By: mike currill - 2nd April 2011 at 19:37
Lovely shots and from a place you certainly don’t see much of. The poor old Dove looks forlorn.
Exactly my first thought the second was what a waste.
By: coldwater - 2nd April 2011 at 07:33
Nice and unusual pictures, are the Gazelles ex British Army?
Ex United Arab Emirates Air Force
By: pagen01 - 1st April 2011 at 17:39
Nice and unusual pictures, are the Gazelles ex British Army?
By: coldwater - 1st April 2011 at 17:12
:)Many thanks Scotavia for your words. You know the problem!!! I have see many many my photos pubblied with anothar name for example the photos take in Albania.They can see in the Key Publishing 3D about this Air Force with the undefined” Medialb” logo on MY photos!!!!!!
The watermark is not nice in the photos but can save the author from the images thiefs!!!!!!!!!
By: wiseman - 10th February 2011 at 19:21
I just do not understand the problem with a big watermark, you still get to see the photo but it makes the chance of it being copied and sold or copied then released into the internet with no origin far less likely.
Maybe you do not realise that many do copy pics and then pass them off as their own, on a shipping forum which I contribute to the person doing this went as far as using the pics in a book with their own name on them.A lot of time , money and effort goes into getting the more unusual subjects and I can tell you that it is very annoying when the images are misused.And before you ask, I am a full time photographer who does place a value on his work .
I absolutely get your point and I’m sorry you had a bad experience due to the illegal use of your photos by a dishonest cheat.
But at 300 dpi in print, these 2.7″ x 1.7″ pix have very little or no chance of getting stolen. A more subtle watermark would be enough in my opinion. But again, I understand that the author feels more comfortable making sure it’s obvious.
By: scotavia - 10th February 2011 at 16:36
I just do not understand the problem with a big watermark, you still get to see the photo but it makes the chance of it being copied and sold or copied then released into the internet with no origin far less likely.
Maybe you do not realise that many do copy pics and then pass them off as their own, on a shipping forum which I contribute to the person doing this went as far as using the pics in a book with their own name on them.
A lot of time , money and effort goes into getting the more unusual subjects and I can tell you that it is very annoying when the images are misused.And before you ask, I am a full time photographer who does place a value on his work .
By: wiseman - 10th February 2011 at 06:18
Very nice indeed but I have to agree with the watermark comments.
It’s amazing to see the Hunters still flying. They have seen some heavy action in the 80’s and 90’s. I’m also very surprised to see the Vampire in flying condition.
Great series. Thanks.
By: scotavia - 9th February 2011 at 17:19
Fine coverage of a rare air arm, I actually like the watermark, shows you care about your images being respected.
By: Flygirl - 8th February 2011 at 18:48
Shame it could not be more subtle .
By: coldwater - 8th February 2011 at 16:25
tnks to all. Sorry for the watermark but is for copyright reason and to stop any infringiment:diablo:
By: roberto_yeager - 8th February 2011 at 09:50
Very interesting!!!
There are some superb photos!!
1Saludo
By: Flygirl - 8th February 2011 at 07:24
Lovely shots, but I have to agree with Kodak.:)
By: kodak - 7th February 2011 at 22:14
Wow! Fabulous stuff, Hunters are truly gorgous. Hating the OTT watermark though…
By: Old Git - 7th February 2011 at 19:56
Lovely shots and from a place you certainly don’t see much of. The poor old Dove looks forlorn.
By: GliderSpit - 7th February 2011 at 18:23
Nice pictures. They seem to have a weak spot for lovely historic aircraft there!