Papa Bear and Baby Bear...for C&C please...

[IzzieK]

Although these two are not participants in our event...it caught my eyes as they are positioned very close to one another (in a way) sitting down in that airport away from our airplanes. Our hotel is that tall building in the distance about two blocks away...I think...

The baby airplane is a Piper, a single engine, fixed wing while the bigger one is either a Hawker 400 or a Beechjet 400, I am not really sure...a fixed wing multiple engine.



Witches hats are everywhere you will find where parking is restricted and divided the areas where an airplane can park on this side of the concreted runway and no parking in grass...maybe I should had removed or clone out those two golf cart but one of them was my transport. I know...I should had moved a little bit so they do not show or removed the fence line or something else, but I think they will be negligible for a snap shot like this...

Anyway, if you can think of anything else to improve this shot to change it from snapshot to pop shot or something, please do tell me and be harsh about your critique so I can improve it better next time...this is my last static airplane shot, I think...I am not sure...

Thanks for looking and commenting...anything...will appreciate it greatly.

[Shadowman]

Nice, now if you can get them in flight in a similar formation...

[Geoff F]

Composition looks fine to me, Izzie.

Possibly a fraction on the dark side? Can you add just a little more highlight brightness without over exposure problems? I suspect that would make the sky even more dramatic.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Izzie, a couple of nice looking planes. I would agree with Geoff in that perhaps a bit brighter and lift of the shadows. Also wondering if you need all that concrete in the foreground?

Here's a quick play I had and also put a spell on those hats



Yesterday I had a chance to test my newly acquired D800 along with the 80-400mm with a helicopter taking off at close range. I suspect the pilot noticed me as he hovered off the ground for much longer than normal.

As I was preparing I luckily remembered your comment from the other day of speed for props and changed to shutter priority just in time

Grahame

[Dave Humphries]

FlightAware, via Google, says N674DJ is a Beechcraft BeechJet BE40 and N908A is the ubiquitous Piper PA-28 Cherokee.

Anyway, if you can think of anything else to improve this shot to change it from snapshot to pop shot or something, please do tell me and be harsh about your critique so I can improve it better next time...this is my last static airplane shot, I think...I am not sure...

Thanks for looking and commenting...anything...will appreciate it greatly.

Hmmm, OK - you asked for it Izzie

Being serious for a moment, I don't know if you had full 'airside' access, without that, you are limited to snap shots and this could be the best anyone could achieve in terms of a non-distracting background.

However, if you had full access - in other words, you could approach the planes close enough to touch, then your opportunities for inventive compositions, especially if you also have an Ultra Wide Angle lens, increase dramatically.
Although even a kit lens, used at 18mm, shot up close would help a lot.

...maybe I should had removed or clone out those two golf cart but one of them was my transport. I know...I should had moved a little bit so they do not show or removed the fence line or something else, but I think they will be negligible for a snap shot like this...

Yeah that would help

Before the golf carts, I'd be cloning out those cones - the bright colours attract a viewer's eyes away from the subject.

I'd suggest you need to decide what the subject is, then think about how you can isolate the subject from extraneous clutter in foreground and especially the background by any and all means possible; your choice of angle of shot, the focal length used, control of Depth of Field (or PP blur), relative illumination (not applicable here), etc.

So, if the subject(s) are the planes;

why are we looking at their 'backsides'?
could you have shot them from a different angle and got a better viewpoint without making the background worse than the one we see?
why do we need to see the cones?
have you cropped the image to suit the subject?
would a vignette help?
can the distant background be blurred?

Harsh enough for you?

I like Grahame's version (sans cones and brighter), which appeared while I was typing this.

Later EDIT:
One thing my tirade above ignores is that you said you were "testing the 80-400mm", which is certainly not a lens suited to what I'm suggesting doing
Not to mention that if it is an active area, with helicopters taking off, they're not going to be keen to have folks wandering about taking pictures

Cheers, Dave

[IzzieK]

@ John (Shadowman) no chance of taking a shot of a flight here anymore as this was taken in Kentucky. I am now in Missouri for sometime...

@Geoff...I tried to edit the sky via ACR to darken it and I think it looks OK but when I put it in Nik, there was so many selection I lose track of the sky...

Thank you both for looking and commenting...'appreciate it very much...

[IzzieK]

Hi Izzie, a couple of nice looking planes. I would agree with Geoff in that perhaps a bit brighter and lift of the shadows. Also wondering if you need all that concrete in the foreground?

Thought about that one too but failed to do so before I downsized it for uploading...sorry...you are right!!!

Here's a quick play I had and also put a spell on those hats

Thank for doing your magic...I appreciate it...I was battling whether to remove them or not because I was thinking of just showing the environment of how the airport do things around there...

Yesterday I had a chance to test my newly acquired D800 along with the 80-400mm with a helicopter taking off at close range. I suspect the pilot noticed me as he hovered off the ground for much longer than normal.

As I was preparing I luckily remembered your comment from the other day of speed for props and changed to shutter priority just in time

Grahame

Good for you...I am glad you took note of that. When doing air shots, I usually use Shutter Priority. Were you able to get the rotor just blurred or was it too blurred? You must post it here so we can see.

Thank you for your comments and the edit I should have done but didn't... 'Always appreciate them coming from you...

