At long last I’ve managed to sort through some of the photos I took at MAKS 2005, and put together a highlights page.
I’m not normally a fan of airliners, but I’ll make an exception when they put on a display like this Tupolev 334:
Now me, I love prop driven fighters. I will watch Historic Jets with interest. Watch Modern jets if persuaded. As for airliners??? I normally use them for holidays…
But this shot is one of the best I have seen for a while… Amazing… love it.
Thanks for posting it…..
I’ll second the 400 5.6L. Have been using one from new for 8/9 years and it works fine. Internal focussing. Its been dropped & repaired & still works fine. Also have 1st Gen 70-200 F2.8L which is very good too. How did yours let you down?
Mine is one of the early black lenses, the one you can’t use a converter on.
It just stopped autofocusing.. I went to use it for a job for the paper I work for and…. nothing.
I have had it repaired, a connection problem, but I don’t trust it now. I will keep it as a spare.
I was just wondering of there was a better alternative to a 70-200?
I need something between 24-105 L USM IS (on order) and my 300 F2.8 USM, preferably a zoom lens.
Looks like it might have to be the 70-200 F2.8..
The 100-400 is a god among lenses, perfect in every way.
It is entirely coincidental that I am flogging one… 😉
Damien,
Can I ask why you are selling your 100-400 and if you are not replacing it, what do you use???
Why not just get a straight replacement?
That is the other option. I thought now I have the opportunity and the money, perhaps I could get a longer lens in my collection. Mind you I am always suspisious of lenses that cover a large range ie, 28-300 or the older 35-350.
Someone told me that the 70-200 F4 L USM IS, optically, is better than the F2.8 version even when you use a 1.4 converter?
I am just looking for something that will fit into my range of lenses that I can use on Aviation and Motorsport plus my press work..
My only worry is that it will turn out like the AAM. It’s dark, the aircraft are dusty and they are all crammed in. If you want hands on then your okay, ideal for model makers, but for taking photographs, it’s a non-event.
Infact I dislike it so much, since it was built in 1997, I have only visited it twice. And I go to Duxford every year.
My last visit was earlier this year. I went hoping that I would enjoy it this time around, but, no.
Anyone know of future plans for the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry Aviation Hall?
Roger Smith.
Why do you ask?
Found this..
Coming soon on DVD 5th Sept… Region 2.
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=478991&p=57&g=72&pa=sr
As for your original question. No I have not seen it, but I am tempted to have a look..
Or like this..
It just depends on the end result you want..
Runway used top be over 2000m, its now just over 1500m
so around 1500ft.
Don’t Why they never put a bit extra over the other end to compensate a little, so any overruns would not get too near the M11
It always amazed me when they built the M11.
They have to dig a cutting into the ground to lay the motorway. Why did they not dig it that little bit deeper so that the runway could be connected up again, either by the means of a tunnel or a bridge?
I mean the motorway through the tunnel not the runway through the tunnel.. you now what I mean…
Darren
Can I just say that I use a Canon i9950 A3 printer. I use Canon Photo Pro Paper up to A3+.
But most of the ink I use comes from Cartridge World.
Cartridge World uses ‘Original Ink’.. Did you know that Epson use 7 different blacks inks in their cartridges?!
I have not yet come across a refilled cartridge that does not match an original.
I will occassionally use Canon cartridges just to check, but cannot tell the difference.
This is my experience. Some people may have had negative experience.
But when I am saving almost 70% off the price of a Canon cartridge, I would recomend you try them…
Darren, I would be interested in your results from this company?
According to the cutting, ‘until January 2007’ it seems it will be around for a long time yet…
Well worth the trip I think.
Not at all… But this is a tutorial forum where it is reasonable to assume that some people will not be as overly knowledgable as you may be. To make sweeping generalisations more aligned with film photography than digital, as you did, does not help those who are wrestling with bringing digital imaging into their hobby (or career).
Andy
So telling everyone that you have to do 101 things to EVERY PICTURE you take to make them exceptable is ‘helping those who are wrestling with bringing digital imaging into their hobby (or career)?’
Surley you should be telling them that ‘any of these, or a combination of these can help you improve you digital image’..
If you read what SPT writes he uses phrases like ‘If required’ and ‘If nesassary’. Thats what you/we should be telling people….
If you read my threads I picked up on someone who said they did them to all his images regardless…..
I obviously hit a few nerves out there.
If you read my reply I did say ‘If you have to do all this to every photo’
Yes there are instances when it is nesassary to carry out some of these. At no time did I say that I have not used any of the procedures listed on this post. In fact I admit I have at sometime needed to do so to secure the shot desired.
But, do you crop every picture? (yes, I have hear off and used selective enlargement) Do you have to level the horizon every time? Do you have to remove dust spots every time?
Payload obviously miss-read my comment on sharpness. No I did not say I can assess or improve the sharpness by eye! With todays autofocus lenses you cannot get any sharper using the camera. Some professionals still pre-focus using there eyesight..
And Skymoster Thanks for the advice, But I make my living taking photographs and as yet none of my clients have complained…
This is what I do:
1) level the horizon
2) crop the photo
3) resize the photo to 1035×780. When sharpening a photo you get a white line around the photo. This can be cut out later by leaving some margin at this early stage.
4) change colours/saturation. Just a very little bit to make the colours more lively.
5) change brightness and contrast to make the bits in the shadow more visible, and to make the overexposed bits somewhat darker (overexposed bits can never be saved completely though)
6) remove dust spots
7) unsharp-mark
8) selective sharpening if required
9) resize it down to 1024×768 (standard monitor size) or 1024×683 (standard print size). Both these sizes are regularly accepted at JP.net and airliners.net so cutting the heigth down makes no difference. Often it helps the image by removing background. Also, my camera shoots at 1024×683 size so using that size is just more convenient.
10) save the file using a compression of no less than 10 on a 1-12 scale (12 highest)
SORRY GUYS…
Please don’t take offence.. But
If you have to do all this to every photo you take.. Then, You either need to change your camera, or learn how to take photographs properly….
How did you manage before Digital???
Apart from re-sizing, the only thing I check is the levels, if you use the right settings, you will not have to adjust them.
Cropping should be down to Composure..
Brightness should controlled by your TTL or light meter…
And Sharpness is done by either your eyesight or through your Lens…
And as far as removing objects.. I think we have had this discussion before…
But now we are talking about a different subject to what was originally posted here.
I have been interested in the way some of you re-size your images… Thanks for that.
Now we have that cleared up.
Can you enlighten us about the image you posted.. I for one am interested..