Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nose-art  
User currently offlineAlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 60 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3747 times:

Like many of us I suppose, I've taken quite a number of close-ups of USAF nose-art over the years, but if I was to try to up-load them they would be rejected because the whole of the nose is not shown. They are close-up obviously in order to show the maximum detail possible of the art. This also applys to the artwork often painted on the inside of the doors on A-10's which cover the entry steps. Is there anyway I wonder that the whole nose rule could be relaxed in the circumstances described so that examples of this art-work could be shared between us?

A slightly different example I have is of some quite outstanding art-work applied to the tail of a Stearman that I saw at Oshkosh last year. I took a close-up which was rejected because the whole tail was not shown, but if I'd taken the whole tail the detail of the art would not have been fully visible therefore destroying the reason for taking the shot in the first place.

I see that this subject has been raised before some time ago, but think it's worth mentioning again as things may have changed?

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3745 times:

I'm of the opinion that such nose art is a step too far from aviation. Unfortunately A.net isn't an art gallery and if the photo illustrates just a piece of artwork it's not aviation related.

That's just my personal opinion though.

Karl


User currently offlineAlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3732 times:

I've got to say that I completely disagree with you on that Karl. The sort of art that I'm mainly referring to has been integral with military aviation at various times in the recent past, most noticeably with the USAF.

Alex


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 3723 times:

While I see your point, is it not art that - unless you know it's painted on an aircraft - could be anywhere?

My point is that, if the image doesn't show part of an aircraft (to the point where it's not immediately obvious the photo features an aircraft) it's leaning more towards abstract art than aviation.

What's wrong with including the nose or other integral part of the plane? You wouldn't just shoot a wheel then claim the photo features aviation?

Look at my example below. I could have just concentrated entirely on the new decal (similar to artwork no?) but there's no saying it's definitively an aircraft had I done that. By including the forward fuselage I'm meeting site criteria AND adequately displaying the motif.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karl Nixon



Again, this is just my opinion, so isn't right or wrong - and it doesn't reflect the sentiments of the site.

Karl


User currently offlinegunship01 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

ALCON,

21 years of USAF flying talking here and if Airliners.net allows military aircraft in the database, then I am of the opinion that nose art by itself should also be allowed. It is such an integral part of military history and is a great testament to the talents of the artists who apply them to the aircraft.

Brits had some great Gulf War I nose art on the Tornados and Lightenings and there was a crew chief in an USAF F-16 unit who did some amazing work. Even more incredulous was the fact that he was self taught with no formal artistic trainig.

It might not happen here on A.net, but the idea certainly has merit and gets my vote.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Perhaps it could happen here? We don't know as yet as no-one 'official' has yet responded.

The trouble is it opens the door for all kinds of close-ups of motifs - perhaps even things like flags and registrations. If you allow military nose art, you also have to allow a whole bunch of other stuff to stop the moaning.

Karl


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2830 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3556 times:

Quoting AlexC (Thread starter):
but if I was to try to up-load them they would be rejected because the whole of the nose is not shown.

Maybe you could upload an example for further comment? Personally, I'm with Karl on this one. If the frame is filled purely with the artwork with no other resemblance of an aircraft, then it could be art from the side of a truck, bus, ship etc for all we know. I'm not suggesting yours are, but thinking about future uploads. Given this site is about aviation and aircraft, civil or military, it would have to include some part of the aircraft too in my opinion whether that be the nose, tail, canopy, just something to suggest it's an aircraft photo rather than just a piece of artwork. Otherwise, as Karl mentions, that would also open the gates for logos on civil aircraft as well like in Karls example above. I've no problem in the actual art work, I actually find them interesting, but they need to be presented in such a way that they conform to the upload criteria.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.

Here are a couple of mine that made the cut.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivion Mulcahy


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivion Mulcahy




Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3511 times:

I'm not saying this is the case with the original poster, but there must be people out there who are interested in such artwork but not necessarily the aircraft upon which it is painted. The artwork and the aircraft are two separate things, and an enthusiasm for one doesn't automatically lead to an enthusiasm for another.

Bear in mind that aviation is the primary interest here. Military nose art is just a by-product of that. Other by-products include contrails - but we wouldn't want thousands of photographs of those (unless the plane's on the end of it).

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9408 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3472 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Overall, I'm pretty ambivalent about this one. Nose art is pretty cool, and I think in a lot of cases, it's pretty obvious that it's from an airplane. I've taken a couple close-up photos of nose art that would be cool to upload (though I don't remember if they're good enough quality anyway). I don't feel strongly one way or the other myself, but if others wanted to upload such shots, I'd support that.

I'm not too worried about the slippery slope-type thing; the screeners here seem to do a pretty good job of determining what qualifies and what doesn't, even if it sometimes seems arbitrary to the rest of us.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 8):
The artwork and the aircraft are two separate things, and an enthusiasm for one doesn't automatically lead to an enthusiasm for another.

