Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3405 times:
This photo just didn't work out. Which was a big shame - because it was about 50% there. If only the back wasn't blurred - I would have achieved what I wanted.
It was very dark - but I figured it was worth a try, even with ISO1000 because the lights in the background would look interesting when blurred. Sadly, it just didn't work out. Even VR and my steadiest attempt at panning didn't help. Always a next time.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3392 times:
Quoting Fly747 (Reply 2): Nice photo, why didn't you shoot it @f4 though? Your shutter speed would have been 1/30, the blur effect would still be very close to this one.
That's why there is a next time. I wanted to try the slower shutter speed and see how much difference VR makes. This is the first lens I've ever used with VR - and it's only a little over a week old. So for me, that's a good way to find the limits.
I photographed the Qantas A380 at about 1/25sec with no difficulty before this.
ThomasWarloe From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3364 times:
I didn't have that good of a camera when I took this photo, so it was grainy, had bad lighting,and was somewhat blurry too.
This picture just seemed kind of neat to me, bu it was ruined by heat haze, and multiple other factors.
Thomas
[Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi/450D + Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L USM Lens + Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L USM Lens]
ThomasWarloe From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3363 times:
JeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 820 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3282 times:
Friggin' knucklehead got in the way. He got in the way of other shots, too:
Canon 5D Mark II, 5D + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS + EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II + Tamron AF28-75mm f/2.8
JeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 820 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3252 times:
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3231 times:
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 9): You've got to go with a camera with a full-frame sensor. You'll never look back after that! Smile
But then you'll complain that the planes are too far away. Even with a lens at 400mm - 737, A320 and E190 are too small to photograph.
Still, you never look back - the 35mm cameras work so much better.
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 7): Friggin' knucklehead got in the way. He got in the way of other shots, too:
Argh - I feel the pain. Try photographing at the public day of any big international motorshow (for added effect). If you have anything less than a huge bulky looking camera - people give you no room and they walk straight through the picture. I usually get plenty of respect and help from the car manufacturers themselves. I remember Bentley being one of the most helpful.
Stil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3227 times:
Hi.
I always carry my camera with me when going to the airport. Well... One day I left my camera home...
Then this day, a 777 arrived to my home airport. Its runway is only roughly 1940 meters long and the aircraft had to perform a visual approach with los visibility conditions. I had to buy a disposable camera on the airport's store to shoot this... picture?
Jalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 347 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3208 times:
Here's 2 that could have been better:
This one is mostly a historical shot, OO-SGA was Sabena's 1st 747 and spent its entire career with the company. Very sad to see it being broken up and even more sad that shooting through a fence can have its downsides:
JeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 820 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3181 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 10):
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 9):
You've got to go with a camera with a full-frame sensor. You'll never look back after that!
But then you'll complain that the planes are too far away. Even with a lens at 400mm - 737, A320 and E190 are too small to photograph.
Not me! I've been happy with my 5D at 200mm being able to crop shots. For example:
But I've been ecstatic with the sensitivity/clarity of the sensor and the 21 megapixel count on my 5D Mark II and can't wait to go spotting with it.
When in doubt though, pop on a 2x extender and pray that it will be sharp enough:
All joking aside, I hear what you're saying but I do like the flexibility of the full frame sensors and am more than willing to compromise with distance for that flexibility.
Quoting Cpd (Reply 10): Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 7):
Friggin' knucklehead got in the way. He got in the way of other shots, too:
Argh - I feel the pain. Try photographing at the public day of any big international motorshow (for added effect). If you have anything less than a huge bulky looking camera - people give you no room and they walk straight through the picture. I usually get plenty of respect and help from the car manufacturers themselves. I remember Bentley being one of the most helpful.
Ha, thanks! The knucklehead in the photo from my previous post was a volunteer at the air show and the public was stuck behind a roped off area so we had no choice but to endure his cluelessness whenever he wanted to walk in areas that we couldn't get to. He could get a shot while obstructing our shots. Funny you should mention shooting at a motorshow--knucklehead guy event was a combo airshow/autoshow called Dream Machines. Only in America...
