways if you're not doing the flying too. If you are, there's no communication difficulty, since you can put the aeroplane where you want without having to describe it to the pilot.

Well I always do, for mine, as I think Dirk does too. You do have to be careful, and have a good look round first. But it's not that difficult, once you're used to it.

Reading Dan's post again, if he's not sure what he'll be in, I'd guess that he's not going to be flying, so that makes it easier in some ways.

If you can get a window open, and point the camera through the opening, you'll eliminate the canopy reflections, which can be very annoying, and are much more obvious on the photograph than they are to the eye at the time. Pointing through an open window brings its own difficulties though, since you're much more limited in where you can point the camera, and orienting the aircraft becomes that much more important to get the shot.

If you can't get the window open, make sure the perspex is very clean. Pilots often clean the front windscreen but are much lazier about the side ones, especially at the back.

I wouldn't worry too much about minimum shutter speed. The ground won't be going past all that fast. Don't in any circumstances be tempted to brace the camera against the window, though, else the vibrations will transmit straight through into camera shake.

I'll post anything else I think of when I get a chance.

Are you doing the flying as well as the photographing?

I think this is a very valid point.

There's a big difference between someone posting a link to a picture, genuinely seeking critique, and someone posting a link to a website containing hundreds of pictures, saying, "what do you think of this".

I think the latter is primarily advertising, but mixed in with a desire for what is effectively free consultancy.

Make no mistake: a wedding photographer's web site has one purpose only.

Agreed.

However, the fade out takes a second; then there's another second of blank, then the next pic loads. On average, it's three seconds from click to show.

It annoys me. But for the ten millionth time, I'm not in your potential customer base. Please them, not me.

I wasn't looking at the slide show - I was clicking on the thumnails.

Still too slow for me... but then I have a short attention sp

Well the ones that stood out to me as bad, had distracting backgrounds, as I recall. There was a very prominent Y-shaped tree behind the girl in one, and one had the bloke snogging the bride with a tree-trunk growing out of his head.

There were also quite a few blown highlights in the dresses. Tricky to get right, but important I guess.

I did also need several Pro-Plus tablets to stay awake while the photos faded in and out, but we've been there many times before, so I won't say more about that.

Overall, I was somehow left with the impression of general cheesiness, but that's just me - if your clients like it, my opinion is of no consequence, as I've said before.

Great achievement though, Enrique Iglesias as a client.

For heavens sake, people, can't we just lay off the "I hate flash and music" now?

I hate the flash and music too, but Pete loves them both, and for all I know or care, so do his customers.

I thought there were some good shots, and some awful ones, but I really don't think Pete cares about our views of his photography any more, if he ever did.

In fact, I'd hazard a guess that his reasons for posting here now have a lot more in common with Ben Kanarek's, from whom Pete may have learned a little about self-publicity.

And good luck to him.

Please no.

That and the apostrophe.