A Couple Of Motive Questions — Aviation Photography Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

A Couple Of Motive Questions

Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 36
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

I've got two aircraft from my Fairford pictures that I'm pleased with, but I was wondering whether it's worth uploading them here, as I have a couple of compositional questions.

First is an Irish PC-9 here.

- Bouncy castle bother anybody?

Second is the well-photographed SU-22, here.

- Sign
- Burger stand.

The latter there's a few of, so I'm not too worried, but I thought the angle was interesting.

Cheers

James

more like polishmig29s.net am I rite

10 replies: All unread, jump to last

Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Lovely photos mate! I can see the second being shot down for motiv but the first i think might be ok.

Chris

5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII

Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

The bouncy castle in the PC-7 shot is pretty far away and I can't imagine it being a problem. As for the Su-22, I had a shot of it rejected for "distracting objects in foreground" (comment from screener) but in your case the sign is further away and not really in the foreground. There is also the possibility of a badpersonal on account of the chap in the blue shirt, given that his face is visible, but I would say it's borderline.

The real problem as I see it is the dead space under the nose probe. But the probe is part of the aircraft after all, so you can't be blamed for including it in the shot. Subject to what any screeners might say, I think you're within your rights in uploading.

Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life

Granite From UK - Scotland, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 5542 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Hi James

Taking off my Screening Beanie, I don't have a problem with the bouncy castle but I do with the burger stand.

have you got one taken from the other side?

Regards

Gary

Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Hi Gary,

Sadly not, I think I was shooting where the light was, although the odds are I could have provided enough glow on the opposite side with my sunburnt tomato complexion.

I'll keep that one for myself I think.

Cheers

James

more like polishmig29s.net am I rite

JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

James i have a word to tell you about both pics.
AWESOME .
Good luck with them my friend and keep them coming
Cheers
Alan

On a wing and a prayer

Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

Quoting Sulman (Thread starter):
Sign
- Burger stand

Not to mention the chap with the Golf cart and the other chap walking into your frame Big grin

Nice shots all the same James, Like the PC-9. What lens are you using?

Take care

Fergul Big grin

Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!

Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

You know Fergul, I never noticed that...

Lens is the 18-55 kit. I'm not quite sure why that PC-9 came out as sharp as it did, generally results with that lens are a little on the soft side, especially toward the edges, although you can't go wrong for 100 quid.

I'm keen to try a 17-40 to see the difference.

James

more like polishmig29s.net am I rite

JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1467 times:

Quoting Sulman (Reply 7):
I'm keen to try a 17-40 to see the difference.

James its a different kettle of fish the 17-40 simply outstanding .
I shot some ferries the other day with a 17-40 and you can sure notice the difference from the stock 18-55

On a wing and a prayer

Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 8):
James its a different kettle of fish the 17-40 simply outstanding .

I'd agree with that James, and so is the Sigma 24-70 DG EX f2.8. Mick Bajcar has both lenses and he can't tell the difference between the two, Canon and Sigma, I have the Sigma and it is dam sharp.

Take care

Fergul Big grin

Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!

Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Being practical, I haven't reached a point yet where I'm so unhappy with the 18-55 that I want to replace it, but I'd definitely look into it if I had the cash to spare. After all, the quality I can get with it is still miles ahead of anything I had before.

The statics at fairford were a real eye-opener for me. I really enjoyed taking those pictures, wish I'd have had more time (and sunblock Cool

) to do some more. I remember standing beneath the wing of the DHL 757 and thinking "Where else could I get this close to an airliner?" It was great fun.

James

more like polishmig29s.net am I rite

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: