Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Great Interest In Contrails On A.net  
User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3008 times:

The interest in contrail photos on A.net is quite high. For those who would like to see a motion picture featuring cinematic award-winning footage of aircraft at contrail height, you should view the mid-1950s movie "Strategic Air Command" starring James Stewart. Though this is a movie about the US Air Force, it is a production without equal that dedicated considerable footage to exquisite contrail photography. When I first viewed this film as a youngster I thought the scenes of the characters personal life were a bit boring. After seeing it once or twice later in life, I believe it is also an accurate portrayal of the pressures and personal costs of life in the military.

TomH

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

Agreed - but I still can't stomache that woman (forgot her name) who plays opposite Jimmy Stewart!

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Yeah same thing happened to me in Top Gun with Kellie McGillis. Why ruin a good movie with stupid love scenes that were pretty boring to boot.



User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

There is always Fast Forward... Big grin

Staffan


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2904 times:

What I don't agree with is that in a contrail photo from the ground using around 800mm you can achieve an interesting effect/composition, a small plane and a large contrail with a clear sky.

But if you have a photo with a small plane (far away) with a beautiful landscape as background, the chances are that you'll get the photo rejected for bad distance.

Contrail photos like the above, once you see one they're all the same, but they're getting added every day. With landscapes it's different, usually the plane is to small, reason for rejection.

I have to respect but I don't understand the criteria.

Luis


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Contrail photos like the above, once you see one they're all the same, but they're getting added every day.

==========
I have to strongly disagree with that statement Luis. Show me air to air fatboy contrail photos any day

 Big grin


User currently offlineBrianhames From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 795 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2890 times:

I just uploaded a couple of contrail shots this morning that were taken from the ground.  Smile

User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

No Joe, I mean the kind of contrails from the ground using around 700-800mm, like Brian have uploaded this morning  Smile

For me they're all the same but of course that's just my personal opinion.

Luis


User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Couldn't agree more re the B-36 scenes in Strategic Air Command. The scene shot from above showing "six turnin', four burnin'" contrails is really amazing. No wonder so many cinematographers consider it some of the best aerial footage ever shot. Hopefully Paramount will release it in widescreen DVD so it can be seen as intended.

Even more amazing is that all of that footage was shot from a B-25 with fuselage cutouts large enough for the huge "VistaVision" cameras.



User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

Why ruin a good movie with stupid love scenes that were pretty boring to boot.


case in point: "Pearl Harbor"

the love crap completely ruined what could have been an awesome movie.


c


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

Luis - I think the answer is in your message ...

if you have a photo with a small plane (far away) with a beautiful landscape as background

that's just it - the landscape predominates. This doesn't mean its a bad picture, just not an A.net picture - the trick is to make everything draw attention to the aircraft rather than using the aircraft as a prop in a landscape. A subtle distinction, and I'm sure we don't always get it right.

Contrail shots, on the other hand, are clearly pictures of aircraft. Yes, there do seem to be a lot lately, however, an awful lot get rejected as well - its not as easy as it looks - regardless of your equipment and abilities, atmospheric conditions need to be very good to get a decent shot of an aircraft at 20K+ feet.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

Colin, thanks for your answer. But in terms of benefits to the database, after all this is a database, a contrail photo adds nothing and it's also a "small plane". Speaking of "art", contrails are all the same (those from the ground with 700-800mm) while "small planes" with interesting landscapes can give multiple compositions.

I agree that a photo with a plane photographed very far away should not be added but following this criteria, also these contrail photos should not be added, they're just a dot in the sky followed by a looooong white cloud with a blue sky as background.

Again I say it's just my opinion, something I've been noticing for a long time.

Luis


User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

I agree with Luis entirely. Show me a contrail shot of a turboprop and I'll say you have something interesting, otherwise its a white line occupying about 3% of the frame and shows us little of value. Show me a jet fighter going in and out of afterburner at contrail height (it makes a very noticeable difference in contrail thickness and visibility) and I'll agree that you have something nice. The only ground-air contrail shot I felt worth looking at was the recent upload of the Concorde-and it would have been more interesting still at Mach 2.2. I expect such a shot might possibly reveal the shock wave, and would likely reveal the development of the contrail at a much greater distance aft of the aircraft. That would be interesting.

Colin, that was Vivian Leigh, I think. She played wifey in several 1950s aviation movies, husky voice and all. Those feeble personal life scenes in great aviation movies drive us all crazy I know, but I'm not sure it would be realistic to leave them out. After all, once on the ground most male homo sapiens stick-actuators are looking for good drink and some good sack time-and I don't mean sleeping. I doubt "political correctness" has changed this scene too much from when I saw it last-hope not anyway.

