The “f” numbers are the code denoting the lens aperture. An f2.8 lens will basically allow a wider “hole” to gather light than an f3.2 in dim or low light situations. People seem to swear by this much as the vaunted 0-60 times for cars but essentially an f2.8 can usually be considered as the “better” lens. If you have the geld, go for the 28-210, f2.8-8 as this seems to give the better range of settable apertures.

Hi leornato

35% of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

and

This is not even touching such world class leaders as Rolls Royce, . . .

Pretty good list old boy except that those two statements are possibly contradictory. RR are a large and significant component of that 35% for the Dreamliner. Announced just the other day to dancing in the streets here in RR’s home town.

Carry on that man. :rolleyes:

mixtec

You really won’t see such info in books. You can find any amount of tutorial texts that purport to “teach” you how to “see” photo opportunities and framing and composing subjects, but all of them discount the basic fact that it’s a thing you either can do or can’t – it’s called creativity.

Best way is to go to Art College for three years. A cheaper way is to study the images produced by others. Take note of what you find pleasing in their “look”. Things like differences of approach (shooting angles, etc), framing techniques, creative cropping, image subject balance, the “thirds” rule, etc. These, and many more aspects, are what makes a “good” photo. Some people can do it without thinking, others need to work at it. By working at it I mean, take plenty of pictures, analyse them, study them, develope an eye for an image and hone this over a few years.

A tip I’ll give is that in any pic showing a horizontally moving object (train, plane, car or ship) always try to leave more space in front of the object than behind (no centralising for example). In my old Art College days this was called “Leaving space for the subject to move into”. For some reason the brain regards this trick favourably resulting in a “pleasing” composition. Fortunately this can be best accomplished in photography at the processing stage when deciding on a crop area.

Consider Damien’s pix. The impact of those comes from his imaginative cropping of a few selected images out of probably hundreds. The pix we see posted here are those that are pleasing to Damien, luckily his application of creativity in that area is pleasing to most of us as well, bordering on the dramatic at times. And that’s why Damien’s such a fine photog, it’s not just his kit (which helps of course :rolleyes: )

Another tip is not to have the horizon cut the image in half. Again, this makes the picture look awkward somehow when there is equal amounts of sky and ground. This is particularly evident in photos taken on airfields but can usually be sorted at the processing/cropping stage. Try to keep the horizon in the lower third of the image if the shot allows it.

There’s stacks more in this area and I’m sure there will be other replies to your query but don’t forget, you can’t just adopt (or download) someone else’s style, you have to develope your own from asiduous practice and the study of others.

Doubt this helps, but there you go! 😉

Hi leornato

Almost exactly a year since we last exchanged. How have you been? Still vertical? Good.

Pretty much agree with your latest assessment, not fully, but your argument is strong.

You wrote – It was the only manned combat aircraft project to survive the 1957 Duncan Sandys infamous “no more manned combat aircraft” defence white paper.. Except for the Lightning I think. That was too far along to cancel as I recall.

In retrospect I too think that progress would have been misapplied by following the TSR.2 principle. As you say, as a concept it was single tasked and would, debateably, have been outstanding at that task (Tactical Strike Reconnaissance), doubtful if the airframe could have been re-roled even if it had been developed further. And then, as you say, the task it was designed for vanished! Certainly the TSR.2 could never have filled the F-4’s shoes. (But definitely better than the Swift! :rolleyes: )

However, in my previous post I did say . . .pulled the heart out of the UK aerospace industry causing the innovative personnel and teams to disperse world-wide (to the benefit of the Americans). This I know to be true as several “engineers and designers” left the UK for various US aerospace industries, including NASA. Left in dismay or were headhunted? Both probably. I know two of them. One, now retired, gave his engineering and project skills to the Apollo programme. The other, also now retired, has a similar story but with Lockheed ending up at the Skunk Works. Both considered that “innovative design” was a dead end in the UK. Could be they were wrong, but they, and a lot of others, departed taking their skills with them. And that was/is my point.

MAM’s T.11

Couple of pics showing the T.11 at MAM.

Are the Canberras really terminal cases or is there any hope for them?

The Cans, I would say, are not beyond enthusiastic (and dedicated) recovery, after all throw enough money at one of them and you could make it happen. And don’t forget that a couple of good sources of “bits” will be available from next year.

But to someone who can pull a few pieces of twisted aluminium from a lake somewhere and from them re-construct a whole airframe, these cranberries should present little problems. 😉

Great idea. There’s a lot to see at MAM. Any day between 1st and 31st is good for me, so count me in. Be good to put faces to names. Be best on a Sunday though.

. . .and a certain Canberra that has a big following there!

What WH646? That T.17 thingy in the shed? I know it’s an ex-Warbird, but a following? :rolleyes:

😎