True, but one could say the same for airline liveries or whatever. Take my following shot:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vik S



Did I upload it cause I'm interested in the shape of the tail? No, not even close - I shot it and uploaded it because I liked the colors and artwork. To be honest, the overall aesthetic of the framing doesn't particularly appeal to me, but I thought the paint scheme was worth it.

Of course, it's painted on the tail, and it would be a bit difficult shooting just the artwork without the tail.... 

With that said:

Quoting viv (Reply 7):
In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.

I'd agree with that.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

I think the OP meant close-ups shots of the artwork exclusively. Take the following image for instance.....

http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/cart...ons/pages/bugs-bunny-forever.shtml

I took it this morning at MAN. It was just behind the cockpit on the new 'All-Blacks' ANZ 777-300.

Okay, so I didn't really; but who can prove that it wasn't on a plane? Whether it was or not is actually immaterial because the image doesn't reflect any part of aviation.

Karl


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9408 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
I think the OP meant close-ups shots of the artwork exclusively. Take the following image for instance.....

I understand that. My point was that my intention in taking the tail shot wasn't to show an F-18 tail. It was specifically to show the colors/artwork, and I can completely understand people wanting to shoot and upload closeups of nose artwork as well.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
Okay, so I didn't really; but who can prove that it wasn't on a plane? Whether it was or not is actually immaterial because the image doesn't reflect any part of aviation.

That's why I agreed with Viv's point:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):

Quoting viv (Reply 7):
In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.

I'd agree with that.

It should somehow be aviation related. If I remember correctly (which I may not - I'm not all that familiar with military aircraft), a lot of the artwork has something in it (words or whatever) relating it to the aircraft's particular fighter wing or what-have-you.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

Vik,

Relax; I knew what you meant.  

I was just trying to illustrate my point further.

I suppose you can say the same about any aircraft - that we all go after a photo mainly for what's painted on the tail/fuselage/winglet/whatever. We know how everyone moans when something turns up all white!

Karl


User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 506 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

It's not nose art, but I did get this example of fuselage art accepted, so it my be possible to get nose art accepted but not sure how tight you could crop.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark McGrath



User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9408 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 12):
Relax; I knew what you meant.

I was just trying to illustrate my point further.

No worries - I was just doing the same thing. Sorry if I came off as offended or whatever.  
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 12):
I suppose you can say the same about any aircraft - that we all go after a photo mainly for what's painted on the tail/fuselage/winglet/whatever. We know how everyone moans when something turns up all white!

True to a certain extent. Personally, although I do like certain colorschemes and whatnot, I'm pretty happy to shoot aircraft regardless. It's more gratifying for me to shoot airlines that I haven't shot before, but I'm not really sure that it has to do with the scheme....although that's obviously what differentiates them externally.

It's a weird thing that I don't consciously think about all that much. Like at the Lemoore Air Show (where I shot that F-18), it was my first airshow experience as a "real" amateur photographer, and I was excited at the opportunity for some different types of photos and different aircraft, but I can't say I was really thinking about the colorschemes or the military nose art or anything - at least, not before I got there.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineAlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

I was mainly referring to the art-work on USAF aircraft (harking back to WW II) that was very prevelent for a few years before the powers-that-by put a stop to it. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that all my close-ups are of aircraft! The art-work on the inside of A-10 doors (they'd have to be open of course!) would be all but invisible if the shot was of the whole nose.

User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 506 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Alex,

can you post some examples or links to your photos? A better judgement would then be able to be made.


User currently offlineAlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

I could post some examples, but don't really see that that should be necessary. I'm pretty sure that we all know what I'm getting at.

User currently offlinejaktrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3360 times:

You have asked a question about the potential rejection of artwork shots then decline to post any here so someone can give you an final verdict.

You're right - you don't have to post then here; but if you want your question answering definitively........

Not being of 'military' persuasion I've not got much of an idea exactly what you are on about. I'll bet I'm not the only one either.

Karl


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2830 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3357 times:

Quoting AlexC (Reply 17):
I could post some examples, but don't really see that that should be necessary. I'm pretty sure that we all know what I'm getting at.

It's difficult to form a full opinion until you have something to form that opinion on.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 3355 times:

I don't know if this is exactly what Alex has in mind, but this is an example of the art work inside the door of an A-10:



I don't have a "wide" photo of an A-10 with the door open handy, but the art work is inside of the door below the triangular ejection warning decal. You wouldn't see much detail of the art work on a shot composed like this:

http://www.moose135photography.com/Airplanes/Air-Shows/McGuire-AFB-Open-House-2008/JM20080601A-10A80-0275002/307614764_q4oPo-XL-2.jpg



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2830 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 3351 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 20):
I don't know if this is exactly what Alex has in mind, but this is an example of the art work inside the door of an A-10

Thanks for posting those, it puts it in to perspective now. Personally, while it's interesting to see the artwork inside the door, if that is what Alex is refering to, I can't see that it has a place here. That artwork could be anywhere, there's nothing really to suggest it's inside an aircraft. It could almost be the inside of someones locker. While it's interesting to see, I don't think those shots are for the Airliners.net photo database.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineAlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

My thanks to 'Moose' for posting that shot, it's pretty much exactly what I'm referring to. I can't really get my head around this 'it could be anywhere' arguement. For one thing as I will have taken the shot I'll be able to guarantee that it is on an aircraft, and will include all the details as is normal. I would hope that would be good enough for eveybody?