NonRev-you sure about the B-25 photo plane? Can't remember his name,(Manx?) but there was a famed B-25 photo ship operated out of California for the movie industry for decades. Think I photographed it once or twice, sometime...somewhere. But still, seems an unlikely platform for high altitude flying-and the B-47 shots in that movie-you aren't going to chase that beauty around at FL350 with a B-25, that's fer sure!

Thanks for responding, guys.





User currently offlineSpeedbird244 From Brazil, joined Apr 2000, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Incidentally I saw Woody Allen's "Bananas" recently and it has 3 very good scenes of PAA 707's in action - A rotation scene, a hard landing scene, and an in-flight scene. The movie is silly but has some hilarious scenes ( I recommend it ) but the airplane scenes - though short - were priceless.
Is "Strategic Air Command" the same movie where J. Stewart flies B-47's too?


User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Speedbird....Yes, Stewart played Col Jim Holland (June Allyson was the wife...) He is recalled to the Air Force to fly with SAC and get B-36's going. He then transitions to B-47's where he develops some unknown medical problem that gets him out of the Air Force. Look for Harry Morgan (Col Potter from MASH) as the crusty old sergeant in the B-36.

June Allyson also played the wife in the O'Conell (I know I'm not spelling that right...) Story. He being one of the lead Korean War F-86 aces who sadly got blown up over Edwards AFB testing the Super Sabre.

Bombers B-52 is also one for great footage.


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Jimmy Stewart also flew them in real life.

User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Colin, please take note that 2912n has correctly identified the female actress to whom I was referring. My apologies to Ms. Leigh.

2912n, I think it may have been the early experience with roll coupling in the F-100A that claimed McConnell's life. This led to the extended vertical tail retrofitted to the first F-100As and all later variants. (This is pure recall, the accuracy of which, in my case, has shown to be in question-but I refuse to research casual conversation like this). I think McConnell AFB, KS is named for him. And yes, the B-52 footage is great in Bombers B-52, which (if I'm recalling the correct movie) shows really great shots where the lead characters are standing by the runway during a MITO and their uniforms are actually blowing in the wind cause by the B-52s roaring by precariously close.

I think Jimmy Stewart flew bombers in the latter part of WWII, and retired as a reserve General in the 1960s. I don't know exactly how he managed to fly
B-36s after he became a well-known actor, but he did indeed. Perhaps the public relations value was recognized by USAF.

So this is where a little contrail talk can get us. Just think what we can do with the delta wing!


User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2742 times:

Tom-

I think you are right about the roll....Out of my expertise (like I have any....). I don't know why I said "O'Connell" Duh. Joe McConnell. The missing man formation at the end of that film always gets me.

I remember watching a biography of Jimmy Stewart where they talked about his son being in Vietnam. Stewart and his wife were doing a USO type tour there and he managed to visit with his son. A week later the kid was killed in action. The man gave a hell of alot to his country. (is this all going to get moved to Military??)  Smile


User currently offlineAPP From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Veering slightly off topic, I seem to remember in the movie, that during a briefing, the map on the wall clearly showed a body of water between England and Scotland, and it was a little too large for the Caledonian canal!!
Considering the weapons these boys could carry you'd have thought they'd be a little better clued up geographically.  Wink/being sarcastic
Has anyone got this on video? could you check it just in case I dreamt it.  Nuts
APP.


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...
Anyone In Toulouse On Wednesday? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 16:50:53 by Dufo
Anybody In Milan On Thursday? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 16:29:59 by Raptors
Emirates A380 In MUC On Friday? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 16:34:43 by Beechcraft
New Photographer On A.net: Tim Lucas posted Thu May 11 2006 04:04:56 by DLX737200
Photos On A.net, Taken Through Window. posted Thu Feb 23 2006 19:45:29 by Thom@s
My First Accepted Photo On A.net! posted Fri Feb 17 2006 01:17:31 by TUNisia
Anybody In SXM On Thursday (Feb 16th) posted Wed Feb 15 2006 03:24:58 by Madjones
Best Photo You Have On A.net posted Wed Feb 15 2006 00:23:44 by Garri767
My 100th Picture On A.net Database! posted Tue Feb 14 2006 18:28:20 by Parsival
New Registrations On A.net posted Sat Jan 14 2006 13:58:08 by DC10Tim