Actually you're quite right, apologies.

It's not that the pictures have to be smaller, it's if they aren't wide enough, you get the sidebar as well which distracts horribly.

But it's still vile IMO

Following on from the colours thread, I note that we now have to contend with a big Pentax User Group advert that takes up a substantial proportion of the available screen width.

I can just about live with the advert at the top, since I can easily scroll past it if necessary.

But the side bar is dreadful; it's distracting, and it means that pictures posted now have to be even smaller to get them on to the screen without scrolling.

I understand that running a forum is not without cost - I run one myself. But I'd rather pay to belong to the forum than have to live with that.

Good, but not as good

Quit while you're ahead

PS If you're going to do a lot of these, give 'em a stop less exposure; then you'll stand a better chance of sorting out the highlight on the top of their heads.

Personally I'd be inclined to leave it. The photograph speaks for itself as the excellent capture it is, and the way they're both looking towards you is the icing on the cake.

If you haven't applied any sharpening then the birds might benefit from an extremely subtle touch (I had a little play, and USM 55%, radius 1 pixel, threshold 1 seems quite pleasing at the resolution you've posted here).

But otherwise I wouldn't mess with it.

As for luck, the probability of getting it this good entirely by accident is extremely small. Don't put yourself down

A manual focus one? Damn good, if so. Pretty good, even if not!! You even got them to look at the camera

Edit: in fact, I'd say damn good either way. Doing this even with AF with them this close and moving diagonally towards you would not be easy - and they're small, too, so AF brings its own problems.

Edit 2: Strewth, and the lens was almost wide open too.

I'm seriously impressed with this.

It's no more permanent than the extension tubes. You attach the reversing ring to the K-mount, and screw the front end of the lens on to the ring.

Or the other type, you attach the first lens to the K-mount, screw the ring on to its front, and attach the second lens, reversed, by screwing its front to the ring.

It all comes apart just as easily as the tubes.

Some - virtually none since going digital, though I have spent a lot of time at airfields over the years. Amongst my negatives I have a lot of dross and a little nice stuff, all film and manual focus. I'll be getting a scanner at some point, so I'll start to dig some of it out. I'm anticipating reliving all the disappointments I had when the films came back!!

You've seen, I think, the best of what I've done since going digital:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP3019-1.jpg

and

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP3017-1sm.jpg

Also things like this I've done from the air:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Misc/IMGP5057-1smsh.jpg

.. and similar.

I really don't know. I think you made a pretty good job, given the harsh light. The Mustang was excellent, with all the detail visible underneath as well as on top; all the others (not including the static and taxying ones which I'm not so bothered about) had the bright tops and dark bellies that are the curse of sunny air displays.

What I always used to do with film was overexpose by a couple of stops to bring out the dark bits. From what I see of digital it seems that that risks burning out the highlights which are then unrecoverable. So I'm not sure the rules are quite the same, going from film to digital, but I don't have enough experience of the latter really to have a strong view yet.

Please do, but my impression there is that you don't get anything much more helpful than "nice shot" when you ask for critique.

1/500 instead of 1/1500 would have showed off the prop better, but otherwise superb.

They sure give these things a polish, don't they.

Presumably he did some low passes with the gear up, would be good if you have one like this but clean?

All aeroplane owners like getting pictures of their aeroplanes, especially in flight. They can almost never take them, since they're usually flying them, and the static ones are never so exciting, even if the light is nice, as in the case of the Cub.

But as Michael of course knows very well, all those aeroplanes are now scattered to the four winds, since the legendary annual Oshkosh rally attracts visiting aircraft from all over North America**, and further afield. The rest of the time, it's just another regional US airfield, not without charm for all that.

If you really wanted to send a copy of the picture, you could probably track them down via the registration, a search for which is at:

http://www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search.html

But possibly a bit more effort than is worthwhile at this stage.
________________________________________
** By the way Michael, did you fly in yourself?

Ok, I've got that now, and successfully binned the bits at the top and the images from the side bar.

I take it there's no way of getting rid of the text in the side bar too?