[Mike Buckley]

Izzie,

It might be helpful for you to review the histograms of your version and Grahame's version so you associate the histogram with the appearance of the corresponding image. Once you master the information displayed in the histogram, it can be a helpful guide that can make you at least question the exposure of a scene. That's especially true when reviewing the image doesn't cause you to question it.

[IzzieK]

FlightAware, via Google, says N674DJ is a Beechcraft BeechJet BE40 and N908A is the ubiquitous Piper PA-28 Cherokee.

Yup! I have a permanent bookmark on the FAA N Numbers on airplanes because of my little part in Bill's organization.

Hmmm, OK - you asked for it Izzie

Being serious for a moment, I don't know if you had full 'airside' access, without that, you are limited to snap shots and this could be the best anyone could achieve in terms of a non-distracting background.

However, if you had full access - in other words, you could approach the planes close enough to touch, then your opportunities for inventive compositions, especially if you also have an Ultra Wide Angle lens, increase dramatically.
Although even a kit lens, used at 18mm, shot up close would help a lot.

Yes...being the official photographer, I have the opportunity to go closer enough to touch and even be invited IN the plane itself if I asked. I didn't. I have no ultra wide angle lens at that time because I did not expect to be asked to be the main photographer. I only went there that morning to attend the general board meeting and votation for the replacements for the board members whose time limit expired this year. I did not expect to do any photography at all...

Yeah that would help

But I didn't edit anything out because I thought I can get away with it...

[QUOTE] Before the golf carts, I'd be cloning out those cones - the bright colours attract a viewer's eyes away from the subject.

I'd suggest you need to decide what the subject is, then think about how you can isolate the subject from extraneous clutter in foreground and especially the background by any and all means possible; your choice of angle of shot, the focal length used, control of Depth of Field (or PP blur), relative illumination (not applicable here), etc.

So, if the subject(s) are the planes;

why are we looking at their 'backsides'?
could you have shot them from a different angle and got a better viewpoint without making the background worse than the one we see?
why do we need to see the cones? [QUOTE]

a) because that was what attracted me when I saw it...if I had moved bit to the left, then the angle of the two will not be the same as what you see. It will be just a small plane and bigger plane. I walked and looked. This is the best angle I have seen...I couldn't go to the other side because I didn't have much room for the lens that I have...I started on that grass you know...where my transport is..

have you cropped the image to suit the subject?

This is a full shot that is why even the extra concrete which Grahame mentioned was included.

would a vignette help?

I tried a vignette but I didn't really like it...

can the distant background be blurred?

Yes, I want to also show how near we are to our hotel...the whole environment shot thing. If I try to blur the background then I would lose that thought of what I saw including Papa Bear and Baby Bear with the whole picture...

Harsh enough for you?

Love it...you can at least be more brutal...

I like Grahame's version (sans cones and brighter), which appeared while I was typing this.

Me too, but then I learned so much from him so even if the shot now became too clean, I cannot complain...

Later EDIT:
One thing my tirade above ignores is that you said you were "testing the 80-400mm", which is certainly not a lens suited to what I'm suggesting doing

Errr....wrong person...that was Grahame...certainly not moi...if you looked at my EXIF, I used a 70-300mm lens and I never go full length of any of my lenses lately (or try not to...)

Not to mention that if it is an active area, with helicopters taking off, they're not going to be keen to have folks wandering about taking pictures
Cheers, Dave

Nope, no choppers that day...must have stayed in some hangar or something there and did not make any show at all. The weather was both bad and good at the same time. We are lucky to have the shoot after a torrential downpour hence I needed the gasoline truck to go up and took shots of the whole 35 Swifts that were there...Then I decided to ask someone to borrow a firetruck with long ladder for that particular shoot. The fire station is just a block away. I got that one with the pilots beside their airplanes looking up. So I had a great day that day. I could have asked for a chopper but none was on show. Everyone seems to be hiding their aircraft in hangar with the door shut. We are practically alone with our event there. It was only a smallist airport which we like even though there wasn't any control tower.

Thank you for your comments and feedback and tips. I appreciate it very much...

[IzzieK]

Thank you for your comment, Mike...I appreciate your passing by and your feedback.

Izzie,

It might be helpful for you to review the histograms of your version and Grahame's version so you associate the histogram with the appearance of the corresponding image. Once you master the information displayed in the histogram, it can be a helpful guide that can make you at least question the exposure of a scene. That's especially true when reviewing the image doesn't cause you to question it.

[Dave Humphries]

Errr....wrong person...that was Grahame...certainly not moi...if you looked at my EXIF, I used a 70-300mm lens and I never go full length of any of my lenses lately (or try not to...)

Ah, yes, I see, I must have scrolled to the (wrong) picture and assumed it was your post.

That's me, I always suspect I'm wrong, even when I wasn't (originally), but I am now (if you see what I mean), well no, hang on, I am correcting it now, so I'm not wrong now, but was somewhere in the middle
Confused, I sure am

... and another thing, I just realised that what I called cones (road cones in UK parlance) you referred to as "witches hats" - something I didn't connect until now due to UK witches wearing black hats - I didn't realise that US witches wore orange ones LOL

[deetheturk]

Nice capture Izzie, although I prefer Bill's plane

[IzzieK]

Nice capture Izzie, although I prefer Bill's plane

Watch it! Bill might want to adopt you...

[deetheturk]

And I might let him!!!