To keep this on topic, I hate fences and dust on my sensor!
Canon 5D Mark II, 5D + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS + EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II + Tamron AF28-75mm f/2.8
In my experience, next time you'll get half of the airplane blurry as well if you shoot again 1/8 sec unless you manage to get a perfect side-on shot; I do not think you could have done better than you did with those settings
Quoting Fly747 (Reply 2): Your shutter speed would have been 1/30, the blur effect would still be very close to this one.
Allow me to disagree, 1/8 is in no way close to 1/30
Quoting Stil (Reply 11): a 777 arrived to my home airport
What the hell were those guys doing there???
Cheers,
j
"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
Stil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3101 times:
Quoting Javibi (Reply 15): What the hell were those guys doing there???
Once upon a time... When the Deportivo de la Coruña played Champions League... This beauty brought us the Juventus team. As a fact, I don't like football at all, but if the impressive 777 is the result of our local team playing champions league... Let there be football, then.
Mclaudio From Portugal, joined Jan 2005, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3097 times:
Hi.
I guess we all have stories to tell about photos that went wrong. The last one that happened to me was last year in Palma de Mallorca (PMI/LEPA).
I was driving to the airport after a great afternoon at the beach, to catch a Transaero that was due to arrive, but when I checked the biz jets apron I almost went mad when I spotted the Kingfisher 727.
I tried all possible angles, near the fence, away from the fence and had no luck.
Finnaly, I decided to climb to the roof of my car (I hope the guys from the rental company don't visit airliners.net ), and still the best I was able to do was this
No need to say that it was the only time I saw this beauty and to make it worst, with luck I would get a clean ramp shot with great light. Oh well...didn't get this one clean nor the Transaero.
Next time I return to PMI I think I'll rent a truck
[Edited 2009-06-08 06:18:57]
Proudly one of the 6 million Portuguese that support SL Benfica!! Champions 2009-2010!
UltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1993 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2979 times:
Quoting Javibi (Reply 15): In my experience, next time you'll get half of the airplane blurry as well if you shoot again 1/8 sec unless you manage to get a perfect side-on shot; I do not think you could have done better than you did with those settings Smile
The side on shot was what I'd aimed for - it didn't work out at all. It is very difficult to acheive this kind of photo consistently with such a slow shutter speed. I don't know how you manage it all the time.
The image above had other problems too - dust spots that just won't go. I'll have Nikon clean the sensor. It won't cost me anything. I don't know how the dust spots got on the sensor, I'm very careful about that. Fortunately also - they'll do it while I wait.
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2950 times:
Quoting Javibi (Reply 15): Allow me to disagree, 1/8 is in no way close to 1/30 Smile
Master of panning Himself I agree, it's not the same, I just can't imagine shooting that slow.
1/60th was the slowest shutter speed I have used to successfully upload here.
I was at about 120 meters far from the runway's side (at Vigo's airport [LEVX]). That 737 took off and, just when I half pressed the shutter for focusing, only 2-3 seconds after the 737 was in the air, the airplane did a very quick and unexpected left turn with a high bank angle towards the place I was spotting. With the focus and zoom frozen I had only two options: to shoot, or not to shoot...
UltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1993 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2737 times:
Oh yeah, and this one, too:
Midwest Airlines- 1984-2010
25 Nwc100: I have been trying to get this photo for so long, I have about 100 shots of the same thing, Its turned in to my kind of nemesis, weather not right, pl
26 KFlyer: It is the first time I ever heard of a Kingfisher 727 - a freighter ? @skyhawkmatthew your shot is superb !
28 2H4: Rainy air show. I can't seem to figure out how to manage flat light. Anything against the overcast sky looks backlit, and anything against foliage/bui
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 498 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
Always a next time.
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, 
I wanted to try the slower shutter speed and see how much difference VR makes. This is the first lens I've ever used with VR - and it's only a little over a week old. 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 265 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 347 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1339 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Jan 2005, 170 posts, 
), and still the best I was able to do was this
and to make it worst, with luck I would get a clean ramp shot with great light. Oh well...didn't get this one clean nor the Transaero.
Printer friendly format 