User currently offlineJez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 68 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Well, I'd be pleased to see more nose art in the DB. In my opinion, they are preferable to the cabin shots.

User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2830 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

Quoting AlexC (Reply 22):
I can't really get my head around this 'it could be anywhere' arguement

Simply, it's a piece of art painted inside of an aircraft door. That artwork could be painted anywhere and you'd never know it was inside an aircraft. Your thread title is a little misleading in that respect. Nose-art for me is something painted on the nose of the aircraft for external display. These art works are on the inside of doors so not really nose-art. If it was on the nose of the aircraft and showed the aircraft nose and the art, I don't see it being a problem. However, as this is an aircraft database with an ever increasing creative side, there simply isn't enough aircraft shown in the example above.

Looking at the civilian side of things, should something like the following be accepted?



Merry Christmas   

Darren

[Edited 2011-12-25 05:44:53]


Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
25 JakTrax : This thread appears to be going round in nothing short of a monotonous circle now. How about I take a picture of my last in-flight meal and upload it
26 Jez : No. Looks like an advert to me. A photograph of a photograph too. Don't get hung up on the A-10 door, which may look like a locker door to some, but
27 dazbo5 : That is exactly the point. The majority of viewers won't have a clue where it is from and therefore it could be from anywhere. The example I posted a
28 AlexC : I have to say that I've got to agree with Karl now, this thread is going nowhere. It seems to be coming down to military enthusiasts v civil enthusias
29 dlowwa : I don't see how that would have any influence on this. I have interest in both, and probably more the military side of things, yet I don't think the
30 AlexC : Not what I was hoping to hear but fair enough, my collection will have to remain unseen in their little yellow boxes. Incidently I see that a shot of
31 Jez : Well I'd like to see them Alex. Thought about setting up your own site or even just getting a Flickr account for aviation images unsuitable for a.net?
32 JakTrax : Yes, and it's a policy I personally don't agree with - although I have to admit that it's clear from the outset that it's an aircraft toilet. Karl
33 AlexC : As the chief objection to my nose-art shots being acceptable appears to be 'how do I know that's on an aircraft?', (which IMHO is irrational as is 'it
34 dazbo5 : I think there is a difference between a piece or art and what can be considered an aircraft cabin / interior. I can see your point, but I don't think
35 AlexC : We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the value or otherwise of cabin shots, but the popularity of what usually is just the backs of a
36 dazbo5 : Everyone likes different things. It would be a boring world if we didn't! The reason for their popularity is as stated above, plus it's of interest t
37 JakTrax : People come to A.net to view the inside of cabins. God knows why but they obviously have their reasons. Unfortunately art lovers go to the Tate Modern
38 vikkyvik : Like I said before, I'm right in the middle on this one (don't care either way)....But I do want to address a few points: That's really not relevant.
39 AlexC : I'm an art lover, and I wouldn't go anywhere near Tate Modern! No, I'm a National Gallery kinda guy![Edited 2011-12-31 01:25:19]
40 Post contains images raedervision : You won't see the detail if you add much airplane. Personaly I'd like to see them both. [
41 AlexC : That was my point, but the powers that be are unconvinced mores the pity!
42 derekf : I don't see why there couldn't be a special category for close-ups of any art-work that adorns an aircraft; nose-art, logos etc. I think it would prov
43 Post contains images Psych : I must admit that I do not have an interest in nose art, but this has been an interesting debate. For me it illustrates a wider debating point regardi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Military Nose Art - Is It Welcome? posted Sun Nov 28 2004 16:46:49 by Ghostbase
Smithsonian - Aircraft: The Jet As Art posted Fri Nov 25 2011 16:34:54 by kanepjk
Just What Is A Nose Shot? posted Wed Oct 20 2010 23:26:40 by dmemory
Art Contest At KISP, The Winners And Whats Next. posted Tue Feb 23 2010 20:22:51 by mirrodie
Art Or Aviation; What Do You Do It For? posted Mon Nov 2 2009 23:49:28 by Pilotalltheway
Concorde Nose(acceptable?) posted Mon Oct 5 2009 19:33:34 by Scx737
Pink Nose Commander posted Fri Feb 13 2009 21:20:12 by Raedervision
Nose Shot Help posted Sat Nov 10 2007 16:32:03 by Dvincent
American Airlines Nose 3 Number/letter Codes posted Tue Sep 11 2007 23:10:29 by Yanqui67
Nose Close Up Question posted Tue Sep 4 2007 22:51:28 by DM